User talk:Flyer22 Frozen/Archive 3

Edit Summaries

Thanks for assuming that I wasn't going to make a comment about your edit summaries (or lack thereof). I didn't have time to respond your comment until now. And, no I'm not wrong, but you aren't necessarily either. Are you required to provide an edit summary? No, I don't believe you are. It's just a good practice. Are edit summaries required for minor edits? Obviously, if they aren't required at all, then they aren't for these either. However, once again, it would be nicer for other editors, if you did.

As recommended by Wikipedia, "Always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit." You can do this by setting your preferences (under Editing) to "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". This way you won't have as many red marks when you don't provide an edit summary.

I think it's great that you are familiar with Wikipedia and it's policies, but reminders never hurt anyone. Jauerback (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Flyer, weren't we told on minor edits not to put anything? Didn't you get talked to about your "tiny edits" edit summary being told that it was unnecessary for minor edits that were indeed minor edits. I remember reading that because I learned from you that it is unnecessary to put edit summaries for minor edits like apostrophes and dashes and spacing. That's what the minor edit box is for. While your original comments, Jauerback, may have been in good faith, this is nothing but a defensive and antagonistic comment because there was no need for it. Comments about needing to place an edit summary are for newbies that don't understand, not people who have been around that are working their butts off to clean up messy articles. I'm sorry, Flyer, but this type of antagonistic behaviour just irks me. When people remove things from their talk page, it should be over and done with. By removing it you acknowledge you've seen it. A second post on the subject only serves negative purposes, IMO. Have a good holiday!! KellyAna (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I've irked you. I wasn't planning on leaving a comment at all until I got home and saw the comments he left on my page. I then saw his edit summary of what he felt about me on his talk page, so I thought I should respond. As I've already stated above edit summaries aren't necessary, but they are generally good practice. If you read what Wikipedia says about edit summaries and still disagree with me, then that's fine. Do as you will. It's not a policy, just a recommendation -- nothing worth getting into a tif about. Merry Christmas and happy editing. Jauerback (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And I told you that I always provide edit summaries, except for when they are not necessary. I practice "good practice" on Wikipedia. I still don't know what you mean about my not leaving an edit summary on the Babe Carey article...considering that I did, more than once. The points at which I didn't, it was because they were not needed. I should not even put an edit summary when taking a word from can't to cannot. That's what the minor box is for. However, I still gave an edit summary for some of those edits. Yes, I'm irked. But thank you for explaining your side. Flyer22 (talk) 05:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And as I stated on your talk page, I apologize for having come off as rude, if I did. I know that you were trying to be helpful. Flyer22 (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Physical attractiveness

Hi, if you would care to offer on opinion on a talk page issue concerning Physical attractiveness, it would be helpful.--Loodog (talk) 04:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Loodog, I saw the new issue going on there from my watchlist, although I didn't drop by to read that matter on the talk page...yet. I'll weigh in about it soon. Flyer22 (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if you can drop back in, it would be appreciated. I've gotten the impression this user is only continuing to reply to attempt to annoy me.--Loodog (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Will do. I planned to earlier, but had a few other things to take care of. Flyer22 (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks, and it's okay, things turned out alright. :) I'm taking things slowly right now (especially because of all the off-wiki distractions during the holiday season), but I'm looking forward to trying out the new tools! Have a good holiday season, --Elonka 11:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy holidays

 Paul  730 is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!

Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaminglawyer/MerryChristmas!}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Ah, thanks, Paul. Happy holidays to you as well. Flyer22 (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Devil May Cry

You're a bit touchy about having your work edited, I think, if the removal of a comma prompts you to defend yourself against an imagined charge of vandalism. Yes, I am protective of FA pages within the scope of the DMC Task Force since we want to keep them at featured status. The period is fine though, and thank you for adding it there. Happy holidays! --Boradis (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Touchy? Well, it may be the stress I'm under outside of Wikipedia. However, I didn't really feel you were calling me a vandal. I understand your being protective of Featured Articles. Who wouldn't be? I understand being protective of an article that isn't a Featured Article. Anyway, Happy Holidays to you as well. Flyer22 (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It's no problem really. After all, my initial edit summary was a bit abrupt too, and for that I apologize. It sounds like we both know how this Internet thing goes, and I'm glad we've taken the civil route. I truly hope you continue to contribute to the DMC pages. They'll get flooded with contributions as we get closer to the release of the next game in February, and I for one am determined to help the DMC4 page reach Featured status as well. So the more editors with talent and experience that we can get into the mix the better. If you're interested, please check out the DMC Task Force and consider signing up. Happy holidays again, and thanks! -- Boradis (talk) 09:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, Boradis. I'll definitely consider it. I'll be even busier with work outside of Wikipedia soon, but I may still sign up as part of the DMC Task Force. Thanks again. Flyer22 (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

in re: Bisexual erasure

While assuming nothing but good faith on the part of the editor who merged the articles, due to the history of as well as lively and vigorous discussion about this article, I have restored the article and substituted instead two merger discussion boxes, one on Bisexual erasure and one on Biphobia.

I look forward to discussing and working on this and other subjects with you in the future. Respectfully CyntWorkStuff (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wise to have restored this article. I will drop in and give further thoughts about this topic soon. Flyer22 (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Titanic

Hello, Flyer. Well, the expression "was converted" I wrote in the IP's talk page was actually a link to the diff that shows who did the move: User:Secret, who stated in the edit summary: "acually, redirect, the whole article fails multiple guidelines, 99% of the article is WP:OR, and the very obvious type, already a quick mention on the movie article". You could access this information through the history tab on the redirect's page. Good luck on restoring the information. And if you succeed, please tell me so I can restore the links I removed. Cheers, Waldir ^talk 01:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Flyer22 (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my edit couldn't be undone for technical reasons. Someone probably edited some of the text in the character's names after I removed the links. I don't have time to restore the links now, I'll try do that later. In case you want to do it yourself, here's the diff showing exactly what I removed. Best regards, Waldir ^talk 02:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I may restore them myself. I'm kind of lazy right now, though. Flyer22 (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Blind revert

After checking your links, I see that you're right about the tense. However, you shouldn't have just reverted. Read over my changes. It's not just tense, I'd argue that there are a lot of improvements. I removed ellipses, sentence fragments, over used parenthesis, and, to be honest, some terrible writing for an encyclopedia article. If I may quote:

Kendall is currently in love with the three men in her life, her husband Zachary "Zach" Slater and her two sons, Spike Lavery and Ian Slater.

Give me a break. That's great for a fan page, but not an encyclopedia. I'm going to revert to my version, and then go through and change the tense back to present. AniMate 09:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No probelm. I stated that if there were any improvements that you made to that article instead of what you just did to its tense, then that it would be good to add those improvements back.

I don't appreciate you calling it a "Blind revert"...because, yes, I noticed your other edits there, but there was no way that I was going to keep your version and then correct the tense myself, as that would take annoying time to do. It's no fun to correct the tense of an entire plot, as I have done to plenty of articles now. Anyway, I appreciate what you fixed up in the Kendall Hart Slater article. See you around. Flyer22 (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Vanity project

According to this [1] some believe the Soap project is nothing more than a vanity project and shouldn't exist. Is it just me or is that rude? IrishLass (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Rude? It's absurd. I see he cleared that discussion from his talk page...or else I would have stated something. I knew about the Ethan and Theresa article being up for deletion, however. I really don't feel that there was anything we could have done to make that article fit to be on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that we could have done anything either, but I would have liked to try. There have been enough articles on them. Right now the Sheridan and Luis is up for "merge" but I don't really care enough to fight for that one. I agree that it is absurd to call the soaps project a vanity project. We work just as hard and our shows last substantially longer and have more characters. It came off really rude the way he said it too. Oh well, life goes on. Just another day at Wikipedia. IrishLass (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Heterosexuality

Flyer22 - I've asked you some questions at Talk:Heterosexuality regarding your last edit there. Thanks. --G2bambino (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Flyer22 (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I would like to say thank you on your yes vote on the picture Human.jpg on the discussion page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy I was and am very grateful Patrice58 (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. A good picture is a good picture. Flyer22 (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreements and Civility

Flyer, I just wanted to tell you that though we don't see entirely eye-to-eye, I am largely appreciative and thankful for the many areas where we have been able to agree (and at least seek to understand each others' views) and the extremely good civility you've shown in the otherwise heated discussions. That sort of coolness helps others like me who can get a little... uppity... sometimes. Thank you.

I would like to invite your comments AND EDITING to this page. Enlarging and Referencing. Making it better, thorough, nd excrucioatingly NPOV (either way... "Just the facts, ma'am.").

Any assistance is appreciated. VigilancePrime VigilancePrime (talk) 07:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the compliments, VigilancePrime. And thanks for the invitation as well. I might drop by there. Flyer22 (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Friendly Notice

Hello, I would appreciate comment from you and from others on this topic Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks#Nutshell is Nuts! if you would please take a look, I would much appreciate it.

Thanks for reading this message.

--Kiyarrllston 03:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

90210 DVD Releases

Could you fix the table for B.H. 90210 DVD releases? Someone added an extra column on the right and I can't get rid of it. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinepowell (talk • contribs) 06:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be fixed now, since I reverted to your version before it was recently changed. Flyer22 (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I tried to do it myself but it wouldn't work. I've also re-added the last reference I added before you reverted back to my last contribution a week ago.

I don't what this other user was trying to do but they added an extra column and move the reference to the release date I added for Season 4 from Region 1 to Region 4. Weird. Robinepowell (talk) 08:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Greenlee

I fail to see how that reference well documents Greenlee as a villianess. It looks like an ad for pay for play book. I don't find sources that have to be paid for in the spirit of Wikipedia. Besides, documenting how Greenlee is a villainess is like documenting how Gilligan is a klutz. You may as well reference everything the writers have ever made them do to illustrate your point.

Sincerely,

        KIRA

Wlmg (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That reference details one of her villainess moments. Some editors here at Wikipedia I am certain would ask for a reference proving that Greenlee is a top television villainess... Well, that's why that reference was added. It details one of her big villainous moments. Some editors here do act as though everything needs to be referenced. I could always trade that reference out for the one that is about the same thing in the Leo du Pres and Greenlee Smythe article, but shows more, if you're worried about people paying to read more of Greenlee's actions in Bianca Montgomery "coming out" as gay. But I must point out that plenty of references in articles are to books that a person would have to pay to read. But anyway, I'll see you around. Sincerely,

Flyer22 (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Greenlee isn't really a villainess. She's what used to be what was once comfortably referred to as a b*tch. There are pure evil soap opera villainesses such as Helena Cassidine who engage in murder and brainwashing, and have no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Greenlee is a character with mixed traits. The fact that she outted Bianca for being gay makes her a mean bully, at least at that moment. I would say she is not a villain at all, but rather a femme fatale.

Wlmg (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There are several types of villains and villainesses. You don't have to be pure evil to be one. Adam Chandler and David Hayward are good examples. The soap opera press and that book, for one, cite Greenlee as a villainess. A lot of people would even say that most femme fatales are villainesses. Greenlee has done more than out Bianca, of course. The way she outed and treated Bianca for being gay is just one of her awful actions of the past. But, really, it was Donald Steele that outed Bianca (well, to the public anyway). It's great talking with you about what makes a villain or a villainess. Today is kind of boring. And this conversation is at least interesting. Flyer22 (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok this is the definition from dictionary.com of a villain for the dramatic context: "Meaning "character in a novel, play, etc. whose evil motives or actions help drive the plot". I would have to say that Greenlee is a villainess. Most femme fatales and minxes are probably villainesses too, and if they're not then they're probably not that interesting or doing a good enough job. It might be a good idea for an article on soap opera villainesses, making note of the different types, and sub-types. Imho in general there are two main types: the psychos and sociopaths in one camp, and the vamps, brats, and femme fatales in the other. There is some crossover no doubt, i.e, Janet Green, but she needed radical plastic surgery to become a babe and in her mind's eye she was still an ugmo; that only exacerbated her psychoness. Wlmg (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

All good points, Wlmg. I'm not sure I have the time to create an article on soap opera villainesses. If you were to, however, I'd surely assist you in editing it. It definitely might serve to be a good article. If anything, it would be an interesting article. Flyer22 (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There's already a villains/villainesses in List of soap opera villains, but a quick peak shows it to be less than exhaustive. Fyi Greenlee is not on that list, not yet at least. Wlmg (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoa. That list needs some work. And I thought that the List of supercouples article was bad before I got to it, expanded and sourced it. But this List of soap opera villains is really bad (at the moment anyway). I'm surprised that it hasn't been deleted already. One of us, or somebody, needs to fix it up...before it does get deleted. And maybe it should be turned into more of an article instead of a list. Or both can exist, with the creation of an article on soap opera villains, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I added about a dozen villains off the top my head, including Greenlee. However, I only know about ABC soaps, and Passions so all my additions are there. It's a start. Wlmg (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Your copyedit request

On 19 August 2007, you made a request to the League of Copyeditors for a copyedit on Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone. Because of a heavy backlog and a shortage of copyeditors, we have been unable to act on your request in a timely manner, for which we aplogize. Since your request, this article has been subject to significant editing and may no longer be a good candidate for copyediting by the League. If you still wish the League to copyedit this article, please review this article against our new criteria and follow the instructions on the Requests page. This will include your request in our new system, where it should receive more prompt attention. Finetooth (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

My Edit

I've been away for a long time, hence my current late reply.

Now, this is way overboard and not to mention rude to the extreme! What buisness is it of the other editor or any editor for that matter in regards to what I wish to speak to you on your talk page? Is he/she your keeper or something? Why did you allow his/her edits through and negated mine? Are you telling I do not even have the right to revert MY OWN edits that I made?! In case you failed to notice, I did not touch your reply or anything else anyone had written. The only edits I made were to things I solely written. I believe I also stated that it is a consious and personal desicion that I've made after delibration on my part and that it isn't SPAM, VANDALISM, or FUN!!

I'd really apreciate it if you reinstate my edits, my full reasons and tell him/her not to EVER TOUCH MY EDITS AGAIN!!! Sakura rin24 (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sakura rin24, that editor is not my keeper. No one is. But she is a good friend I've made on Wikipedia and naturally found your removing that comment odd, as did I. The conversation had long been over, and suddenly you removed a comment that you made that was only thanking me for explaining and being polite to you. I visited your talk page about it to get an answer about why you removed it. It seemed that the reason you removed it is that you no longer felt that way anymore. Maybe you never really had. But, honestly, I'm perplexed about that. I only relayed to you the truth. So, yes, it is perplexing that you would remove a comment where you're thanking me for that. It came off as rude, as though you don't believe I was being helpful...or you that didn't/don't believe that I was doing such with the best of intentions.

If you're not going to tell me why you removed that edit, that's fine, as I stated on your talk page. But, no, I will not reprimand my friend for looking out for me or making an edit that she acted in good faith on...or revert that edit she made to your comment (the reinstating of it). Flyer22 (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

TomKat

Wonderful expansion. Keep up the great work! нмŵוτнτ 17:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. And I will. Flyer22 (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Race Vandel

Thank you for the heads up. Yeah I recognize that user name. I don't know what the user's problem is. I saw he consistently messes with another article as well.Mcelite (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)mcelite

More Jesse and Angie

I added information about Angie's time on Loving and The City back into the main storyline synopsis. It's a little duplicative of the portion that you moved to the top of the page. That section should probably be pared down, but I'll leave that to you. ABCxyz (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Flyer22 (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Still thinking about the info boxes. ABCxyz (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Krystal

I added her name in there because all the other names represent current marries, and I felt like it was inconsistent. Also, Abc's website lists her as just Krystal Martin, so I thought putting Carey Martin was a good compromise. If you think about it, what does J.R. stand for? It should be JR, but I let that go.

As I pointed out on your talk page, Wikipedia goes by common names. It doesn't matter that Krystal Carey is listed as Krystal Martin on the ABC website. That's not her common name. Also, other marries such as Kendall Hart Slater and Annie Lavery are listed as such because those are their common names. I pointed out the Kendall part to you on your talk page. The J.R. thing has been brought up before by an editor. But the matter of the fact is...it's spelled J.R. or JR in various places, and the caption on television screens spells it as J.R. There are plenty of people who go by initials that don't stand for anything. J.R. is one of those people (well, characters anyway). You can spell it either way. But since his article here on Wikipedia goes by J.R. Chandler and most instances on Wikipedia spell it as J.R. Chandler, he should be listed as J.R. Chandler in the Current cast members section of the All My Children article. Flyer22 (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Bree Hodge

Please go see my response on the Talk:Bree Van de Kamp page. Thank you in advance. Canjth (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was already going to. I saw it pop up on my watchlist, but I had/have other matters to take care of first. I'll be there soon. Flyer22 (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

TomKat & supercouples

Please see (and respond) to User talk:KellyAna#TomKat either here or on my talk page. Thanks! нмŵוτнτ 23:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Flyer - can you keep this here rather than on my page. All I did was revert an edit based on the guidelines you set up, I really prefer not to be involved with any form of dispute at this point. Thanks for understanding. KellyAna (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm asking about, because I know one editor can't create a WP:GUIDELINE on his or her own, and I don't see any discussion regarding this whatsoever. нмŵוτнτ 00:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've archived the conversation as I just won't be a part of it after certain comments were made. hmwith will have to retype his issue with the removal of "TomKat's" portmanteau from the article. KellyAna (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, guys. I feel that the TomKat article doesn't need to be linked in the List of supercouples article. TomKat is already mentioned in this couple's individual articles and thus people will find the TomKat article by clicking on one of their names or by clicking on the Supercouple article. Talk with you both later. Flyer22 (talk) 04:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha, yeah, it's cool. Well, I think it couple only help the supercouple article, but I take your word for it if you think linking to the couple would negatively affect it, since I've worked with you on similar articles. Cheers! нмŵוτнτ 06:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the TomKat article is already linked in the Supercouple article when addressing Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. And, no, I don't think that linking the TomKat article in the List of supercouples article would negatively affect it. It's just that I don't feel that it's needed in that article. Anyway, I'll see you on the editing side. Flyer22 (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I never checked the supercouple article. Good point. It may not add enough that it's worth adding to that article if it's in the main supercouple one. Thanks for your discussion, нмŵוτнτ 07:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

New list/link for you

Entertainment Weekly put this one out [2]. It's actually very comprehensive and uses the word "Supercouple." IrishLass (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for the link. I'm definitely soon to use it, most likely for all of the couples mentioned in that link. Flyer22 (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help. I found it refreshing because it broached the older couples not just the new and "hot" couples. The balance was better than I've seen in a long time. BTW, you need to visit the talk page of the Supercouples article. IrishLass (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we could use your opinion. I was thinking maybe a split would be in order. Let me know what you think on the talk page. нмŵוτнτ 19:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Article that needs sources badly

Since you're the queen of BLP sourcing, I direct you to an article that needs sourcing HORRIBLY. I'd imagine it'd be easy to find since she's been public a lot this past year. I bring you...Jaslene. Mike H. Fierce! 23:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL, Mike. Will do. Flyer22 (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Elisabeth Hasselbeck

U need to let other contribute Flyer. 70.108.122.10 (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh...I don't keep anyone from contributing to an article...unless we're talking vandals and disruptive editors. All I do to that article is keep it cleaned up and revert vandalism. If you aren't a vandal or a disruptive editor, then go ahead and contribute. Just make sure you cite your sources (valid sources) ...or it (any addition you add) will be reverted or removed. Flyer22 (talk) 03:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

O ok. :) 70.108.122.10 (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I caught 70.108.92.126 vandalizing Elisabeth Hasselbeck again. He/she reverted the article back some 14 edits, including at least one of yours. You might wish to reapply your edits. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Re: "My mother still wishes that I would use my mind for a different career path, something other than Hollywood, but that is where my heart (career-wise, of course) is."

Go, for it. I wish you the best. I always wanted to be a writer. But, seeking financial stability, I am in law school. I still want to pursue my dream and hope I one day might. At 24, I also feel life is passing by. Nike had it right, "just do it". --Charleenmerced ^Talk 21:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The writers strike is putting a dent in my wanting to leave. But I still do and will. Thanks again for the support. I wish you all the best as well. Flyer22 (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The writer's strike is putting a dent of my TV life. I already gave up on two shows. Bionic Woman and Back to you. --Charleenmerced ^Talk 22:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Laughing out loud. Flyer22 (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Interview with CariDee

I interviewed CariDee this week and I wanted to let you know about it. You can read the interview here. Mike H. Fierce! 07:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You didn't respond about my interview! :< Mike H. Fierce! 09:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL! I could say the same thing about when I asked you a question regarding Jesse and Angie.

Anyway, I hadn't gotten around to reading this interview at first, but felt that once I did, you would know (without me telling you, that is) that I enjoyed this interview. It was great and I like when you drop treats like this by my talk page.

I'm glad she said this: "I think the only negative thing about it is that fans seem to think that if you're not on the cover of all these magazines, that you're not getting work. Not everything is covered equally. It's a different age now that a lot of celebrities are on the covers of magazines, and people go 'Oh, well, this show hasn't produced a Top Model!' We've been doing a lot of work in a lot of different things and I think people forget that."

Preach it, girl. Flyer22 (talk) 11:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't even remember reading a question about them. Let me go back to my page. Mike H. Fierce! 11:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, honey, Jesse died when I was like...3. And I was raised on NBC shows. If it wasn't Days or AW I don't know anything about its history back then, although I did try to rewrite some stuff from other sources for their article. Mike H. Fierce! 11:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as you know, I was too young as well to know the true history of Jesse and Angie. I had to do research to upgrade their article. But I was still off-put by these writers just bringing Jesse "back from the dead" like that. I mean, the audience saw the guy clearly die and later in ghost form. I suppose they want us to believe someone was dreaming all of those ghostly visits of his, but even that does not make sense...for various reasons. I hate how they pratically "undid" a memorable, gut-wrenching scene in television history -- Jesse's death. It's part of what made them so iconic. But oh well. Flyer22 (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sam McCall

The picture for Sam McCall was deleted. --Charleenmerced ^Talk 19:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day!

User:Wilhelmina Will has wished you a happy Valentine's day, and good luck in love and friendship!

A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. It has made my day better. Happy Valentine's Day to you, too. I really wasn't expecting anyone, on the net or in my life off of the net, to say that... So thank you again. Flyer22 (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad I could cheer you up! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

well done F22

On 14 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Victuallers (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Blend

Well, I always thought it was portmanteau, as well. Then, the articles were fixed, and... ahh! We're all wrong! I'm not sure if we should say what people consider it or what it technically is. It's a touch debate. I can't decide which I think should be used. нмŵוτнτ 20:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, we're not actually wrong, considering that it's just in linguistics that it's called blends. But oh well. As I stated in my edit summary to you, I'm more for calling it portmanteau. Good points for calling it that were brought up by an editor on that talk page. There's portmanteau and then there's portmanteau (linguistics). Flyer22 (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Good points. I'll change it back to portmanteau. нмŵוτнτ 22:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ashley Davies

Hi there! Sorry about messing up your edits, I thought (assumed *facepalm*) someone had just looked up Ashley Davies somewhere and put down her orientation without knowing anything about it. I checked the edit history but there wasn't anything on her recently (that I could see--knowing me I probably missed it) When I labeled her as a bisexual, I was thinking of her pre-Spencer and rebound relationships with Aidan. But you're totally right, "Lesbian-identified, possible bisexual" makes the most sense. Again, really sorry about messing with your edits! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TigressofIndia (talk • contribs) 01:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's fine. No need to apologize. You were just trying to improve what you felt was off, and I really appreciate that. I mean, I at first listed her as lesbian-identified on that list due to the fact that she often identifies as a lesbian, but is also thought of as a bisexual by some viewers...and she rejects sexual identity labels at the same time. Anyway, her article and what I stated on her talk page explains it all, as I mentioned to you before. I'll see you around. Flyer22 (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

You have been granted with rollback, for more information, please refer to this page. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 12:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely an awesome tool. Whoever granted me this, thanks a lot. Flyer22 (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Something to use it on; Godcthulha (talk · contribs) it seems that Creepy Crawler is back with another sock. Since it's all about Category:Soap opera actors, I'm lobbing this one your way. Pairadox (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure I ever heard of that user before now. He sure picked the perfect former name (Creepy Crawler), now didn't he?. I just researched his history. Right now, as you touched on, he's adding actors from soap operas to Category:Soap opera actors. That doesn't seem too bad, at least not that action of his. Flyer22 (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Except that most of them are already in the subcats American soap opera actors or English soap opera actors. I'm just surprised they didn't create the cat Soap Opera Actors (maybe they've finally gotten over their love for capital letters) and populate it. Pairadox (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL. And, yes, I noticed the redundancy, since these actors are already in either the American soap opera actors or English soap opera actors category. Flyer22 (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Luke and Noah

I think this article could be relevant to Luke and Noah's Wikipedia article. --Silvestris (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure could be, Silvetris. Rather...will be. Thanks for the link. Flyer22 (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Supercouple list

Wish you had told me earlier it was up for AfD. I added a "strong keep" but it's not looking good at this point. That editor that had fits about the main article and soap character's not being "supercouples" added a strong delete. KellyAna (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, KellyAna, that editor didn't say that soap opera couples are not supercouples. It's just that that editor was unfamiliar with soap opera supercouples.

As for this list, I thought you had known that it was up for deletion, since it's on your watchlist. I mean, isn't it on your watchlist? Anyway, I did put it in the Articles nominated for deletion section at the soap opera project. Flyer22 (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It is but we were in Daytona for the Friday and Saturday stuff and I've been sick on top of it. I just didn't notice the nomination. Sad, I know. I can pick out the vandalism from a distance but missed the AfD. On a side note, did you see IrishLass quit her job and won't be around for a while? I'll do what I can when I'm home but that means we're down one helping hand. KellyAna (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I hadn't heard that about IrishLass. That sucks. Flyer22 (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I saw your last revert and I'm here to say STAY POSITIVE. I can be the queen of negative but the full moon has me thinking positive and you sound so "out of fight" for the Supercouple list. I just sent Radiantbutterfly a message through our message board asking her to support the list because I believe in it. I don't see that it's cut and dry it's going to go. Many articles have separate lists. We just have to keep positive. Anything with that many comments should be kept. Obviously there's passion for the subject content. Heck, the Alina Foley AfD didn't get a quarter of that much reaction. Just keep the faith. KellyAna (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm only "out of fight" because I'm so very tired of "battling" people with an axe to grind for anything popular culture on Wikipedia. I am especially tired, of course, of explaining to some people that supercouples are something that are not made by a critic or writer's opinion, but rather by the public. Sure, some couples who aren't truly supercouples may be called a supercouple by a critic or a writer, but that isn't the case for the majority, and it isn't the majority factor for most of the couples listed as supercouples on that list. I mean, if you google the terms Supercouple and Celebrity, the same couples come up most of the times, showcasing that not every celebrity couple is called or considered a supercouple. Only a select portion are.

Anyway, it'll be a lot easier sticking to a list of fictional supercouples, and that's what I'm focused on now. I also see the point brought up in that deletion debate about not mixing lists of fictional and non-fictional supercouples, so it's not so much my being "out of fight"...but more that I have a new focus — List of fictional supercouples. All of these couples listed as supercouples will be cited as supercouples, with valid citations, of course. I will keep the Notable wave section in the List of fictional supercouples article that I am going to create, because it's clear that they are not listed as supercouples. I'll talk with you later. Flyer22 (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sean Montgomery (C).jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sean Montgomery (C).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. BJBot (talk) 05:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

List of supercouples

There are questions about original research, the validity of some of the sources, the definition of notable wave, and what exactly disputed by rivalry means on the entry for the list of supercouples. Your input would be appreciated. AniMate 01:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. I'll be there in a moment. I haven't been there because I have been very busy with work, and I don't have access to a computer right now. I'm instead communicating with you at this very moment via a Playstation III. It's difficult to type using a controller, but I'll be there soon. Arrgh, excuse me for not signing my user name.

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

eBay?

I'm sorry but the description of an item on eBay doesn't qualify as a reliable source. If you actually have the magazine and can point out page numbers, then yes, it would be fine. We can't just trust what some random unidentified poster on eBay claims as the truth. I'm not going to be a jerk, and I'm not going to remove it, but you should really come up with something concrete beyond a sellers description. AniMate 10:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's valid. I saw the cover. And just to make something clear, a seller can't truly lie about the cover and get away with it as easily as you make it sound. The cover isn't manufactured, and, yes, I went for that source, because it was validated by a person I know who has that magazine. This person pointed me to that source online. Now let me do "my job" and maybe you try and source something as well. Flyer22 (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Jack Johnson

I'm concerned that someone apparently used my IP number on Jack Johnson's page, prompting your warning. Can you figure out how this could happen? I've never heard of Jack Johnson before your warning.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.30.143 (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You obviously have an IP address where many different people from many different locations will also be able to use it. Flyer22 (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Supercouple list

I added a link to [3] where MSNBC calls Will and Jada a supercouple. You might want to fix it up all pretty and stuff though. KellyAna (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Drama, drama, drama

I see I missed a lot while I was out of work and unable to come here. Not sure how often I'll be able to check in but thought I'd say HI while I was here today. I notice the Supercouple list is in chaos. What happened there or do I really want to know? Leave me a message if I can be of any help. IrishLass (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Just read it. And I don't even want to talk about it, as I am quite fed up with the conversations there. Like they aren't even listening, and as if that list is any worse than having a list of anything else we have lists for on Wikipedia. It's only two Wikipedians there (besides me), adamant on acting as though that list is the worst act against mankind. Ugh. It's a good thing that KellyAna left out of the discussions going on there, because with her temper, it wouldn't have been pretty. And, KellyAna, I mentioned "your temper" because you have mentioned that.

Anwyay, I've got stuff to hurry up and do on Wikipedia, totally unrelated to that list. Good to see you back, by the way. I'll see you around. Flyer22 (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It's cool. I'm a bitch and I know it. Elonka's working with me to calm me down. With that list walking away is just best for me. KellyAna (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I still hope that you help me watch it and contribute to it, even though you may not take part in the discussions there with AniMate and Paul. The reference you recently added to that list, for instance, shows that it's quite easy to still contribute to that article while ignoring its talk page.

Once I archive that discussion still going on there, I'll mostly be through with talking on that talk page, except for when new discussions are brougt up there. But as that list is now, it's well-sourced and there aren't a load of couples listed on it. It's fine. I mean, jeez. But, really, it's taking away from my time on other things. I need to hurry up and create the Florencia Lozano article (an actress), create an article on a popular character of hers, Téa Delgado, tweak a few articles so that I'll feel completely confidant nominating them for Good Article or Featured Article status, fix up other articles such as Zoe (All My Children) and Annie Lavery, etc., create the Lena Kundera and Bianca Montgomery article, the Serial rape article (which I may title Serial rapist), and a few other things, and I need to get started on all of that right now (though I've already completed the Florencia Lozano article in my Word document). Redundant discussions about that list only take away from the time that could be put to articles that really need improvement and ones that should be or rather need to be created. Flyer22 (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a long and painful conversation. They act like you shot the pope on Good Friday. Really, why are they so hell bent on removing everything without a reference? And why that list? There's how many millions of facts that aren't sourced but they are nit picking that to death. You must be going crazy. I'm sorry I wasn't here to help. I really wish I could have been. I assume they removed most of what is no longer there? I know you wouldn't have. I'll do what I can to keep an eye on it. Not sure how I feel about adding my two cents. Seems as though they will gang up on anyone that tries to intervene. I'll see what sources I can find and see where things go from there. Take care. IrishLass (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I actually agree with what has been done to that list. I just hate that now that it only consists of supercouples and not merely popular couples who were/are not supercouples, and it has mostly good sources, that they are still acting as though it is the worst list ever on Wikipedia. It makes no sense. As I stated there, I can see the list being criticized for having a celebrity supercouple section, but not if it's just a list of fictional supercouples. I mean, we do have a List of fictional anti-heroes, and determining what or who is an anti-hero is a lot more subjective than titling a couple as a supercouple. Anyway, I've got work to do concerning the articles I stated that I will be working on a lot in a hurry. Talk with you later. Flyer22 (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:FLSCAN14.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:FLSCAN14.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. BJBot (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Tntscan12.sized.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tntscan12.sized.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. BJBot (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Y&R interview!

I figured you may like to see this. Mike H. Fierce! 23:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

I don't know if you got my email or not but since you didn't reply I'll repeat most of what I said here. Thank you so much for your praise on the article I created. Also thank you for all the ways you spruced it up. I still have a lot more to learn but you really taught me a few things on there and on the articles you made or fixed up. Rocksey (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I haven't read my recent e-mails because I've been without computer access (been using PlayStation 3 instead, though I can read them with PlayStation 3). Can't really reply in full at the moment. And, hey, I had to state what I did about your work here; good is good. You impressed me, seeing as you are a newbie here. I'll see you around. Flyer22 (talk) 07:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed on the supercouple list that a few of the couples had a reference from a magazine that was directed to the wikipedia page of that mag. Is that the way you're supposed to site those kind of references or is it better to use the scans from the articles? Rocksey (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean how the references show which magazine (or other various source) it's from at the end of the references? I mean, all of those references, if you click on the title (or look if you can't) rather than clicking on the magazine it's from, are from sources apart from Wikipedia. If you mean, should Wikipedia itself be a reference for sources we use on Wikpedia, then typically no. But that's not what showing what magazine it came from at the end is doing And, yes, scans from articles are fine, as you already know. Flyer22 (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I mean the reference six on the supercouple list. It just gives the name and date of the magazine. Is that ok to do as long as you have the date the magazine came out? Rocksey (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Checking in

This is just a brief note to make sure everything is okay with you. I'm moving really slowly on the List of supercouples, which is hard, but I'm not going to do anything drastic without your okay. Really, this isn't even a request for you to contribute anything, but just a note hoping things are getting resolved on your end of the internet. Not having a computer (and thus having to use a game platform) can be really frustrating, so I just hope things find you well. I understand if there are articles higher on your list of priorities that require less complexities than a protracted and complex talk page discussion, so don't expend any extraordinary efforts on the page until you're able to do so with ease. I just hope you're doing okay, and promise not to do anything drastic until you can comeback at full speed.

AniMate has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

AniMate 00:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/User:KellyAna(2nd),User:Irishlass0128(2nd)

I know that you've worked extensively with both KellyAna and Irishlass0128 in the past. It looks as if the two accounts were controlled by the same person. I think it would be helpful if you commented there. AniMate 21:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa. What??? I mean, at first I had suspected, but IrishLass has quite a different personality from KellyAna. And why would KellyAna say that IrishLass cannot do that deletion request if they're the same person? You caught me at a bad time, AniMate. I'm not sure that I can comment on that right now. I'll try, but if I don't show up there soon, it's because I'm busy off Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Having good cop/bad cop accounts is not an uncommon tactic used by puppet masters. Right now, we know that they are editing from the same area, joined at the same time, and are never online at the same time. AniMate 21:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I've explained further below. Flyer22 (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

KellyAna has been blocked indefinitely, and IrishLass0128 has been blocked for two weeks for running an abusive sockpuppet. I know you worked with them extensively in the past, so the landscape of most soap opera related articles is going to be changing somewhat. IrishLass0128 has the right to come back, but from what KellyAna wrote it seems unlikely. Several reasons were given, none of which addressed any of the allegations against them. Anyway, I removed the maintenance banner from the List of supercouples as you've stated it's not an important article for you and IrishLass0128 likely won't be coming back. AniMate 04:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Damn it (pardon my language)! I just logged on to a computer to go to that case and state something. I thought that I would have more time to speak, considerng that other sockpuppet cases have lasted longer than that. I wanted to say some things against KellyAna. Yes, against! I'm angry and very disappointed that she abused Wikipedia this way. What convinced me that she was at least Antigone28 is the harshness of Antigone's tone, the exact way Antigone talked to me when I was a young newbie on Wikipedia (well, I'm still young) and he, who is actually a she, was a newbie who didn't know much about Wikipedia's rules, as I was trying to inform her on them, was too similar to how KellyAna talks when she gets upset (or rather infuriated). Similar phrases such as "You've brought me to tears" were uttered by both of them. I don't see it as a coincidence due to how they were said in those situations. Antigone28 was one of the worst encounters I've ever had on Wikipedia. I was a newbie who felt like an administrator here due to all of the editors I had running to me for my help and my calming down and trying to settle disputes between those various users (just check my first archive). Even with all of the hatred Antigone spewed, I had "forgotten" that user. I left that experience thinking that a user left Wikipedia angry when that user could have been helped to become an integral part of this community. Turns out that that user had returned to Wikipedia all this time as CelticGreen and then became known as KellyAna. As for IrishLass, I feel that it's possible that they could have been two different people at one point. I mean, IrishLass stood up for my addition of the Emergence of gay and lesbian supercouples section in the Supercouple article (just check the first archive there). But, KellyAna, who had plenty of time to say something about it while that was going on, didn't. I honestly figured that she had a problem with homosexuality too much to state anything on that matter, considering that she would speak up for almost anything that I did here. What sealed the deal for me was when she recently said something to TAnthony about being able to say bad things about his sexual orientation. I was like, "Oh, so that explains her reluctance to support the gay and lesbian section when that was going on."

Hmm, the fact that "they" use the same abbreviations or unique styling for words and meanings in their edit summaries didn't/doesn't mean much to me. I mean, I sometimes use the expression "Restore" when reverting vandalism or putting an article back to the state I feel that it's best at...and I thought that I was the only one to use that expression (whether that sounds naive or not), but TAnthony sometimes uses it as well. As Wikipedians, we sometimes adopt each other's style of editing somewhat or style of phrasing, edit summaries included. That said, while I feel that IrishLass and KellyAna could have been two different people at some points, they were clearly the same person the majority of the time. The TIME evidence pretty much convinced me of that, as well as the fact that IrishLass didn't show up in the sockpuppet case to speak at all.

So this second sockpuppet case against them all started because I asked "IrishLass" to delete the Daniel Romalotti and Lily Winters article (an article that I'm about to go strip of that ludicrous supercouple statement right now)? Whoa. Then good. I felt something eery when I made that request, and I suppose it was this.

I want to state something about this and Wikipedia deception on my user page, but I don't have the time right now. I will, however, stop by everyone's talk page who participated in this second sockpuppet case against KellyAna and IrishLass and link them to this statement of mine. Thank you for informing me of this, AniMate. You are a well-respected editor in my eyes, and I have come to appreciate your stern tendencies. I wish Elonka had informed me of this herself considering that she did some research on this which connected Antigone28 to KellyAna. I know that I was/am "out of action" at the moment, but I still want to be informed of cases like this. Thank you for that, AniMate.

And, KellyAna, if you feel that I've turned against you...as you're reading this (which, most likely you do feel that way)...no, I haven't turned against you...

I just don't tolerate this kind of deception. Ever heard of Essjay?. Flyer22 (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the statement. If it turns out we need to open another such case in the future, this information will be useful. As for why I didn't inform you directly, I figured you were probably already watching the related talkpages and would have heard about it that way if you were active. My apologies if you felt left out of the loop. I'm also very sorry to hear about your early WP:BITE experience. But for what it's worth, I always thought you were an amazing new editor, so I'm glad you stuck around!  :) --Elonka 20:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Flyer22 - I've read your comments and thank you for commenting on the situation. I'm sorry you didn't get the chance to post a comment on the case. Thanks DJS --DJS24 21:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, we may be re-opening that CheckUser case soon. Set a watch at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/KellyAna. You may also wish to post your statement on the talkpage there, so it'll be easy to access later if we need it. --Elonka 23:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This hurts like hell

I also wanted to advise you all to read my Archive 2 (that's actually at the time I felt as though I was an administrator here). And if you haven't already, to read over all of my and Antigone's interactions with each other. I cannot believe that I was so blind, but having read over all of that again, I must again state that Antigone28 is KellyAna. Her personality (its anger aspect) got a little better, but it's still her. I was the first mentor KellyAna had, just check my archives. She clearly learned as Antigone, even while bitching me out, and then learned more afterwards, suddenly respecting me greatly. I grew very close to KellyAna and "IrishLass". They were the closest thing to family that I had on Wikipedia...and it hurts like hell to lose them. KellyAna, I miss you already. I don't hold any grudges against you as Antigone. What also convinced me that KellyAna and "IrishLass" are often, if not all the time, one in the same is that they never talk to each other. This has all hurt like hell. Flyer22 (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, thanks

And, Elonka, thanks for all of your help on this matter. You already know that I am extremely grateful to you for being my Wikipedian mentor early on. I understand why you felt that I may have known about this second sockpuppet case against KellyAna and "IrishLass" due to my watchlist once I would check in. But I'm taking this time to clarify that I took a break from looking at my watchlist due to being drained of witnessing all of the vandalism it shows. Though it was difficult to not peak in on it. Lately, I haven't looked at it more so due to the fact of vandalism and my not being able to do much about that right now.

I'll talk with you all later. Flyer22 (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You know you can completely clear that watchlist, right? :) I periodically go through and delete hundreds of articles at a time. I'll go through the list, and if I can't instantly remember why I'm watching an article, I remove it. Or, if I see something in my watchlist, at anytime, and I think, "Ah, there's a change, but nah, I don't really care what they did, then zap! I remove that article immediately. The "Popups" tool is very useful for this. If you haven't yet, click on "My preferences" at the top of the page and look at the new "Gadgets" tab on the far right. If you use Firefox, I highly recommend both WikEd and Popups. Once you start using them, you'll wonder how you ever got along with them.  :) --Elonka 03:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, for all these new headings

It's just that I switch back to the PlayStation 3 at times and I cannot respond in the regular way. Anyway, LOL. Yes, Elonka, I know that I can clear my watchlist. It's just that I prefer not to. Eveything that I've added to it so far I want to keep on it. Even though articles such as Brad Pitt get a high level of vandalism, that's the main reason that I put that article on my watchlist. Other articles I put more on there out of true interest.

I'm about to go check on a few actor/actress articles right now...and state something on the Soap Opera project talk page. Hopefully, I'll be back on Wikipedia fully next week or the week after that...just to take care of all the matters I've stated above that need taking care of. Flyer22 (talk) 03:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, what are you playing?  :) Also, on the watchlist, given my druthers, I'd say don't worry about the vandalism. There will always be more vandalism on Wikipedia, and we have a lot of editors working on it. If you don't take care of vandalism right away, what would it mean? Oh no, an article on Wikipedia might be in poor shape for awhile! (gasp!) Heh. But like I said, given my choice, I'd rather see you writing articles than cleaning up vandalism. You're an amazing writer, you're a fantastic researcher. I want you to stick to the activities that excite you, not the ones that drain you. Or in other words, here's a webcomic that struck very close to home. Check my blog,[4] second one down, "Duty calls." Or if you can't get to it, let me know and I'll send it to you some other way.  :) --Elonka 03:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't playing anything on the PlayStation 3 in that moment, Elonka...or lately, for that matter. I've been mainly using it for the internet. I'm not as into video games as I used to be. I'm still very good at playing them, however...especially role playing games (RPG's). Thanks for the complments and the link to the Duty calls blog. It was/is a nice read.

Right now, in this moment, I'm on a computer, and am going to go take care of a few things. Flyer22 (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Susan Mayer

An article that you have been involved in editing, Susan Mayer, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Mayer. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ultra! 22:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. That character is notable, and so are all of the other Desperate Housewives from that show. Not to sound snide, but I wish more editors on Wikipedia would check on the notability of articles before nominating them for deletion simply based on what or rather what isn't in those articles. I suppose I'll make a statement or two in the deletion debate of this article when I get a good chance to. Flyer22 (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Susan and the problem of Wiki

Thanks. I hope you saw my apology as well. I realized that I had lost my cool during all that. Anyway, I'm glad there's no hard feelings, and I hope we can find some joint project to work on in the future. Ciao.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, of course, I saw your apology, Bignole. And it'd be great to work with you again. You are one of the best editors here, after all, and helped me early on when I was learning what it took to write a Good or Featured article.

Talk with you later. Flyer22 (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Cassandra Foster

You've done a wonderful job with the Angie/Jesse article and recently a new page popped up about Angie's daughter Cassandra Foster. Of course the creation of it has no merit and it's just a list of her relatives and nothing else. Should I nominate it for deletion or should someone merge it. Thanks again. Glo145 (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete it. The article about their son should be deleted as well. But there may be some stuff out there about that actor portraying that role. If you can find info on that actress portraying Angie's daughter, her take on the role, then that article may be worth keeping for now. The same, of course, applies to any worthwhile information about their son. Flyer22 (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

So you know, Paul75 listed the article at peer review already. The link is here. I, like you, would've liked to have gotten a heads up before the decision was made, but here we are. Hopefully something good can come out of this and we can work through our stalemate, and realistically we are at a stalemate. You refuse to acknowledge they are poor sources, I refuse to acknowledge they are reliable sources. So, let's see what happens next. AniMate 02:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing useful in the comment you left on the peer review page. Why not refactor it? Coming at people with an attitude like that is what got KellyAna in so much hot water. Besides, it is a good idea to get some outside eyes on the article. AniMate 02:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Main reply about Supercouple peer review.

Don't ever compare me to KellyAna. Furthermore. There are only two sources we've been debating there. Sources for non-controversial statements that NO ONE cares about, except you two. And you know what? I'm too ticked off right now to care. Is that what KellyAna would say? Oh well. I think she'd sound harsher in most instances. Flyer22 (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I offended you, and sorry for my crappy typing. I really shouldn't do two things at once, which is why I'm about to signoff for a while. If you think about it, there are only three people who seem to care about the article at all... you, me, and Paul. And for the record, I came and gave you a heads up as soon as I saw what he had done. Remember, assume good faith. There's really no point in being ticked off, and I really think that having a wide range of outside eyes and opinions can only improve the article. AniMate 03:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll reply again

It's difficult to assume good faith in an editor who basically goes behind your back to do something that he or she knows you're against (at this time), and especially when he or she knows that you can't really participate at the moment about the thing they went behind your back about. I'm sorry (actually, I'm not), but it's very difficult to work with an editor who doesn't believe in the article he or she is working on. That's like me going to work on nursery rhyme articles when I really don't care for it. That's how Paul has been about List of supercouples and the Supercouple article. All I see is him wanting to take from them, not add to them, all because he doesn't believe that supercouples like Tad Martin and Dixie Cooney or TomKat exist (when they clearly do).

As for getting "a wide range" of outside eyes on that article, not many people respond in peer reviews mostly about soap operas unless it's like a case of Pauline Fowler, though the Supercouple article is diversified. Flyer22 (talk) 04:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And again

Also, I've seen articles on Wikipedia basically destroyed due to "outside eyes"... It's not going to do that article much good to have a bunch (if there is a bunch) of editors unfamiliar with the topic of Supercouple molding that article. If there were a lot of editors here as versed in topic as I am, then I wouldn't be the main one editing that article. If it weren't for me, that article would have been deleted by now.

Plainly, Paul clearly lacks trust in me as a Wikipedian editor. I clearly stated the best time an article should be put up for peer review (and, yes, I feel there's a best time or a better time as for cases like this one), and that I would get that article to Good Article status first. But he more than apparently doubted that, and went against me without even a heads up, as if I didn't know what I was talking about, all so this could be his last resort to have sources he doesn't like taken out Pfft! I wasn't too offended being briefly compared to KellyAna. I prefer her to some. Flyer22 (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Why did you unblock this problematic "editor"?

I did not unblock ELNUMERO1 (see here). I did delete the user's user page after 30 days of being indefinitely blocked. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. My lack of computer access right now shouldn't have been an excuse to not make certain that you were the one who unblocked that user before going to you accusing you of having done such. Turns out no one unblocked that "editor"...it's rather, as you said, he or she was only blocked indefinitely for 30 days. Ugh, indefinitely blocking for 30 days makes no sense. Why call it indefinitely blocking when it's not indefinite?

Anyway, that user should have been indefinitely blocked for good, as the name implies. I'll see to it that this is taken care of. What that vandal does on Wikipedia should not have been tolerated for this long. Flyer22 (talk) 01:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There's some confusion there. MZM didn't mean the user was only blocked for 30 days, but rather that it had been 30 days since the block. The problem, however, is that this user was never indefinitely blocked. The block log shows only three blocks, 12 hours, 48 hours, and one week. So I'm not sure why you thought they were indef. blocked in the first place, and I'm not sure why MZM deleted the user page. I can only imagine that someone put a message on the userpage claiming that the user was indef. blocked, which is probably what confused both of you. -- Ned Scott 03:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, someone, who seemed to be an administrator, put an "indefinitely blocked" stamp on that user's page. I was going to ask MZ if MZ wouldn't mind telling me who did that. Thanks for explaining, Ned. Flyer22 (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Your contribution to my last edit to Ashley Davies was entirely appropriate, and the the edit summary hit the perfect tone! Keep up the good work. :) Debate (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

GA articles

Thanks for informing me of your improvements to the articles.I definitely think they deserve a second chance at GA status now, but as I'm kinda distracted right now I might have to wait until tomorrow or wait until another editor reviews them instead. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Most of those that editor listed are not ready for GA. Todd Manning, as I mentioned on your talk page, is the only one out of those close to ready for GA. Flyer22 (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Common Name

Well it seems to me that wikipedia is half-assing the "Common name" rule. Since you reverted Katie Peretti page, what about Sharon Abbott??? She has clearly been known as "Sharon Newman" for over 11 years but she gets married and THEY are allowed to change it? What about Victoria Newman Hellstrom???? She has clearly been known better as "Victoria Newman"..these are changes that also need to be made, its not fair to just half-way make changes around the site. I'll agree to stop, but please if you're looking to up hold the common name rule, please make changes to all of the incorrect wikipedia names.

Also Nikki Newman should be changed back to Nikki Newman, she is not commonly known as "Nikki Reed". —Preceding unsigned comment added by AugustAugust (talk • contribs) 08:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply about Wikipedia "half-assing" it when comes to its common name policy

You are correct. All of those articles should be changed back to their common names. I have long noticed the Sharon Abbott instance, but that will probably keep getting changed back just because she's not married to Nicholas Newman anymore and is married to Jack Abbott. If the official CBS website lists her as Sharon Abbott, though, there is a little merit in her article being titled that.

Anyway, you should move any articles (that you know not to be common name-titled) to their common names and explain to any objecting editors. I am all for you moving those articles you just mentioned to their common names. Be wary of Sharon Abbott, though, as I just stated.

Also, I had already touched on Wikipedia's inconsistency in regards to the common name policy at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas talk page, which somewhat resembles what you just stated on that matter.

I'll see you around. Flyer22 (talk) 08:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And, oh...

Nikki Newman's article has already been changed back to Nikki Newman, since March 20th of this year. Flyer22 (talk) 09:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Real world stuff

Yeah, I think it's fun to see how characters were formed! I also know that information about how episodes and characters were made exists for a bunch of fictional series and I'm surprised that more people haven't bought the needed books and used them as sources... Anyway, I'm glad to hear that my work has been appreciated :) WhisperToMe (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Your request

Hi. I wasn't ignoring your request, but I have had monstrous problems the last few days staying connected via my dial-up. I've moved to the country and the phone lines are less that stellar. With the rain we've had in Indiana, the lines are soaked and I can't stay connected. I'll take a look at the page you mentioned, but I should warn you that I know little to nothing about that soap. I only watch The Guiding Light, and that only occasionally. I'll give it a look see this week as the lines dry out. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. You didn't have to. Oh, and if your're wondering why the plot summary of that article is in present tense, it's because plot summaries, per Wikipedia policy should be. Flyer22 (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Common Names

Homie, you changed my stuff again? What's up wit you? I was just matching the names that these characters are using now. You thought I was doing this for my own self? No. I was doing it because the characters are not using the names that are being used for these articles. For example, Jessica from One Life to Live. She got married to Nash and her last name got changed. You left that alone. Annie from All My Children. She got married to Ryan and her last name got changed, and you left that alone. but when I make changes, you say something to me. I don't like that, because it sounds to me that you are playing favorites. And you are going to be like that, then I will seek intervention, Homie. The King Gemini (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not your homie, and I'm not playing favorites. What the characters change their names to does not matter. Their common names do. Annie Lavery is her common name. 18:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Common names Part 2

The only reason I left Jessica's alone is due to what I said on the WikiProject Soap Operas talk page. Playing favorites? Don't make me laugh. I don't like it one bit when you misinformed editors go around changing characters' articles from their common names, and would much prefer Jessica's article are being at Jessica Buchanan, like it should be. And don't try ro threaten me. Policy is on my side. Not yours. Flyer22 (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Common Names Part 3

Who said I was threatin' you? You gettin all defensive now? You gettin scared? And FYI, I didn't misinform anything. The King Gemini (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Getting scared? Whatever. Just read Wikipedia policy. Yes, you are misinformed -- as you seem to think that when a female gets married, it means her article should be changed. No, it shouldn't...because her married name is not her common name. If it becomes her common name, then you have a case. Flyer22 (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That's all you could've said. Now, if Jessica and Annie's names can become common names, so can Langston, EJ, and any other article that I moved. The King Gemini (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

They aren't common names yet is the point. It took years for Kendall Hart Slater (with the Slater part tagged onto it) to become her common name. Flyer22 (talk) 01:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

How long did it take? The King Gemini (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Common names Part 4

Kendall Hart's common name becoming Kendall Hart Slater (either are her common name) happened due to the character calling herself Kendall Hart Slater very often, to where it became very familiarized to viewers. She's done that for two years now. Those two years, though short, really drilled in that name. A name like Jessica Buchanan is more difficult to overcome because the name Jessica Brennan has yet to become as prominent as her maiden name. I guarantee that when most people think of Jessica's name, they think "Jessica Buchanan", not "Jessica Brennan". Common name is sometimes tricky, but not in most cases. Flyer22 (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

But on Days of our Lives, EJ has been using the DiMera name ever since he married Sami. I was just trying to make it right. That shouldn't be against policy at all Flyer22. The King Gemini (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, I'm sorry if there is a problem but I have never heard of James Dean before let a lone edited a page on wikipedia about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.81.126 (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone else, a vandal, using the same IP address as you, vandalized that article. Flyer22 (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Final on common names

EJ Dimera simply is not his common name yet or maybe even ever. A few months of calling himself that does not overshadow the longer amount of time he's been called EJ Wells. I don't know how else to explain common name policy to you. Just remember all I've said about it, what it actually says about itself, and follow that. Flyer22 (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Greenlee's Nobility

Flyer, I don't even know why we are here. I suppose some debs are nobles, but Greenlee isn't one of them. Should I run over to 90210 article and add Donna Martin to the fictional nobility category because she debued on the show? I believe Greenlee is American. Americans do not have titles unless they bring them from somewhere else, or inherit them. It is too much of a stretch to include her in the category so kindly revert the edit. Furthermore it has always been very clear on AMC who the nobility are, as it is on all the other ABC soaps. Wlmg (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll kindly revert. But who are the clear nobility on All My Children? The Chandlers, I presume? Flyer22 (talk) 05:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hugo Marick, Dimitri Marick (a.k.a. Count Andrassy) and his clan. Princess Gillian Andrassy. I'm sure there's other examples but to be honest I'm not a really big AMC fan. Wlmg (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI...

User_talk:TimothyBanks#So_you.27re_just_going_to_ignore_naming_conventions.2C_huh.3F

FYI, he tried moving Ameera to her married name. --DrBat (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Flyer22 (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Greenlee's Picture

Hi Flyer. I am in an edit war with someone over Greenlee's photo. Perhaps you can take a look at the edit history over there. In a nutshell I contend that a promo picture of Rebecca Budig is inferior to a screenshot of Greenlee herself. Here is the source of the offending pic http://abc.go.com/daytime/allmychildren/gallery/129974_1.html the uploader supplied the wrong link therefore her fair use rationale is imperfect if I want to nitpick. But moreover, it's a horrible pic of Budig, and makes her look fat.

Wlmg (talk) 07:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason I change the picture to the promo shot since other soaps are moving toward having clearer, more descriptive, higher resolution promo shots such as The Young and the Restless (i.e. Heather Stevens and Sharon Abbott), The Bold and the Beautiful (i.e. Bridget Forrester, Donna Forrester), Days of our Lives (i.e. E.J. DiMera and Max Brady), and some on All My Children (i.e. Kendall Hart, and Krystal Carey). Also, its not a promo shot of Budig, its on ABC done for the character Greenlee. Candyo32 (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that the picture from the ABC site has Rebecca Budig's name in large type, and Greenlee Smythe is in a much smaller font. Imho it does not illustrate the character Greenlee per se. There are other pics from the source that have Greenlee working at Fusion. That would be an unequivocal picture of Greenlee the same as a screen shot is. Fair use wikipedia pics are supposed to be low-res, so a high-res pic of Budig or Greenlee is a violation of wikipedia policy. Wlmg (talk) 03:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Candyo32, that's still a promotional shot, no matter whether it's more so of Greenlee or Rebecca. I don't have a problem with you using promotional headshots for the main picture, but Wlmg has a point about which rationale, promotional or screenshots, is the strongest.

Oh, and I agree that there has got to be a better promotional headshot of Greenlee than that. It does not have to be from 2008 either. She still looks the same from however long she's been on this show. Until that "right" promotional headshot is found, the screenshot that is there now should remain. Flyer22 (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm posting a better image. I hope you and Wlmg approve. Candyo32 (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's very pink, hardly the image for a "bad" girl, but better. Wlmg (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Katie Peretti - Victoria Hellstrom???

Question..why is Victoria Newman (Victoria Newman Hellstrom) when clearly she does not use the last name Hellstrom, but yet, Katie Peretti is simple (Katie Peretti) when clearly she goes by "Katie Peretti Snyder"??? Wikipedia, make up your mind! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBanks (talk • contribs) 04:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you move her article and any article not at its common name to its common name. A wrongly moved article is no justification for you wrongly moving articles as well. Flyer22 (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

I'm still having one more problem, the article entitled Sharon Abbott is clearly not her common name, when she has been known as and still listed as "Sharon Newman" since 1996. I was planning to leave it like it was until her marriage to "Abbott" ends. And..their is the article of Julia Santos Keefer, is that her common name or is she referred to as Julia Santos. I note her as being used by both those names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBanks (talk • contribs) 23:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Sharon Abbott is tricky, because while Sharon Newman is her common name, it's a married name while she is currently married to another man and has not been calling herself Sharon Newman since. I'll let you decide that one.

Julia hasn't been referred to as Julia Santos Keefer often. Flyer22 (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you help?

I need help uploading images to my supercouple page. Could you possibly help me with that please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Showcreator (talk • contribs) 22:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Once I get to a computer, sure. At this very moment, I am editing from a gaming console (the PlayStation 3), which does not allow me much editing freedom. Flyer22 (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Update

Thanx for the update Flyer22. Take care.Mcelite (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)mcelite

I need help

Hey Flyer22. I need help blocking an unregistered user. He continues to remove information on Native American articles and the Black indians article as well. Basically trying to make it seem as if the groups are not related at all.Mcelite (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)mcelite

It's difficult to block IP-address editors if they have dynamic IPs instead of static IPs. With dynamic IPs, they can keep coming back.

Anyway, I see that you've reported this IP-address editor you speak of to the higher-ups. Flyer22 (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Kids of General Hospital

Right now we have articles on Kristina Davis, Molly Lansing, Spencer Cassadine, Cameron Webber, and Jake Spencer (for now). None of these characters have ever really done anything though. They rarely speak, and the articles are almost entirely about their parents. Would you be opposed to merging these into a list along the lines of Children of Salem, Days of our Lives? Yes, that article is a hot mess, but these are really, really bad. The only character that has ever really done anything is Kristina... and that consisted of screaming and becoming catatonic. AniMate 00:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

All of the individual fictional child articles need to be deleted, all of the All My Children ones as well, perhaps with the exception of Miranda Montgomery. Though she has not really done anything either. Flyer22 (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm going to be doing a massive deletion later tonight once I've had a chance to look through all of the GH characters to make sure there aren't any others. AniMate 01:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, can you do me a favor. Take a look through User:Santos25Q's contributions. I found some unbelievably bad moves and reverted most of them, and the last one I moved was Brenda Jacks-Morgan back to Brenda Barrett. The majority of them aren't any better than that, and a few are worse. Anyway, check through them if you can. There are a few I haven't reverted ( a Guiding Light character I'm not familiar with) and Holly Sutton (because of redirects). Thanks AniMate 01:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

User:72.165.221.122

Done, but since it's an IP number I can only block it for a short period (I chose 24 hours) rather than permanently. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know about the IP address complications. Sometimes an IP address or all IP addresses from a certain location are blocked for a long time, but that action punishes anyone else who may use those IP addresses in the future, especially in the case of dynamic IPs. Regardless, thank you for the help. Flyer22 (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Me

Firstly my dear, as you somehow see yourself as the guardian of Wikipedia, if you choose to report me to other editors, please stick to the facts. I have not been warned by several editors about my conduct - you are the only person who chooses to block everything I have tried to do. If you can produce evidence of myself being warned by other editors, please do. Secondly, you do not own the Bianca Montgomery page - as I'm sure you know that it is against Wikipedia rules to claim ownership of certain articles. I honestly believe that the article is too long, and I have every right in the world to suggest such, and have the issue opened up to a general discussion such as I have done on the Talk Page. You have every right to block my use of swearwords and idiocy, which certain users of the website drive me too some time. However, continued blocking of my Wikipedian right to make my own legitimate suggestions and comments on certain articles will lead to myself reporting you for misuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.163.186 (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Me

First off, IP, I do not presume to own any article on Wikipedia. Second, I did not say that you've been warned by several editors. Third, each time I have reverted you has been justified. Fourth, you have nothing to report me about. And, finally, you are wrong about the length of the Bianca Montgomery article, as I've stated on its talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Santos25Q

Recent disagreements aside, you offered mentorship to this user once his block expires. I'm fairly certain he's been evading his block by editing on a dynamic IP in 76.6X.XXX.XXX range, and has been doing so for some time. There are very similar edits about characters names that have been made by both Santos and the IP over the past couple of months. Look at Carly Corinthos and then look through the history. The 76 IP has done the exact same name changing without understanding the difference between married names, common names, birth names, or professional names that has been so problematic with Santos. Anyway, comment on his talk page if you'd like... even if its to tell me I'm jumping at shadows. AniMate 18:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this appears to be User:Randy Jaiyan, a rather prolific Carly Corinthos obsessed sockpuppeteer. AniMate 19:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I filed a report about this at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Randy_Jaiyan. AniMate 22:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Greenlee's Relationships

O.k. so Leo went over the falls and is presumed dead? I have no idea if that was ever made official. I'm going to go out on a limb, and bet that Leo will be brought back to life, or at the very least his long lost devil identical twin will appear, or an imposter with a reasonable facsimile of his face. Is there really a point to including her former names? She is going by Greenlee Smythe correct? I checked the Erica Kane article, and it doesn't get into all her exs and formers in the article intro. Chances are the Greenlee character will be around for decades, and will rack up the marriages. Whadda you think about changing the name to plain Greenlee Smythe? Wlmg (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It'd be one of their biggest mistakes if they bring on a recast Leo. Not only that, but we have enough "return from the dead" characters on that show. But, yeah, take Greenlee's married names from the lead. They can go in her infobox instead. Flyer22 (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC) I swear for real ABC is using ghost characters as a cost saving measure. Lose your contract, we kill you off, but as a consolation prize you can stay on as a recurrent ghost, i.e. Dixie Martin, Alan Quartermain, and Emily, but she was dead and a hallucination only seen by Nicholas--I digress.Wlmg (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed it. What do you think of Greenlee Du Pres née Smythe née Du Pres née Lavery Smythe ? Wlmg (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Brad Pitt

Hi, thanks for informing on what I did. That's my bad there. I re-added the info. and I hope it reads well in the article. Again, thanks for informing me on what I did. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for taking care of that. Flyer22 (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Image info.

Hey Flyer22, it's been awhile since I've talked to you. I have a question for you, even though I don't know if you're the right person to ask. Recently all character pages of a certain soap opera received promotional pictures (and replaced the screenshots that were in good quality). Are those pictures allowed on Wikipedia?

The rules clearly say "Please note that our policy usually considers fair use images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images and unsuitable for the project. If this is not the case for this image, a rationale should be provided proving that the image provides information beyond simple identification or showing that this image is difficult to replace by a free-licensed equivalent. Commercial third-party reusers of this image should consider whether their use is in violation of the subject's publicity rights."

I've just noticed that, for example, the Bianca Montgomery article also has a promotional photograph. So is it then allowed for me to use promotional pics on the Sunset Beach character pages or? Dmarex (talk) 15:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, promotional images are fine to use for fictional characters. If they, like screenshots, are being used to display fictional characters for critical commentary, they are fine. And any editor removing them on the basis that they should not be used has a very weak argument. We even have featured film character articles which use promotional images as their main image, such as Jason Voorhees.

If you visit TAnthony's talk page, you will see that he has made some great points about this to Gwernol. He is quoted as saying:

"While it has been established that fair use images are not appropriate in a living performer's article to represent what that person looks like, it is longstanding convention in fictional character articles that screen captures be used (sparingly) under fair use to represent the characters themselves. A freely-licensed image of an actress on the street does not adequately represent a character she has played, prosthetics or not. An image from a Harry Potter film is an image of Harry Potter the character, technically not an image of Daniel Radcliffe. You seem to be saying that no fair use image should be used to illustrate a character, and while that may be a valid opinion, there is no specific wording in policy that backs it up to the point where such images can be removed from articles or deleted without discussion. The prohibition specifies living people. Articles like Pauline Fowler rose to Featured status with their images intact because characters are not the same as living people, even if they are portrayed by them.

If you are referring to the use of non-screen captured images like posed publicity photos, the whole reason I asked the question is that I know of no explicit prohibitions in this regard either. I have seen arguments revolving around web site terms of use, or their promotional nature vs. actual program content, but it is a grey area that is not spelled out in policy. Even the language in Template:Non-free promotional is vague enough to arguably allow their use to represent a character."

And there you have it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Dmarex (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Article idea

Hi Flyer... I have one more question and I don't know anyone else to ask about this certain idea.

Since I've joined Wikipedia, I've created numerous articles for real-life producers, directors and writers of soap operas, but neither of those articles have quality. To avoid having a million stubs on Wikipedia, would it be a good idea to created one article titled Soap opera writers or Soap opera directors and include a huge list those people, including their credits?

Soaps like Days of our Lives have articles like Children of Salem where they include all of their children, instead of creating a low-quality article for each of the. What do you think, would it be a good idea to develop an article like that? On my userpage, you'll see the title "Created writers, producers, directors articles," a complete list of all articles I created. Wouldn't it be better if they would all be in once place?

I also asked TAnthony about this, but didn't get a response yet. Would this be a good idea? Or should I make a page like that for crew that had one or two credits only? Dmarex (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm really not sure. But it is not like this is against Wikipedia policy or anything, and if you feel very strongly about this, go ahead and give it a try. Flyer22 (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Supercouples

Of course I couldn't fool a Wikinerd like yourself. But if you'd like to correct several other problems, it could start with the Sonny and Carly Corinthos article. Why does it redirect to Sonny Corinthos??? What the hell is wrong with the Ridge Forrester and Brooke Logan article?? Their are hundreds of references that refer to them as a supercouple, since the 80's to present (if you know anything about the Bold and the Beautiful). Those are some real problems, you need to be fixing if you want to do something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AugustAugust (talk • contribs) 00:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I replied on the user's talk, telling the user to channel their negative attacks into research and writing. AniMate 00:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The lovely Kim Delaney

IMDb gives her birthdate as 29 November 1958, but the NYTimes says 29/11/1961. I'd go with the Times, as that seems the most reliable. This article, also from the Times (September 2002) lists her as 40, which is further verification of the November 1961 birthdate. Hope that helps. Jeffpw (talk) 06:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. It does. Flyer22 (talk) 08:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please weigh in on Kim's talk page about her age? There's a revert war going on. Jeffpw (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be there soon. Flyer22 (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User:MoranRAV4

As someone familiar with the whole Santos25Q/Randy Jaiyan fiasco, would you mind keeping an eye on this user. He's already targeted Carly Corinthos, messed up an actors name, made some inappropriate redirects, and is in general continuing Randy's destructive editing patterns. Maybe I'm jumping at shadows (I'm not), but I just don't have the energy to focus on this guy right now (I'm clocking about 14 hours of flying time this week with the holiday). In between celebrations, flights, and much needed naps I'll be checking in on him, but really don't want to thave to deal with this until I'm back home and able to get re-acclimated to pacific time. Thanks, AniMate 20:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment

To start with, can you stop banging on about all these articles you have "greatly improved". Put your ego and arrogance away for two minutes and start behaving normally. And put your paranoia away as well. Not that I need to justify myself, but believe it or not, I don't spend my whole time tracing you over Wikipedia and pouncing on your articles with glee - to be honest I wouldn't even know where to start if I chose to track down all your articles - not that they are yours as that is against Wikipedia rules. If you really must know, I stumbled across the TomKat article entirely innocently through a link which I believe was on the Victoria or David Beckham page which I was reading. I was aghast that such a page as ridiculous as TomKat was allowed to exist and decided to put my views forward - which I have every right to do. I did not know you were involved until you starting banging on in your usual manner about how everyone else is wrong and you are right. Basically, to stay away from your article or else. And please don't pull out all the old excuses, I vandalised an article, I was rude, your references were correct, something doesn't need a reference, I am doing it on purpose just out of spite, that you know the rules and I don't....I, and from what I gather so have many other poor souls, have heard it enough times from you. Just allow a debate on the deletion of an article, or a discussion on questionable references run it's natural course in a civilised manner. I have never initally made my requests personal - I ask for a reference and walk away, so don't try to make out that all my contributions are being made out of spite On, and Flyer22, please note - If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly by others, do not submit it. Againstreason (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Take that bull elsewhere. I don't believe most of what you stated. And why don't you stop acting like a damn child? Your pitiful excuses of just trying to help these articles makes me roll my eyes. No "poor souls" have been beaten up by me. As for the TomKat article being whatever you consider it, it's quite obvious that enough editors disagree with you. I will also respond to your idiocy on the talk page again.

Oh, and your constant practice of trying to teach me, an experienced Wikipedia editor, Wikipedia rules is quite laughable! Especially your acting as though I feel I own these articles, simply because I watch over them, and continue to improve them. My ego is in check. You haven't done crap on Wikipedia, but nag and add tags where they aren't needed. Me, paranoid? I'm not the only damn one who spotted your childishness of showing up at these articles I've significantly worked on. Leave me the hell alone, damn it! I don't even care if you manage to delete the TomKat article. Boo freaking hoo! Flyer22 (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I really hope you are a teenager, otherwise you need serious psychiatric help Againstreason (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you are/do, you ignorant pest. Now run off. I have more important matters to attend to, like the pedophilia article. Or are you going to follow me there as well, and pretend you know something about that, too? I suppose you'll act as though I don't get along with the editors there either? Well, to the contrary, you ass. I work really well with those contributers and with contributers in other places on Wikipedia. It is only you who make me out to be satan. You are pathetic, and your WP:CANVASSING in the TomKat article debate proves it, as well as your persistent need to occupy yourself with me.

Now begone, pest. Flyer22 (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and isulting all teenagers, as if they are all idiotic, immature children? Double pathetic. Maybe you were a complete empty-headed individual at 13 to 19, but that does not go for the rest of teenage society. Flyer22 (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Myth

What do you think would be the best way forward concerning the most csa > pedophile myth? I provided a load of sources and they seemed to insult someone's worldview. Do you know whether editors such as Springeragh or ScienceApologist would be able to opine in an informed manner? forestPIG 01:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

FP, why dont you bring your sources tot he talk page rather than directly to the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure, ForesticPig. You should present all you have to say on this matter on the Pedophilia talk page, though. Of course. Flyer22 (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a comment directly addressed towards something another editor may know about. Flyer22 has been actively editing (although maybe not watching) this article for far longer than I have. forestPIG 23:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

John Paul McQueen and Craig Dean

I don't know if you're interested, but I've created an article for John Paul McQueen and Craig Dean, who are a popular couple in the UK. --Silvestris (talk) 01:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I heard of them, and looked to add them to the List of fictional supercouples, but no valid reference refers to them as a supercouple. Flyer22 (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That is also why I removed your addition of having added them to that list. Flyer22 (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's because the term 'supercouple' isn't really used in the UK? (I'm just guessing; I don't know that for sure) --Silvestris (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Damien Spinelli and Maxie Jones

I found a supercouple reference for Damien Spinelli and Maxie Jones. Wlmg (talk) 06:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources per Wikipedia policy, unless they are from reputable sources, like TV Guide. Blogs can be used when sourcing something an actor/performer said on his or her official blog, but not for proof that their couple is a supercouple when that person is the one making the claim. Most importantly, that reference does not directly call Damien and Maxie a supercouple, but rather says they are destined to be the next General Hospital supercouple, which means it has not happened yet.

And, oh, characters by themselves do not go in Category:Soap opera supercouples; characters who have supercouple articles do.

And don't take this personally. I'm not trying to make this tough for you; it's just how Wikipedia is, with good reason.

And you should go ahead and redirect that article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Kim Redux

This anon editor continues to revert the sourced content, giving a general link to Intellius.com and to IMDb (whioh has been proven to be an unreliable source). Your assistance would be appreciated. I plan on moving for his block if he continues. Jeffpw (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, headed there now. Flyer22 (talk) 02:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted replies

I notice you edited part of what you wrote pointing out that I'd asked some questions which were deleted. I see it as problematic retconning it like that, and a bit insulting too considering the thought I put into the inquiries. Jack can't just censor stuff like that. Tyciol (talk) 05:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There was no censorship, any talk page comments that were deleted was accidental. My intention was only to undo the major formatting changes to the talk page, not to delete anyone's comments. There is an apology on my talk page where Tyciol mentioned this to me. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Replies. Yes. I was tempted to add back your comments, Tyciol, but it seemed like too much work due to my laziness at the time. I was aggravated myself about the removal of all those replies you made in those edits and thought Jack had seen your comments, but that he was so annoyed by your having restructed parts of other people's headings and comments, that he just reverted it all without going through the frustrating task of adding your comments in with the restoration. I only assumed Jack had seen your comments due to a few of those edit summaries having stated that you were replying, and because I always double check the differences between big edits I make, so that I can see any mistakes I have made, like typos, etc. But Jack says that he did not mean any malice in what he did, and I feel that it is best for us to assume good faith on this matter.

Furthermore, I really do not believe that Jack was trying to censor you. I saw nothing in your replies that would urge someone to censor them. Besides, Jack is not that kind of editor. After all, he lets pedophiles make talk page comments without reverting their edits, as well as editors he might have suspicions of being pedophiles. Your comments were not as bad as some of those; your comments were not bad at all. You should definitely re-add them. And if you do, I'll withdraw that little add-on I made to one of my comments and make that brief reply after yours. Flyer22 (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Help with Lily Walsh Snyder

The anonymous user 72.173.36.200 keeps on adding a "character timeline" to Lily's article.

When I pointed out how the other soap character's articles weren't written that way (never mind the fact his writing his littered with grammatical and spelling errors), he said "i plan on changing all characters like this." So I don't know if he's going to go after other articles as well. --Silvestris (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That IP doesn't seem like a problem yet. Report him or her if he or she continues. Flyer22 (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

User:UndersonJack/User:Santos25Q/User:Randy Jaiyan

Flyer, at this point, it has become clear that the user has no intention of leaving Wikipedia so any interaction on user talkpages is unnecessary. I entertained several theories about him (obsessive compulsive? autistic? non-native speaker? pre-teen?), but he's just a troll. Look at some of the moves he made as User:Santos25Q. He "lost" his little war with KellyAna and has now returned to fuck with whoever is willing to give him attention. Best bet, revert, block, and especially ignore (and in our cases get someone else to block). I've decided that int he future, unless I have to file yet another checkuser, not to refer to him by any of his names so he won't get the recognition he craves. AniMate 19:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, AniMate. And good advice. Most definitely. Flyer22 (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange message...

I suddenly got a message popping up on every page I view pointing me to the talk page of my IP address telling me not to make edits to a page. Of course, I've never even seen the article I was accused of making edit to (until I looked at it in response to the message) What gives and why are you sending me odd messages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.192.153 (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I will inform you (if you do not know) that IP addresses, specifically dynamic IP addresses, are shared by a lot of people. Thus, while you may have not done any wrong under a certain IP address, someone else might have. Flyer22 (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Greenlee Devane

Is there any way to semi-protect the Greenlee page from ip posters? It's in AMC canon that she's not changing her name with this marriage. Wlmg (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The only way to semi-protect her article is if it were receiving constant vandalism. I'm not really sure that the higher-ups would agree to semi-protect that article...considering that the IPs are not necessarily committing vandalism to it when changing the bold text to Greenlee Devane and rather think that they are helping. Flyer22 (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"phenom" is not a good usage of the word. Agnes was age 40-42 when she created her soaps. Wlmg (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not associate phenom with age, but that word (added by that IP) should be removed. Flyer22 (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the word phenom connotes youth. Wlmg (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Jack and Rose of 1997 film Titanic.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Jack and Rose of 1997 film Titanic.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 16:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie with first born, Shiloh.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie with first born, Shiloh.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 16:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Senior cast members?

I should probably just take this to the WikiProject page, but it just doesn't get that much traffic. What do you think about the "Senior cast members" field in the soap infobox? It just seems vague and ill-defined to me. Are we going with actors who appeared earliest or actors who have been on the show the longest? Take some Days actors. Frances Reid has been on the show the longer than anyone and also has the earliest appearance. Aside from Reid, Suzanne Rogers appeared on the show earlier than everyone else in the cast, but has left several times. Other long time actors with extended absences include Peggy McCay, Deidre Hall, Drake Hogestyn, and James Reynolds. All actors who have been on the show for ages, but all have left for considerable amounts of time. So are Rogers and the rest considered senior cast members? Just curious about your thoughts on this.

FWIW, I'm using Reid an an example since she is an original cast member, much like la Lucci and Ray MaDonnell at AMC, so its clear cut. I guess I'm trying to figure out parameters for shows without original cast members. AniMate 20:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know what to make of that, AniMate. I wish that I had more to say on this matter, because I like to give "real" responses, but my mind is drawing a blank about this at the moment. Flyer22 (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

To the WikiProject I go! AniMate 21:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Soaplife reference

Hi. Regarding the Soaplife reference, can you please provide an URL for where the "supercouple" bit is referenced? Without it, it makes the reference pointless. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 17:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It does not make the reference pointless. It's common practice on Wikipedia that not every reference needs a url to be valid. More than that, not every article in a magazine issue is available online. In fact, the majority are not. Citing magazines or books without a url is completely valid and not pointless because the source exists with or without a url. See List of fictional supercouples, and countless other articles on Wikipedia for examples. One example would be the Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article. Take the TV Guide reference for TV's Best Same-Sex Kisses that is present within that article. A Google check can prove that that article existed/exists, because it was mentioned on so many other websites/forums, where people were talking about that TV Guide article. That article was available online, but it is not anymore. And there is currently no reliable source online to use as a url showing that that article existed/exists (unless you count TV.com, which shows that the article existed/exists but no longer has the article because it was linking to the TVGuide.com source as well). Thus, the reference in the Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article was formatted in a way where a url is not used for that reference. The lack of a url does not make that reference any less true. The Jason Voorhees article, which is a featured article, is another example of citing without urls. Flyer22 (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's fair enough. However, the source (in my opinion) still isn't accurate enough. Is it possible to be any more accurate? Perhaps pointing to an exact date when it was published? Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but it seems that a source should really be as accurate as possible regarding when it was originally published, so that someone else could go back and find that exact article (not that I think anyone would!) ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 08:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I get what you mean. However, while I was gathering references to improve the John Paul McQueen and Craig Dean article, several fans of that romance relayed to me that the couple has been referred to as a supercouple in the 2007 issue of Soaplife. Mostly that it was/is titled The latest breaking news about Hollyoaks.

Because I do not live in the United Kingdom, I knew that I was going to have to contact fans of the couple who do so that I could get as much additional information on this couple as possible. Most of them just cited online articles that I had already gathered, then several cited the Soaplife reference we're talking about, though did not have the exact date it was published. I doubt that they were lying; being honest about all these sources except one. Do you feel that that reference should not be used just because I have not seen the actual reference myself? If so, I do not believe that that is the best route to take. And even though it is unlikely, someone who has that issue might come along and add the exact date for that reference. I am still contacting Hollyoaks fans to get more information on this reference, just so you know.

In any case, I completely get what you mean about a reference without a url being as accurate as possible. Hell, even references with urls, I prefer to be formatted as accurately as possible. The Todd Manning article, for example, I know that I can get that article to GA (Good Article) status and will soon, but getting it to FA (Featured Article) status may be a problem due to my not having the exact date for Roger Howarth's comments in some of the magazines. As a child (starting at age 10), I grew up saving a lot of Todd Manning/Roger Howarth articles, and would cut out the pages to make my own Todd book, often leaving off the page numbers. And considering that I would throw away the magazines after taking out the Todd Manning/Roger Howarth parts, that would often leave me without the issues those pages were in. But I did not think about that as a child, of course. I had no idea that those magazine page numbers and exact names of the articles would be so important for me to have kept, especially for a project like Wikipedia which did not even exist at the time. As a teenager, though, I saved the complete pages more and often the entire magazines.

But, yeah, I get what you mean about complete accuracy, and understand your feelings about that. Flyer22 (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If it isn't possible to get the complete date of the reference, then I guess we'll have to live without it. I'm quite happy to leave it there - fingers crossed that someone else will be able to come along and provide the accurate date. I don't want to cause problems with improving the article, especially if that involves removing a source. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 21:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I hear ya. Flyer22 (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Supermodel" article and Janice Dickinson

You wrote me on my addition of the word "erroneous" to the aritcle supermodel. No, it is not POV to add this word to Janice Dickinson's claims of being the first supermodel. It's a fact. Her claims are erroneous. A POV statement would be to say something like "Janice Dickinson is a liar. Her claim is a lie." The sign of NPOV is stating just the facts, blandly. I think the word "erroneous" does that quite well. If Janice was actually the first supermodel, then you would be correct and the word "erroneous" would to be pushing a POV. But, as we all know, she wasn't. This fact has been cited ad nauseam; it is not debatable. If you want to put it another way (i.e. use a word or phrasing besides "erroneous"), that's fine with me. Or, better yet, take the Janice Dickinson stuff out of the section entirely. Since she wasn't the first supermodel, she really has little to no relevance in the sub-section on the origin of "supermodel" (that is to say, the word and the profession itself). It seems that all anyone has to do to be mentioned in this article is to falsely claim to be the first supermodel. If I publish a book with HarperCollins in which I claim to have been the first supermodel, will you add me to the supermodel page and call "POV!" when people add the word "erroneous" next to my claim? Of course not. So let's just cut Janice out of the section entirely? Sound OK to you? ask123 (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not sound okay to me. And your adding erroneous to that after that statement is POV, no doubt about it, especially since there is no reference attributed to your stating erroneous. As I already stated on your talk page, your POV word is also completely unneeded. Also, do not come to my talk page with an attitude, as if I am defending Janice Dickinson; I am simply following Wikipedia policy. And a big part of that is no POV. Your POV addition of that word in that part of the Supermodel article is particularly unneeded. Flyer22 (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

And, oh-looky, another editor has called your type of addition, which was recently added back by an IP (was it you?) POV as well.[5] Needless to say, that editor reverted that and other mess. Flyer22 (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

And you say, "If Janice was actually the first supermodel, then [I] would be correct and the word 'erroneous' would to be pushing a POV"? Whaaaaaaaaat? Uh, no, then that would be just plain false. POV is anything where an editor (or anyone) is adding his or her own thoughts to something of fact. Saying "Best couple"...."ludicrous claim"..."Greatest supermodel" are all examples of POV. That said, if we have valid sources backing up any of that POV, then we attribute those sources to those statements or titles. We would not say that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are the best celebrity couple in the world. We would say that People magazine has cited Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie as "the the best celebrity couple in the world". Or not mention it at all. In the same way that we do not (well, you apparently do, but, still against Wikipedia policy to) put that "Janice Dickinson has erroneously claimed" blah, blah, blah... If a valid source specifically states that her claim is erroneous, then we state that that source has stated Dickinson's claim to be erroneous. Your addition of erroneous is not even anywhere close to being needed, anyway, considering that (like I stated on your talk page) readers can easily see that her claim is clearly disputed. I mean, jeez. Flyer22 (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Woa, woa...pipe down, buddy. You're way out of line! AGF! Tone down the ad hominem arguing. I responded to your comment on my talk page that way we don't have to go back-and-forth between our talk pages. ask123 (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

And, for the record, I did not need to calm down. I was not upset or angry, in any way. Flyer22 (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Pine Valley Notable Couples Question

What is the criteria for listing couples in the notable couples area? I noticed you took Ryan/Greenlee off the notable couples list. Personally I thought they were notable since they have such a long history together. I know they aren't a supercouple, but I would definitely consider Ryan and Greenlee each other's main love interest since they've been in town. Not their most popular but definitely the one they interacted with the most.

So back to my question, what's the criteria for that list or is there one?Rocksey (talk) 01:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Notable would be like the other couples listed -- very popular. JR and Babe may not be a very popular couple at the moment, but they certainly were before. There is no set criteria yet made for the list in that article, except that the couples must be notable. We are going by notable couples, and Ryan and Greenlee are not it. If we were solely going by couples who were together for a few years, then more couples would be on that list. Most of Ryan and Greenlee's history together was not romantic. And Kendall was Ryan's love interest for longer than Greenlee. In all honesty, it makes more sense to put Ryan Lavery and Kendall Hart than Ryan Lavery and Greenlee Smythe. Flyer22 (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Randy might be back

I think that Randy is back and using a new user name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M42380 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Well, he never stays away for long. We just have to ignore him, and report him. Oh, and revert any unconstructive edits he makes as well, of course, which is not so much ignoring him, I suppose (LOL). Flyer22 (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Using edit summaries for discussion

While I sympathize with the points you are making, using edit summaries for discussion like you do here and here is sort of confusing and not the purpose of edit summaries at all. Comments like that should be made in the actual discussion area, for a host of reasons.

On another note, this discussion is certainly dragging on, and certain editors seem to be preferring long-windedness of their own views to attempting to respect others' views, but I think, slowly, a consensus of sorts is starting to form. So don't let these editors frustrate you too much. -kotra (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I got use to sometimes using edit summaries for discussion when making minor edits, and sometimes I see other editors doing the same, so I have not really seen it as a discouraged thing. I will try to stop doing it or not do it so much around you, if it bothers you.

And thanks for the kind words. Flyer22 (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It surprises me a little that it hasn't been discouraged before. Using edit summaries for discussion separates the discussion into two different places, which can get confusing, and edit summaries are intended to be used to summarize and explain edits (hence their name). But in any case, it's not a huge deal. Doesn't seem to be a policy anyway. -kotra (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

YouTube

Hi Flyer22. I've removed the YouTube link because I believe it violates WP:ELNEVER (breaching copyright of the owner) and WP:EL#AVOID part 8, where you should avoid linking to rich media in articles that aren't specifically about rich media. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 07:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I see your point. And, as you know, I asked if you had a problem with that, to let me know. Which you have now done. I still do not see it as a true problem, though, since these intances are a case-by-case matter.

But while we're on the subject, what do you think, in their article, of my linking to the BAM (Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone) YouTube channel, which (though deemed by the fans, not ABC) is actually their official YouTube channel? In that article, I mention how fans of that romance launched a YouTube channel devoted to that couple, and I provided a reference (its YouTube channel) as proof, which is fine. But I also have that YouTube channel linked in the External links section. Flyer22 (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies at the late reply - I did see your message this morning but I've been busy all day until now.

Personally, I don't think that unofficial YouTube pages (even those considered official by fans) should be linked to WP. I suppose that they could be used to reinforce the article, perhaps provide alternative resources, but they aren't official and if the authors (Channel 4/Lime Pictures and ABC respectively) decided to take down the unofficial videos, they would be of little use.

I guess that is more my opinion than official view; as you point out, it should be taken on a case-by-case basis. If you feel the YouTube links reinforce the article and that they are warranted, I'm not going to get into an editing war over it :). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 18:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it's fine about the John Paul McQueen and Craig Dean article. As for the Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article, as mentioned, I'm using that YouTube channel as a reference in the part of the article where I'm specifically addressing the fact that those fans launched a channel for this couple (there is no other valid reference to relay that). But you may be right about my also including that channel in the External links section. I suppose I'll get to see what other editors think about that once I put this article up for Featured Article status. I've got to tweak it some more before I put it up for that title, though. I've long decided to just skip going through Good Article status for that one.

Anyway, thanks for your reply; it was much appreciated. Flyer22 (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries - I don't mind giving my opinion / official viewpoint (if I know it!) so feel free to pester me if you need my advice :). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 19:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Supercouple

Your edit summaries have been read. I'll start keeping an eye on it. (sigh) Hope life both on and off Wikipedia finds you well. AniMate 06:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, AniMate. I know that when I am again barely on Wikipedia, I will ask a few editors (maybe just two) to help keep an eye on a few articles here for me. Supercouple and List of fictional supercouples are definitely two.

And I hope that life outside of Wikipedia is treating you good as well. Flyer22 (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Life is nuts. I'm insanely busy, mostly due to teaching. Thank goodness it's "practical" fine arts. The idea of having to teach students facts as opposed to drawing... horrifying. AniMate 06:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL. I'm sure you're doing fine, and you certainly seem to have more of a calm demeanor than me at times. Flyer22 (talk) 07:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've asked a question about temporary recasts and screen caps over at WikiProject Soaps, and would appreciate it if you would comment. AniMate 19:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Flyer22 (talk) 08:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Stacey Dash

If I removed the African-American category (and looking at it now, I did), then that was a careless mistake on my part - I don't doubt that she's African-American - just that other, more rare stuff (West Indian isn't that unlikely, but Aztec?). There are seemingly millions of these random internet sites that copy each other (and they all usually start by copying IMDB or Wikipedia, neither of which is a reliable source). They often give these ethnicity blurbs, some or many of which are either just plain wrong or at least misleading in one way or the other. For pretty much all of these sites, there's no way of knowing who creates the bios or who writes the information on them. As a general principal, I don't see why any piece of information that doesn't at least have an attributed name next to it would be reliable, or why such a source would pass WP:Reliable sources (which starts off with "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" - Why does Hollywood.com fit that bill?). Newspapers are a good source to look for info, and the Google News archives have newspaper archives going back decades (i.e. [6]). If there's nothing on this Aztec or West Indian ancestry, then maybe it's not true; or maybe it is. But either way, it should at least have a reliable source cited to it. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out on your talk page, The New York Times biography on her is without an author that we can see and is yet considered a relaible source by Wikipedia.

Hollywood.com is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia as well; it is not an "anyone can edit site" like Wikipedia and reports valid news.

I am aware that there are seemingly millions of these random Internet sites that copy each other (and they all usually start by copying IMDB or Wikipedia). I mentioned to you that all these sites have coped each other. I do not feel that the part about Stacey Dash being of West Indian and Aztec descent was copied from Wikipedia, though, not originally.

If you notice, Hollywood.com is used in her aticle for other information. Why not use it for her ethnicity as well? But, if you prefer, which it seems that you do, that I leave out the part about her being West Indian and Aztec until I find a better source for that, then I will. But it has been stated in magazines such Essence that she is of West Indian and Aztec descent, as further elaborating on her "exoctic" features, texture of her hair and color of her eyes. And, as I mentioned, there are hardly any online sites out there of The New York Times caliber that note ethnicity. Flyer22 (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times biography is not without an author, nor is it a New York Times biography (see bottom of text). It credits "Lucia Bozzola" of "All Movie Guide" - whether that's a reliable source I don't know. As for the statement "Hollywood.com is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia as well" - what's the evidence for this and what would make this website a reliable source? It has the exact same bio that's on a lot of other sites, including Yahoo.com and others. Who wrote this text and why is that author reliable? Just not being an "anyone can edit" site doesn't make a site reliable. Anyway, if her being West Indian and Aztec was stated in Essence magazine, then why not cite that as a reference? (<ref name="">{{cite journal|last=|first=|authorlink=|coauthors=|title=|journal=|volume=|issue=|pages=|publisher=|date=[[2008-07-13]]|url=|doi=|id=ISSN|accessdate=2008-07-13}}</ref>) Off-line sources like books or magazines can be used if they are reliable. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Other reliable sources are without authors at times. Hollywood.com is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia because it is used by many experienced Wikipedian editors and has not been rejected by Wikipedia, like IMDB has (though IMDB can be used here for a few instances). I am not saying that any site is reliable simply because they are not "anyone can edit" sites. Of course self-published sites are not "anyone can edit" sites either, but are not considered reliable by Wikipedia. I am simply pointing out how Hollywood.com is generally accepted on Wikipedia. Hollywood.com having the same exact biography for Stacey Dash as a lot of other sites, including Yahoo.com and others does not make it an unreliablie site, no more than the Rotten Tomatoes is for copying Wikipedia biographies or the The New York Times for copying other sources that may not be as reliable. Reliable sites copying unreliable sites is nothing new. In getting across my point that there are not any references online of The New York Times caliber about her ethnicity, I even pointed out on your talk page that Yahoo.com has the same biography as Hollywood.com. I was like, "What type of valid sources about her ethnicity are you expecting?"

As for my not using Essence magazine for stating Dash as being West Indian and Aztec, obviously I do not have the information on the article's title, date, etc. or else I would have used it. I just remember reading it. I mean, of course I am aware that off-line sources like books or magazines can be used if they are reliable; I do that quite often on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Why does a site have to be formally "rejected" to become unreliable? And I continue to ask, why is this short biographical blurb that's on a dozen sites reliable? Who wrote it? It's not even Hollywood.com that's being cited, but this blurb of unclear origin (and I still don't know why Hollywood.com itself would be reliable - what makes it a reliable source?) As for "What type of valid sources about her ethnicity are you expecting?" - I often find mentions of ethnicity in newspaper articles about whichever actor or famous person. It's often from these articles, some of which are even a decade old or older (depending on the person), that internet sites glean their info; often I can't find a reference beyond these "millions of random sites" - but then do find it in an old newspaper article. In the Google News archives I pointed you to, I could not find anything on Dash being West Indian or Aztec a few months back, which is why I deleted it then for lack of any good source. But, for example, for Susan Lucci (just picking a random article you edited recently) - I can find a number of newspaper mentions of her mother being Swedish and father Italian, many dating back to the 1980s [7]. I really recommend the Google News archives - they help me cut through the glut of repetetive websites when I look for references. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying that a site has to be formally rejected by Wikipedia to be considered unreliable by Wikipedia. But I am noting that experienced Wikipedian editors who are familiar with what Wikipedia considers reliable and unreliable use that site here. And in reverse of your questions, I continue to ask, why is this short biographical blurb that's on a dozen sites unreliable? Why does it matter who wrote it when even very reliable sites sometimes have no author and their articles are sometimes just credited to their staff (without specifying names)? (I still don't know why Hollywood.com itself would be unreliable - what makes it an un reliable source?) Flyer22 (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

In regard to your questions - surely a website is not "reliable until proven otherwise", but rather, the exact opposite? (as for why I think it's unreliable, I go back to this quote by Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, about the similar NNDB - it should be regarded like Wikipedia: not a valid source for anything in Wikipedia. We need to stick to REAL reliable sources, you know, like newspapers, magazines, books. Random websites are a very bad idea) All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not go to random websites for sourcing articles on Wikipedia. I use websites that are considered reliable. Hollywood.com is considered reliable by most experienced Wikipedians, from what I have seen. And surely you cannot expect me or others to stop using it when it is so widely used and accepted by the Wikipedia community. I know what Wikipedia considers reliable and what it does not. Hollywood.com is a valid site that reports news just like any other valid news site, except that it focuses more on news regarding celebrities or big television events. Wikipedia does not say that we must go on REAL reliable sources. It says that we must go on reliable sources period. I am not some big Hollywood.com user, but I will not stop using it until it is condemned by the Wikipedia community. Saying that using random websites is a bad idea is basically saying that we should not use sites like IGN, AskMen.com, sites like britannica.com or healthdiscovery.com for the Sexual intercourse article. Or MovieTome, which is used for the Sarah Michelle Gellar article (I included it there; it's not exactly like TV.com these days and is seemingly accepted for plenty of actor/actress articles). Those two sources that I just noted being used for the Sexual intercourse article do not have authors to those articles, but they are considered reliable. We do not reject valid sources simply because we feel that even better sources are out there. We use those valid sources, and if we find sources even more valid than those, then we go with those. Though anything hardly gets any more valid than Encyclopædia Britannica, anyway. If we went on the reasoning of mostly sticking to newspapers, magazines and books, then we would have even more unsourced sections in articles or things being removed, considering that most people do not have access to the newspapers, magazines and books for some things that need to be cited, or are not aware that those things are in those certain newspapers, magazines and books. Not to mention that those things may not even be in those newspapers, magazines and books (which, no, does not mean that those things are then non-notable).

I already told you that I'm not pressed to use the Hollywood.com source for Stacey Dash's ethnicity, but telling me not to use Hollywood.com ever is not something I see working unless I see that it actually is a bad site to use. Flyer22 (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Stacey Dash, Part 2

Hi Flyer22. Yes it's obvious that she is part African American but then comes the problem of allowing things that are not cited like that being kept. Yes if some people had it their way there wouldn't even be a mention of Halle Berry's mother which is sad. It's very well know that Stacey Dash has Aztec heritage in the celebrity world and a source needs to be put for that as well. It's a pain and I understand, but a standard needs to be set. If people just but anything based on complexion they would put Zoe Saldana is African American, but she Puerto Rican and Dominican no African American blood. I just don't want a continuous problem of having to prove and fight for a person's full heritage.Mcelite (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand your feelings, and I get not automatically assuming a person's ethnicity based on skin color, especially in the case of dark-skinned people. But it is well-known that Dash is African American. There are hardly any articles on Wikipedia of African American actors/actresses/singers, etc. where a citation that they are African American is required, is my point. If it will make you feel better, though, then I will add a more valid reference that she is African American. I just did not want to flat-out state in her article that she is African American when we cannot even find a more valid source that she of West Indian and Aztec descent as well. Flyer22 (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I added a more valid source that not only states her African American heritage, but also confirms her West Indian and Aztec heritage. It's her Variety.com biography. I'm not sure whether Variety is copying a few less valid sites on this matter, since it does not attribute any other source to that information, but Variety itself is a very valid source/site and I'm going with them on this. It is not our job to question whether or not they copied another site. If that article were to state that they did and that site that they copied was not valid, then it would be our job to question that, as well as discard using it.

On a side note, about the topic of "race"...I will state, that as I stated before on Wikipedia, I do not believe that anyone is 100% one "race" these days. Flyer22 (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Coming back to say that I do know where Variety got its source from. It says it comes from inbaseline.com, which I saw but did not know exactly what it meant and only clicked on it some minutes ago. Hmm, does this mean it's like Internet Movie Database (IMDb)? It seems to be more so for solely agents, cast, crew, actors/actresses and other important people in the entertainment industry to submit information about themselves/projects. If we cannot trust these people about their own lives, then why trust other sources about their lives who did not even ask them?

This source seems to be where all those other sites, valid and not so valid, copied some or all of this information. I kind of give up, if we should discard this source. I mean, there are hardly even valid online sources stating her as African American, and that goes for a lot of actors and actresses of any ethnicity. The big news organizations are usually not that pressed to state the ethnicity of actors/actresses and other entertainers. But, really, there is a valid source in Dash's article which talks about her brother having the first publicly traded African-American-owned internet company. That's confirmation right there of her African American heritage, unless we are to assume that they are not blood-related or half siblings...where one has African American heritage but the other does not. Flyer22 (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I never disputed that Dash was African-American, I wouldn't have removed the category myself, and I agree that reference about Dash's brother sounds good. But, three things - one, it's true that sources often don't state that someone (especially actors who are not very famous) are African-American - usually because it's often obvious that they are, just like it's often obvious that someone is caucasian. Second, I disagree that major news sources don't discuss ethnicity. I've been able to find good sources for a large number of actors, many who are not even on "the A/B/or even C lists" level. You just have to look further back in the archives sometimes, i.e. the Susan Lucci example I gave you above. And third, I wouldn't use those "Baseline" blurbs as a source; I've seen a number of their bios on sites like Yahoo, and the newer ones often copy information from Wikipedia itself. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you already told me that you did not mean to remove her from the African American category. Second, I would not say that Stacey Dash is not very famous; she just is not as famous as Angelina Jolie. Third, I did not say that major news sources don't discuss ethnicity. I said that they are not that pressed to state the ethnicity. They are not that pressed to do so because most of the time, at least in the case of African American and Caucasian celebrities or other "notable" people, it is an obvious factor or is not seen as important as other news about them. Fourth, I tried your Susan Lucci example you gave above. Lastly, I'm done trying to find a source for Stacey Dash's ethnicity. I doubt that inbaseline.com copied Wikipedia (and we can even go way back into the edit history of the Stacey Dash article to see), but I really do not care (and it does not stop that source not being a super great source either, according to some Wikipedians, like yourself). I mean, so many other sites are reporting this same exact thing. I get that Wikipedia wants to be the best source or one of the best sources and have the actual correct information, especially if other sites do not, but in cases like these...it's like fighting against an imaginary person (meaning that we are fighting something that we feel has a possibility of not being true even with valid sites, though not super valid, reporting it). I'm done with this case. If I come across another valid site actually reporting its own news about her ethnicity or a valid magazine reporting it, then I will go back to this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"meaning that we are fighting something that we feel has a possibility of not being true even with valid sites, though not super valid, reporting it" - Ah, but the pleasure is in later finding out, in some cases, that those not so valid sources were wrong, and we were right in not including. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fun. No disputing that, and, of course, I see what you mean by that. Flyer22 (talk) 07:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No Vanity is good. They are legit and they have their own editors so I would say it's a go. You already know how difficult it is to find a person's full heritage and use a source that's legit.Mcelite (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I know that Variety is good, but Variety is using another source for Dash's article that I mentioned above. But, anyway, as I stated above, I'm done with this case...unless I come across another valid source that is actually reporting its own biography that mentions Dash's ethnicity. Flyer22 (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It is a pain trying to find complete info, and also depends on who's righting the article. For example, BET will always refer to Beyonce' Knowles as African American with no mention what so ever about her being Creole as well while this is clearly mentioned by other sources or magazines. If she wasn't an out spoken individual that was pround of her heritage she most likely would let people get away with that. Any way I agree if something appears I'll add it to the article.Mcelite (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Tarheelz123 Talk Page

I got your message and replied to it on Tarheelz's talk page, but I dislike conversing with one person in someone else's talk page, so I'll just copy-and-paste my reply here, in case it's any more convenient for you and so we don't have to clutter someone else's place:

Many of your points are valid, Flyer22 - so valid, in fact, I made them myself some months ago. But the problem is that the term "supermodel" is simply too subjective. Who's to say who is one and who isn't? Some would be obvious, of course, but every model on earth has some news item calling them a "supermodel" nowadays no matter how farfetched the claim is, so it's impossible to mark a divide and expect editors to comply by it and remain unbiased. Better to leave it at "model" so editors focus on constructive edits rather than bicker over claims of supermodel status. There are other points in this argument, so if you or Tarheelz123 care to see them rebutted in the name of NPOV, the initial argument over this occurred in Marisa Miller's talk page.

Btw, it's nice to see a fellow writer here! Mbinebri (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

A discussion[8] has been started on the topic of models versus supermodels, if you wanted to comment on it there. Mbinebri (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

As I stated on Tarheelz123's talk page, as long as there is a valid source calling that model a supermodel, then I do not see the problem. Also, I do not believe that there are many valid sources out there calling every famous model a supermodel. Who is a supermodel is easy in my eyes. It's simply what the lead (intro) of the Supermodel article says. Yes, there will always be a few valid sources to call a model who is not a supermodel a supermodel, but so what? With the List of fictional supercouples article, we have to deal with valid sites calling fictional couples who are not supercouples, well, supercouples as well. But you know what? Most regular or popular fictional couples are not called supercouples by valid sources or fans. The Internet certainly shows that that does not often happen. We also have articles on real-life supercouples...such as TomKat and Posh and Becks. What, is this not being fair to other celebrity couples? I disagree with that. If other celebrity couples want to cry over not being a considered supercouples or not having a Wikipedia article about them, then let them cry. We go by sources and notability. The same goes for supermodels. Why should we disregard calling a model who is well-known (widely considered) as a supermodel a supermodel? If we go this route, then we might as well not even have the Supermodel article. The logic being thrown out there that we should not call any of these supermodels supermodels in their own articles because it is unfair/non-neutral to other models could go the same for the Supermodel article. Any model who feels that they are a supermodel, but does not see their name in the Supermodel article, could become upset as well. But so what? If they want to be considered a supermodel, then they are either going to have to work for that title or be called one by a valid source. In the case that a model is called a supermodel by a valid source, but we know that most people would not call that model a supermodel, then we can simply state, "described as a supermodel by [fill in valid site or newspaper here]"...

To take away the title of supemodel from models who have rightly earned that title just to appease less well-known models is what is not fair and is non-neutral.

As I stated on Tarheelz123's talk page, even if we do not note these supermodels as supermodels in the lead (intro) of their articles, we could note, in the lower part of the body, that they are considered supermodels by whatever valid site we have stating them as such.

Yes, I will state this in the second discussion you linked to above, though these days I am tired of debating. And, yes, it is good to see another writer (screenwriter or other). Flyer22 (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Editing Babe Chandler

First of all the character of babe Chandler is an unpopular one. second where have you posted a link saying it was the recast that resulted in the characters death. third the reason the character wasn't killed doff when AH was in the role was because it was Mctavish favorite character. I will easily find a link stating babe chandler is unpopular. And when i do DONT delete it because you like her.[[Clana4life55] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clana4life55 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't come at me with attitude. Learn how to follow Wikipedia rules, something you are clearly not familiar with. In Babe's Wikipedia article, you cannot state Babe as unpopular or that she was possibly killed off due to her unpopularity...unless you have a valid source stating such. Second, not all references have links. Third, the reason Babe was not killed when Alexa Havins was in the role is because despite Babe being an unpoular character, she was a major character and was a part of a popular romance. Yes, the J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey romance was a very popular one while Havins was in the role. Surely, you have seen many people on the soap opera message boards relay that the chemistry between Jacob Young and Alexa Havins was/is some of the best chemistry ever, and that while they hated Babe, they liked the J.R. and Babe romance or at least their chemistry and that they prefer Havins as Babe. It is well-known that Amanda Baker has not been well-received as Babe. Babe staying on canvas before then was not about Babe being Megan McTavish's favorite (as if we even know that she was McTavish's favorite), especially considering that the new head writers after McTavish kept Babe on as well. If Havins were still here, I guarantee Babe would not be getting killed off. I can add sources that state that Baker was not well-received in this role.

I am not getting into an edit war with you. I already gave you a warning about adding unsourced stuff. Keep it up, and you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia for however long is deemed. And, oh, I do not delete stuff on Wikipedia that has valid sources; you surely insulted me with that little assumption. I did not even add that new material about Baker getting killed off as Babe. I also do not like Babe. I don't hate her either. I just happen to have liked her dysfunctional romance with J.R. Chandler when Havins was in the role. Flyer22 (talk) 06:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No one came to you with attitude, calm your self. And I can can get sources claiming Babe Chandler was unpopular. If I cant put Babe is unpopular thats why she has been killed off then you cant put its because the recast was not welcomed. I for one thought she was great but still hated the character. Mctravish loved the character of babe it was widely known. I changed it to "The reason behind their decision to kill babe has not been stated" because its only fare. We don't know why so lets WAIT before making judgments.

You claim its ok to not have a link saying its the recast that caused the character to be killed off but its not ok to have one if I say its because of the character's popularity. Edit(I just read Soap Central and it was storyline dictated. See we were both wrong.) Clana4life55

You did come at with me with an attitude, and you are the one who needs to calm down. Newbies often act the way you are acting now. And Soap Opera Central is not Gospel. And, yes, it was storyline dictated, as well as due to the recast (Baker) not being well-received as Babe. If you can add valid sources stating Babe as unpopular, then do. But that still does not take away from the fact that most people (judging by the Internet) did not like Baker as Babe, and prefer Havins in the role. They prefer Havins even while hating Babe. McTavish loving Babe does not mean that Babe was/is favorite character. I did not say that it is okay not to have a link saying it is the recast that caused the character to be killed off. I stated that not all references have links, which is okay. A reference needs to be there, whether a url is provided with it or not. If you were familiar with Wikipedia, you would know this. The statement in the article is not even saying that Babe was killed off due to the recast not being well-received. It is stating that it has not been stated if that was a reason. That paragraph also has a source. Your constant reverting is dismissing sourced material. Do not revert again, or you will be blocked. This is the last warning I am giving you about that. Either you learned nothing from your last revert war and block, or you are just very stubborn and do not care to abide by Wikipedia's rules. If that is the case, then you do should not be editing Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You could add, "However, website Soap Opera Central states that the decision was Storyline dictated" beside the part about the recast possibly being the reason. But you had better add that Soap Opera Central source along with that sentence. Flyer22 (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

For now, I decided to remove that sentence until I better reconstruct that section, but it will be back, and placed with a valid source right after that statement so that there is no misunderstanding that it is, in fact, sourced. Flyer22 (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You keep contracting your self but I'm not going to argue nay longer. What I have a problem with is the fact that Babe's death was so quickly added to wiki. Should it have waited until the characters actual death. I mean I cant wait for her death but it is spoiling it for some who don't read spoilers. clana4life55 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clana4life55 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I have not been contradicting myself. I take it that "contradicting" is the word you meant. And, well, Babe's death being added so quickly does not go against WP:CRYSTAL, since it is notable and is a confirmed fact to happen. It was added by an IP editor, and I did not feel like reverting, since that person added a valid source with that information, as well as an update to the Storyline section in such a well-suited way, and, like I said, it is notable. WP:Spoiler also does not seem to have a problem with it. A lot of editors, usually newbies or relative newbies, are still not as familiar with how Wikipedia works as they should be. I am glad that at least you, as a newbie, figured that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, however. Flyer22 (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Changed some of the my last paragraph in this section at -- Flyer22 (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Danity Kane fan reaction

My objection was to the lengthy exact quotes. A brief summation would not be objectionable.—Kww(talk) 19:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I cut it down, and did not use the exact quotes. Flyer22 (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Danity Kane Break Up

The problem is not so much the fan reaction as much as it is the fact that this page is basically a "biography of living persons" so what is written about the members of the group needs to more closely adhere to the rules regarding content. Specifically that paragraph seems more heavily weighted to one point of view rather than another, which violates the neutral point of view rule. "Fans" are not "experts" so their words should be applied carefully especially when regarding a living person.

There is no mention of the point of view that O'Day was correctly removed from the group (which does appear on the sites referenced). This gives undo weight to the point of view presented. Either both points of view should be presented or the other point of view should be removed.

I'm also very cautious to add somewhat inflammatory points of view like: "Adding to the backlash Richard has received due to the breakup, fans have commented that the group should decline doing interviews about the matter; the feeling of no longer trusting Richard." Fans in this case are watching a heavily edited reality program. They are not experts on this topic because of their limited point of view, and Richards is a living person. (Plus grammatically that sentence makes no sense.) Allisann (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

What you are going for is WP:CENSOR. And, specifically, that paragraph is not "more heavily weighted" to one point of view rather than another, and does not violate the neutral point of view rule. It relays both that some fans are angry about the breakup and others feel that the group will be as strong as they were before, which gets across the point that some are not broken up about O'Day and Woods being removed from the group. Of course, fans are not experts so their words should be applied carefully, especially when regarding living people, which is what I did. I made clear to note that they are fans and these are fans reactions gauged by MTV News. Not that I would feel that anyone is an expert about this breakup, anyway. I surely cut down the inflammatory tone of what is originally stated in that MTV source. You say "that there is no mention of the point of view that O'Day was correctly removed from the group (which does appear on the sites referenced)." Well, I point out that there is only one site (MTV) referenced in that paragraph, and that that reference does not state that some are happy that O'Day is removed from the group, which is why I did not relay that information. It cannot be relayed without a valid source. If you can found a valid source stating that some are happy that O'Day is removed from the group, then add it, though it should not be made to seem that it is coming from MTV posters...unless that source is actually saying/showing that it is coming from MTV posters. But why just focus on O'Day? Some people have stated that they do not care that D. Woods has been removed from the group either. If anyone is not being neutral, it is MTV in reporting what they did in that source. The point is...is that paragraph that I typed up does give both sides. When it was longer, it was a bit more uneven, but it is definitely neutral now. Just because it does not outright state that some are completely okay with O'Day and Woods being gone from the group does not mean that people will not/cannot grasp that fact by the statement that some feel that the group will be as strong as they were before.

As for being very cautious to add "somewhat inflammatory" points of view like: "Adding to the backlash Richard has received due to the breakup, fans have commented that the group should decline doing interviews about the matter; the feeling of no longer trusting Richard." I will state that fans, in this case, watching a heavily edited reality program does not mean that the fact that Richard has received fan backlash should not be reported. It should most definitely be reported, seeing as it is a notable fact and relates to this breakup. It does not matter that fans are not experts on this topic because of their limited point of view. As if even the group members are experts about this breakup, seeing as they were/are confused, besides O'Day's new image, about the breakup of this group. And the sentence, "Adding to the backlash Richard has received due to the breakup, fans have commented that the group should decline doing interviews about the matter; the feeling of no longer trusting Richard." That sentence grammatically making no sense was originally, "Adding to the backlash Richard has received due to the breakup, fans have commented that the group should decline doing interviews about the matter; the feeling of no longer trusting Richard has been expressed." An editor changed it to that other version. I will restore it back to its original version. If you still feel that it is grammatically incorrect even then, then fix it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this statement--"If anyone is not being neutral, it is MTV in reporting what they did in that source." And it's part of why I question why that particular source was used and challenge the neutrality of the paragraph. There have been other articles written by equally biased sources that state other points of view. The fact that this is the only one expressed in this article seems to give undo weight to certain opinions and doesn't reflect the multiple points of view on the topic. But if the solution is to write up all fan views on the opinion I think that would give undo weight to fan opinions in general. A simple: "fan reactions were mixed" probably would have sufficed. Especially considering some of the fans both aren't experts and disparaged a living person.Allisann (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I used MTV because that is the first source I came across about the fan reactions. I did not bother to look for any more, because I did not feel that any other source was reporting on fan reactions to this breakup. I still do not feel that the way I presented that paragraph is biased. If there are other valid sources that state fans' opinions about this matter and as being happy that O'Day is gone from the group or okay with Woods being gone from the group, then I am fine with including that information. I do not, however, feel that a simple "Fan reactions were mixed" statement will suffice. Usually, after a statement like that, we state how fan reactions were mixed, exactly what the fan reactions were. Otherwise, stating that fans reactions were mixed is pointless. Flyer22 (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

user:The Real One Returns

Randy might be back in this user. will you check it out for me? --M42380 (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

He's always back. All we can do is revert him and ban him, each and every time. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

User:85.226.75.245

who is editing Nicole/EJ/Sami's unborn child won't stop. I will update this in couple of days to find out what happens/--M42380 (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll see about this soon. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

another user and i caught on to him or her again updating the "names" of the babies that are currently expecting. --M42380 (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Supermodels

Hey,

Sorry I am not very good with editing and computers and am scared to add a reference in case I stuff up the page.

I don't think that article is very reliable. It's basically only about Tyson Beckford with a reference to Lundqvist and Schenkenberg here and there. Not very recent as well.

I'm quite a fashion junkie (lol) and those 3 are definitely supermodels though. Ballou, Bergin (more actor) and a few of the others aren't male supermodels.

All the male models listed are commercial models (the sex appeal ones), and that isn't a very reliable source considering there is editorial, catwalk, high fashion high end industries as well. Bergin has never done a proper catwalk or high fashion spread in his life.

As I said, I am awful with editing so would prefer if someone else did it. Just putting in my input. But I think this section definitely needs to be addressed as it isn't very factual.

The models.com is a good ranking system because it is based upon current male supermodels like Mathias (face of Gucci, Hugo Boss), Sean (face of GQ, Calvin Klein), Eddie (face of Prada, Louis Vuitton) etc. And takes into account all of the industries. I say leave the link and the past supermodels written in the article, and then add a new revolution of male supermodels under source of models.com.

Cheers and thanks for the message,

Fro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontin (talk • contribs) 08:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll see about this soon. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Aundrea and Aubrey - Main, Main.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Aundrea and Aubrey - Main, Main.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. BJBot (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

re: Defining child sexual abuse as pedophilia in the Sexual ethics and legality section of the Sexual intercourse article

(How's that for a subject heading?)

While I agree, with some trepidation, in reply to your comment on my talk page, using the word "abuse" has some inherent flaws with it. I have posted quite an essay in this regard on the article talk page.

ps- Just saw your user page, all that reference to yourself in the third person was going over my head ;)

LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 08:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Danity Kane image

To me, it pretty clearly falls under bullet point 1 in [unacceptable image usage. If you disagree, I can put the issue on the NFCC talk page where this instance can be discussed, and we can listen to what other editors think.—Kww(talk) 01:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I disagree. Go ahead and list this issue at NFCC. Wikipedia should not have other bullet points as options if those other options are not allowed. I mean, Wikipedia also says that magazine covers should only be used for articles about those magazine covers. But just look at articles such as Jessica Alba, etc. Clearly, there are exceptions. Flyer22 (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Image

It's ok; I'll change it back. --Silvestris (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts

I have filed a request for assistance here in regard to our disagreement regarding your edits solely for the sake of discussing in the edit summary. Just wanted to let you know. --Law Lord (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

In order to help solve a disagreement you're involved in, please Review Help:Edit Summary, especially this part here. -t BMW c- 19:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks: Elisabeth Hasselbeck's article

Hi you just fixed my error on Elizabeth Hasselbeck's spouse. Thank you for that, I'll take the blame for that error. I realized it a few hours after changing it but never got around to fixing the post.

Thanks again, Ted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.91.204 (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

For your information

I suggest you see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible personal attack on user page?. fish&karate 12:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please would you consider removing the text here. Our guidelines do allow editors to keep content related to the conduct of other editors, but only for a reasonable time, to assist in preparing for dispute resolution on-wiki, and it is generally considered inappropriate to publish the contents of emails on-wiki. Since this is an old email, I hope you won't mind removing it voluntarily. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I was a relative new user when I added that section, and have not truly thought about it in a long time. It's now removed. And it's apparent that Law Lord is still trying to get me blocked/banned from this site. Tsk, SheffieldSteel, when will he ever learn? Flyer22 (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Some light reading for you:- WP:HARASS#Dealing with harassment. Thank you for your continued civility on this subject. If you need any help or advice, please get in touch. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you as well, SheffieldSteel. For all your help these past two days. Flyer22 (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)