User:KellyAna/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

LISTEN HERE

You obvious do not watch las vegas. Go watch Season 5 Episode 1 the first part on the nbc.com website. BECAUSE HE CLEARLY STAYS he wants to be married to here. NO WHERE DID I SAY ITS EXPECTED HE AND SHE WILL BE MARRIED IN THIS SEASON, that would be expected. BUT IT IS EXPECTED FROM THAT SHE AND HE WILL GET MARRIED> FROM HIS WORDS. GET IT RIGHT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.171.147 (talk) 02:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Your verbal attack will be reported. Please see WP:CIVILITY and WP:CRYSTAL before attacking another editor. And sign your comments next time. CelticGreen 02:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

MYOB

Stop vandalizing Flyer22's page. Your most recent edits ARE vandalism they also border on threatening. You DO NOT change someone else's talk pages unless it's extremely minor like adding and asterisks or a colon to fix formatting. You don't put things like ME and FLY in front of paragraphs. Proper and experienced users followed your threats and behaviour just fine without your additions. FYI ~ Flyer was right and you are wrong. Reverting vandalism isn't a violation of 3:RR. CelticGreen 23:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not vandalising. I was replying. I added me/fly to my post to fly's page as a label. It's flyers page not yours so MYOB. U dont like it?, block me.

You up above talk about verbal attacking, wtf r u doing?

Explaining things to someone is a perfectly acceptable practice on Wikipedia. Someone vandalizing another editors page is everyone's business. So I was minding my own business. Next time sign your posts with 4 tildes ~. And while you're at it, try listening and learning and stop assuming and threatening. CelticGreen 23:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Dont threaten me. You're violating the rule of thumb. Dont hurl vandalisation accusations, and MYOB.
No one threatened you. Your actions, however, are violating the WP:CIVILITY rules. CelticGreen 23:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Response

I have responded to the comment you left on my talk page. Alanraywiki 05:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

And I would have looked there without you cluttering my page. CelticGreen 11:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

West GG

I readded it as a comment to the intro. It needs to be there. Also, I have been involved in hundreds of these and never has the intro been so lopsided in presenting the situation. I did not deface the intro, just added my own comment.75.43.195.101 02:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

ALL I ASK IS YOU SHOW ME THE RULE. YOU CANT DO THAT CAN YOU!75.43.195.101 02:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
You've been reported. Go look at EVERY OTHER nomination for deletion. You cannot redo the nomination just because you want to. CelticGreen 02:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Renee Jones

I was just at my local magazine shop and I was reading the latest issue of Soap Opera Weekly which came out on Friday (I believe it had Victor and Nikki from Young and the Restless on the cover) and in the Comings and goings page on the bottom right, it had a blurb saying that Marcus Patrick and Renee Jones were both leaving the show, making Abe the only Carver in Salem. It was in the one that just came out a day ago. It's not mentioned in Soap Opera Digest though. 69.28.232.216 02:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)samusek2

It is rumoured that Lexie is leaving but there is no date and that was based on a tirade Marcus Patrick went on, not a reliable source. Renee's agent has refuted the alligations by Marcus. Please don't add her to the list based on the whining of a big baby with a big ego. CelticGreen 02:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Here is a thread confirming what I have said. I was reading the actual Comings and Goings section of the latest issue of Soap Opera Weekly, not hearing it from Marcus Patrick himself I understand what you are saying about making sure about the source, but SOW is a pretty reliable source and it was confirmed in the latest issue. Check it out yourself.69.28.232.216 03:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)samusek2
Thread? This is not a message board. Yes, Renee is rumoured to be leaving, but SOW did not have a date and it's going by comments by Marcus, not verifiable sources. As for SOW being reliable, thanks for the laugh, I fell off my chair on that one. SOW reported Joe Mascola was returning 6 months before he was even approached, remember the tent hand? and they were completely wrong. They are far from reliable and with the writers' strike, many things have changed. CelticGreen 03:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


Merger Notification

You participated in this AfD on Como West Public School. It has since been proposed that the article be merged into its suburb article per WP:LOCAL and I was wondering if you would be willing to voice your opinion on the merger here. Thanks. Twenty Years 03:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

West Garden Grove

I fixed the Nomination for Deletion page for West Garden Grove. Please dont revert it without discussing it or I will report you for the 3RR. Marinidil 06:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just reverted it back to the original format only to be in compliance with AfD policy. Sorry . . . I know a lot of work was done to sort the comments. Please realize, though, that no information was deleted. It was just reformatted to be in compliance. Alanraywiki 06:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Alan, this is just a registered account for the banned IP user that reordered it in the first place and was banned after being warned three times to stop. I reverted their edits as vandalism and admin agreed. CelticGreen 14:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it's an account of banned user Ericsaindon2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), who also created the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

John Black edit

While I do not dispute that John Black was a Roman Catholic priest (or at the very least, went through the process to use priesthood as a cover for his hitman activities for Stefano), the sentence is out of context. There is no mention of his being a priest until two paragraphs later. Thus on casual reading, the sentence appears POV and may need to be rewritten or removed completely. I will not revert, but ask only that you reread what is on the page, where the sentence is located, the lack of context surrounding it, and that this lack of context creates POV. Not to make a mountain out of a molehill or anything... --Gferley 01:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

While I admit I misread the sentance before (seeing Father and thinking priest), the line is still valid and not POV. If you watched during that time, you know it's fact, not POV. At best adding "and Marlena" would be all I would endorse. "Giving into your sexual urges" is a common phrase in soap opera magazines and is not considered POV for soaps. While it might be POV when talking about real people, it is not POV on soaps. It IS a plot line. If having sex on a conference table with a married woman isn't the inability to control one's sexual urges, I don't know what is. CelticGreen 01:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree 100% with the wording now on the page. The paragraph flows better, and I would never debate the whole giving into sexual urges as I never disagreed with your point referring to the Marlena/John affair witnessed by Samantha, just how it was out of context with its surrounding sentences. Thanks for the consideration of my edit. --Gferley 02:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I respect individuals that state their cases rather than just reverting and you had a good point. I also appreciate that you were willing to discuss rather than just edit and cry (issues other editors seem to have/use to get their way). Intelligent edits and responsible conversation make editing Wikipedia a far nicer experience. Thank you for your POV in this situation. Two heads are better than one in this case. Thank you for being proactive and constructive. CelticGreen 02:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Infoboxes

I admittedly snoop on IrishLass' talk page, we all kind of snoop on each other, IrishLass, Flyer22, and myself, the little guardians of the soaps but only reply when I think the question could be answered faster. Since she's not around in the evenings, no access where she lives I believe, I'd like to help. When you "implement" an infobox, you can't just put "soap" between "character" and "infobox" because the fields are different. She taught me to go to this page and copy the infobox and then move the information to the correct fields. I, personally, like this method better and you get all the fields. I always remove the color fields and it defaults to colored bands in the box. You can do it TAnthony's way, but it gets kind of messed up and you lose a couple of fields. Hope this helps. Feel free to ask if I've confused you. CelticGreen 01:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. I'm confused though... I have been and do copy the template exactly from the template page and fill it out. In fact, I even have the template saved in my own personal tools so I don't have to go back and forth each time. I believe I'm using the most current version of the template unless there have been some recent changes or others are making changes after I've implemented them. Thank you for explaining the situation. —Evaglow 01:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
You're doing it right. What was happening was that people were going around just putting the word "soap" inbetween character and infobox and it would look sort of like the infobox should but when you did the drop down to see relationships, those were all messed up. I'll check a couple of your boxes and let you know if your are doing it right. As long as Parents and Romances show as categories, you're doing it correctly.CelticGreen 01:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Took a look and you only have one "small" literally problem. In the new infobox, you don't add the < small > tags. Those need to be removed. It's defaulted as part of the new box layout. CelticGreen 01:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know. I'm so happy to hear about the < small > tags being a part of the layout now. Those were a pain! Thank you for the heads up. I'll make those changes. Thank you! —Evaglow 01:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
That's the advantage to having a soap editor actually making the template, he knows what a pain it is. We love him for making that change. CelticGreen 02:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Apology

CelticGreen,

I would like to apologize for my inconsiderate behavior on the Days of our Lives page. It was completely unacceptable for me to post speculation on the John Black and Lucas Roberts articles. I promise to never edit another Wikipedia page again. It is obvious that my actions are appropriate for a 3rd grade classroom. Once again, my apologies for the behavior and I hope you have a great day.

--Mrm087 23:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

CelticGreen, I know I myself have a knack for coming off badly in my messages, and so I mean this in the most positive way. Your initial warning to Mrm087 came off as a little harsh to me, considering he/she is obviously new. I get as frustrated as you do over these constant small and incorrect/misguided edits, but I've also received much-deserved criticism for my sometimes cruddy tone. What is it they say? Don't bite the newbies? LOL — TAnthonyTalk 00:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I went back and explained. And I think we both know I can come off harsh, I fully admit that. I know I need to get over my "say it how it is" ways. I tend to be matter of fact and to the point. Having dealt with User:Grant Chuggle aka User:MaryPoppins878 the last two weeks, I guess a newbie sends more of a red flag than normal especially when their first edits are to Days characters and resemble past edits by problem editors. Not an excuse, I know. Thanks for calling me on my actions. Again, sorry to you and Mrm087. CelticGreen 00:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Nah, no biggie, I'm as big a steamroller as they come! I just know it helps me when people I'm familiar with point things out to me, rather than strangers who don't know what they're talking about! — TAnthonyTalk 00:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Probably why we get along. We both "take no prisoners" and move quickly and are passionate about our pages. I do appreciate you nudging me far more than some random editor I've never encountered. Never be afraid to tell me if you think I should reconsider an action, I respect you for both your contributes and your honesty. Thanks for being a great guide through this process that is learning Wikipedia. CelticGreen 00:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


Re: Charmed

I don't care what it says, so long as it has proper grammar and the wording is clear. The point of providing Wikilinks is so that unclear words can still be used. Beyond that, I seriously dislike the addition of "the same version". This is extraneous, given that the sentence fragment about The Craft can only be referring to the aforementioned song. -- Huntster T • @ • C 17:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Because you mention that it's a cover, it could be the cover you are talking about, not the version played on Charmed. Without noting it's "the same version" it could be either song. That's why I added the phrase, for clarity. I don't tend to add frivolous words just because. I do it to make it clearer to the reader. Too many editors seem to write for themselves and not the general reader. I understand adding the Wiki links, but it doesn't mean you change the word of the link "just because." The sentence has to make sense to all. CelticGreen (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I may be missing your reasoning...are you differentiating between the Charmed theme and the LSL song because the theme is a diced version? If so, then that's fine (though still disagree with the necessity); if not, then I'm lost. Just curious. -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I have never seen The Craft, nor do I have any desire to. It's not gotten great reviews in my circles and I won't waste two hours on the movie. It took a separate search (off Wikipedia) to find out if you/the other editor meant that the version played on Charmed was the same version that was used in that POS, The Craft. I clarified the sentence so others wouldn't have to go through what I did to figure out what was meant. I've made it two sentences that make sense to someone who's never seen The Crapfest, I mean The Craft. I think what you are thinking is that I was the one who made a big deal out of the fact that the song isn't the original version. That wasn't me, that was some other editor. I was just trying to clarify it for non-Smith fans and those that have never seen that movie. I assumed the other editor is a Smith's fan that is one of those that was pissed some other band's version was used. They rewrote the sentence about a dozen times yesterday. CelticGreen (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Woah, hey, calm down. I don't care about the situation either way, so don't make some huge deal of it. And I don't know about two hours, but I simply found the soundtrack on Amazon.com that confirmed the song used in the movie was the version by Love Spit Love. Irregardless, I simply wanted to know why a specific differentiation was needed between the actual song and the Charmed theme, when they are essentially the same thing. -- Huntster T • @ • C 18:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
HUH? CALM DOWN? Who was upset? By "two hours" I meant the length of The Craft, which is the running time when it shows on television and it's not time I'm going to waste on a movie that not one person I know recommends. Here's where the basic problem is lying, I didn't make the differentiation, that was another editor. I was only trying to correct the grammar that he used. Check the edit history, you'll see all I did was trying and make the sentence friendly to readers who appreciate grammar but might have issues with the way the sentence was structured and restructured so many times. For someone who is merely trying to help with grammar, you're giving me a lot of grief and making some not so nice accusations. Where did I become uncivil or raise my voice with all caps (sans the beginning here where I emphasized your words)? I read you acted the same toward Flyer22 when she tried to help with a Charmed article. I was just trying to help because IrishLass asked for help with articles she'd edited before she left on vacation. I'll have to tell her what a "pleasant" experience it's been. CelticGreen (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I interpreted your railing against The Craft, which I too have not seen, as anger or annoyance. I apologize for that, and for the error of the two hours thing...perhaps I just need sleep. Aside from that, what accusations have I made? I never said you were uncivil or anything. I'm more confused now than before. Again, I was only trying to understand what type of differentiation was being made. Just disregard. -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I just like using any excuse to bash that hack of a movie. I guess there's a general misconception by both. Your comments came off as harsh and the "calm down" was pretty strong. Let's step back and start again. I only addressed the issue of grammar in regard to the sentence. I make no distinctions between the two versions (or is it three). I was just trying to word the sentence so if you were unfamiliar with the song, it would make sense. That was my sole role in the edit. It was the other editor Dasmian that set out to make the distinction and then made six edits to "perfect" his sentence. I was just trying to make it readable to someone who knew nothing about the song, who sang it, and where they might have heard it. That's all I was trying to do. Hope you understand my role here today. CelticGreen (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Robin

I would fully support some kind of action towards User:Robinepowell. She has continually ignored other editors comments, played the fool and claimed not to have access to policy pages, and been ignorant to Bignole by deliberately mispelling his name and leaving him comments when he has asked her not it. She is, to be honest, a pain in the ass. Although I may have been out of line when I left an angry rant on her talk page basically telling her to F off. What can I say, she pisses me off. :(  Paul  730 05:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well either she or Grant_Chuggle vandalized IrishLass' talk page. I don't think she's had problems with anyone else and it happened about the time Robin comes around. I'm sure she's pissed that NBC changed their schedule to prove Robin wrong. She's definitely unpleasant and doesn't know how to play well with others. I did like what you said to her, but I'm sure it went in one ear and out the other. CelticGreen (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
If you're going accuse me of things, at least find something truthful to accuse me of. First of all, misspelling someone's username is not something bad, just a fact of life, that EVERYONE does. I did NOT vandalize IrishLass' page, I ask her questions and she replies. What's the point of having a user page if no one is allowed to use it?
I am not "Pissed" as you so thoughtfully put it at NBC or anyone else for that matter. You make it seem as if I have some personaly grudge against the network for changing their schedule twice, so far this season for Las Vegas. Thank you so much for telling me how you really feel. I thought Wikipedia like most sites were supposed to be polite but apparently not if you're telling me where to go (which thankfully I didn't see). You're soooo nice about that, both of you. I don't how to "play well with others"? How you two? I'm guessing you've never heard of the expresion "if you can't say anything nice, don't say ANYTHING". Thank goodness I have enough mannners not to really express how I feel about people, otherwise you wouldn't like it.
P.S. I don't "refuse" to sing my comments, I never remember, maybe instead of worrying about my so called "horrible" actions on Wikipedia you can find a way to make it show up automatically. Robinepowell (talk) 07:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Learn to sign and learn to indent otherwise, don't come here. CelticGreen (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Why should I learn to indent? I actually left that behind in high school. So I forget to sign my name, sue me. I'm not perfect and neither is anyone else.
Ask me a question, if I know the answer I'll give it to you in plain simple english. If not, I'll say I don't know, in plain simple english.
I'll say it again, asking questions isn't vandalism, I hate to inform you but it's knowledge. How else does one find out things? Especially on a virtual encylopedia. Robinepowell (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Robinepowell (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Robinepowell (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Robinepowell (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, your behaviour is vandalism in a serious way. You left indentation behind in high schoo?? So you are behind the rest of the world in paragraph formatting. The word is English, not english. You obviously have grammar and spelling issues along with conformity issues. You might do well to grow up and try editing like a normal person. And who would want to ask you a question? You know nothing. CelticGreen (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes I am. I am no longer in school, so of course I have no clue what kids do today. How would I know? The high school I went to was just starting to upgrade to current computers at the time.
Besides who cares? Indenting isn't a MAJOR thing, despite what you may think. So I spell things differently then you guys. I'm Canadian. As for my grammar, it may not be perfect, but I never claimed to be perfect. I don't know "nothing"? How about I don't know "anything". Don't critize my grammar until you guys learn to do it properly.
I need to grow up? That's rich. I don't indent, I don't sign my name always and I accidently spelled another user's name incorrectly, which caused a big deal, over minor things. There are more important things to worry about then that, honestly, the things you guys nitpick over.
I ask questions (repeatedly) in order to figure you guys out and now I'm vandalizing all of you. I think you guys are getting paronoid here. Watch out, I might do something ever more horrible then that! Lol! Robinepowell (talk) 06:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
If you insist on annoying people, format your comments correctly. CelticGreen (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Las Vegas

[quote]Your edits, including the comments you leave to Bignole and Paul true border on the precipitous of incivility.[/quote]. HUH? Why do you and other Wiki users keep on using words that used on a common basis? Words I've never even heard of, I feel like I should send you a dictionary so you can look the up the meaning of the words and try and find a simpler form of the them. You wonder why I keep on saying this site is confusing or asking you to speak plain english, this is why.

As for Las Vegas main stars, I'm adding two of the former leading ladies, simply because James Caan is still listed. Why have him if you only want current main stars? Either all main stars should past and present should be listed or just the present ones. I've noticed that for the past few weeks and been meaning to change it. How is that vandalizing something including another user's page? IrishLass wants answers, I'm giving them to her. Simple as that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinepowell (talk • contribs) 07:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Not my fault that you can't understand. Rather than sending us a dictionary, maybe you should traverse to the community location where purchases of books can be transacted, and purchase yourself one. And trust me, none of us want anything from you including your vandalization to pages. Adding "the two" is vandalizing the page since they are not starring this year and James Caan did star in the current season and that season will repeat and he is scheduled to come back for a total of five episodes this year. Marsha and Nikki will never be back. Stop vandalizing pages. CelticGreen (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


any children on soaps

Why don't you edit children from any other soaps besides Days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Car5ly858 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Because I only watch Days. I don't edit things I don't know about. CelticGreen (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
that's not my problem. I have also watch Days since the beginning of 2003. I have also watch General Hospital since that time too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Car5ly858 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
So what is your problem and what are you asking? I answered your question. CelticGreen (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
than why did you erased Brady/Roberts/Wells children? --Car5ly858 (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I did what was decided by consensus, that children who are minor characters would redirect to their mothers. They don't need pages, they aren't notable, and they are supposed to redirect to their mothers. Wikipedia is about notability. Sami's children don't meet notability requirements. CelticGreen (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
what about her oldest son?--Car5ly858 (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
It will be redirected soon. The project made decision and they are being implemented by mid week next week. CelticGreen (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
what Shawn and Belle's daughter? or Bo and Hope's daughter?--Car5ly858 (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Being worked on. See the project page and try being patient. By mid-week none of them will have pages. CelticGreen (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
fine, i wouldn't days. is that okay by you? --Car5ly858 (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
In regards to the Wells/Brady/Horton-Roberts children, they have been added to the project page for all of the Children of Days. It's called Children of Salem, Days of our Lives. I was asked to BE BOLD and start the page. I asked CG, Flyer22, and TAnthony to assist. So far only CG jumped in. The children's pages are now redirected to the primary page for all Days children. The list is still growing, slowly but surely. But those with a place in the table have now been redirected to the main page for all Days' children. That's why the pages were closed/redirected. There was no need for separate articles for minor children with no real storyline. Example, Ciara Brady's entire storyline was all about Hope. Her information was merged nicely into the Hope Brady page. All the information was essentially retained, but it was put in the appropriate article. An article about Ciara is not one about Hope's divorce and fling with Patrick Lockhart. That's what's been going on. Clean up per WP:SOAPS. That's all. If you have any additional questions, I'd be happy to answer them on my talk page. Thank you all for your patience. CG, thanks for the additions while I was in hell on vacation. IrishLass (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

New section

what's the big deal if i made put the character chart for DAYS on the main page...that's where it was before. drnorth16 (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. Do not vandalize the page again by deleting sections. CelticGreen (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


Car5ly858

why are you and Relayrick ganging up on her? she's just trying to help you.--Alexis3453 (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Beating a dead horse much? Connecting the dots, CG isn't "picking" on Car5ly, not sure where you get that or why you are involved. Realkyhick is the one saying she was monitoring Car's page. Seems to me Car came to CG's page because of a project I initiated based on instructions by the WP:SOAPS project. CG hasn't said a word to Car in a couple of days. Maybe you should not concern yourself with matters that really don't concern you. IrishLass (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes it's just better to shake your head and move on. THIS is one of those time. CelticGreen (talk) 02:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
not when they seem that everything is about them. I do have the right to work on things to do. --Car5ly858 19:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
What type of nonsensical nonsense is that supposed to be? Looks like we'll all be shaking our collective heads over that comment. Definitely time to move on. IrishLass 20:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Definitely trying to move on, unfortunately Car5ly won't allow that. The poor horse isn't just beat, he's been turned into dog food. CelticGreen 18:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Go ahead and ask whoever is moving the page to discuss the moves. If no consensus is reached, I'll probably keep the block in place past its expiration date (which is the first of the new year). Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There's already a rule, Common Names. Flyer is really familiar with it. I'll get her to give me full info. Thanks so much for protecting the page. People get crazy when a character gets married. There's actually already a consensus about common names. I'll find that too. Thanks again!! CelticGreen (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Days of our Lives

Because I thought it looked well written, was very well sourced. What do you mean by outright lies being in the article? FamicomJL 00:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A soap can, and generally is, subjective but there was, I removed it, a statement saying Days was in the mid range ratings the last year. That's far from true. It's been 8th out of 9 for a year. The Brady/DiMera fued and reference to Hatfields and McCoys is the biggest joke many Days fans have ever heard. The story is a retcon to the entire history of Days by the new JOKE of a head writer. An article can look good to an outsider, but to those that watch the show, we know the article is a lie filled, inaccurate joke. Adding opinions as reference without acknowledging the source is opinion is also a lie. CelticGreen 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
What do you feel I am? I don't understand what you mean, are you saying you think I'm someone, or that I'm a certain kind of editor? And I didn't know anything about the lies in the article, my apologies. FamicomJL 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Telling someone to keep their cool/heads, however you put it, it rude and assumptive and you know what happens when people assume. Personally I do not feel that an article should be nominated for GA review by someone who knows nothing about the article/show/subject as you admitted on Mike's page that you did not. The reason being that you didn't know about the inaccuracies, the misguided sourcing, and the blatant lies. An article can appear visually fine but not be due to certain facts and issues. You'll notice no Days editors ran in to help the article. There's a reason. We knew it was far from ready. Not even close to be real honest. I'm not some "hot head" and you had no right to infer that. I really despise people assuming things. CelticGreen 00:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I never said you were a hot head. I said just to keep a cool head for that... discussion I guess you can call it? Or debate? Anyway, it doesn't mean you're a hot head that is always angry 24/7 (Which is proven from your other civil responses on this talk page.) I explained myself about the edit summary, yet you still say it makes no sense. Why does it make no sense? You never said why. And if the editor's knew it was far from ready, why wouldn't they help anyway? It's not like the nominator is the only one allowed to edit an article when it has been nominated/on hold. Or better yet, why did none of the editors take away the nomination? Editors that belong in wikiprojects are allowed to take an article off of nomination if they feel it still is a long way from being a candidate. Rather not have this as a fight, so just take away the nomination if you feel it is the right thing to do, I'd rather not have someone say something incorrectly and lead to a spat between the two of us. Regards, FamicomJL 01:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, this article should be removed. If I knew how, I would do it in a heartbeat. To ME, it is condescending to tell someone to keep a cool head. It's rude and condescending to be real honest. My point is none of the Days editors, myself, Irishlass, or others listed on the project (sorry, I only know two that edit Days articles) jumped in to clean the article up to make it good because it's too much work. It's far from ready and should never have been nominated. I would love for the show I've watched for 40 + years to have an article worthy of being rated "good" but it is not. This week the article has sparked debate, again, about tense issues. The article needs far more work than just what is listed. What I would like to know is how do you find out when articles that are part of a project are nominated so you can dispute that. I would have run in and said "stop!wait!" rather than having anyone waste their time. There's an article everyone who wants to is working on to be good and rated GA. Days is not that article. While I appreciate the attention you felt the article deserved, as a long time watcher, medium time editor, the article is just not ready if it's to be factual. CelticGreen 01:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Updated Info

If you're going to be an ass and erase my update on Sami's current storyline, please do so yourself. The page looks like crap when the info is out of date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaSartin (talk • contribs) 00:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Fiction is written in present tense so none of it should be "out of date." The page is being worked on, the info removed was your point of view not what was actually seen AND you added information already contained on the page to an incorrect section. Do not call other editors an ass when you were the one in the wrong. It violates policy. CelticGreen 00:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


about the las vegas page

hey, I still don't see the point of putting James Caan in it when he isn't in the show. If the other people out there are watching it when he is in the show then you might as well change all the articles like this one.

I get where your coming from, and I would support you if it wern't for the fact that there are tons of articles stating spoilers when some people haven't seen it yet.

thanks,

71.135.114.133 02:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter "what you see" it matters what is fact. James Caan starred in the current season. He is scheduled to be back again this season. Therefore, he remains listed for the 07-08 season. CelticGreen 02:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Really? But not, I bet, as a main star, probably a guest star. I can even guess when he and possibly Cheryl Ladd will be back. When Molly Sims' character has her baby. So, both he and Nikki Cox were listed in the main credits and appeared in Season 5, why not have them both listed? Robinepowell (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not about guessing. It's about facts and verifiable content. Sorry you have issues with that, as you've clearly expressed time and again, but that's the way Wikipedia works.CelticGreen (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

LISTEN

CelticGreen the proper order is the order they AIR, not PRODUCED. Many tv shows make episodes and the network reorders them. Gary Scott Thompason CREATOR AND HEAD WRITER of the SHOW. has stated this in interviews, since the two episodes relating to Danny's uncle were going to originally air in the last month of the show before the finale. But the writers strike caused him and the network to make a compromise to air it early. Fearing a possible cancellation, since the writers strike 1988 caused some successful shows to be cancelled. This was told by ET a while back in november.24.11.171.147 (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking bad

I don't see it that way. For one thing, the only way a project looks good is by creating Good Articles or Featured Articles. "Completionist" pages only serve to obscure the good stuff, and reinforce people's stereotypes about soap opera fans. Encyclopedias are supposed to be scholarly, and one aspect of scholarly articles is that they survive review. Also, if a user looks at one of the tagged articles they might become motivated to add citations, and your project may gain members. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

One edit removed

Hey, I removed a comment that was uncivil. You may, of course, see it in history but as mad as you were last night, revisiting such problems with non-involved users would not be best for Wikipedia. This AnteaterZot issue should be tabled and avoided based on all the additional issues it is causing. I made a final statement on Village Pump this morning. Let's move on. Please. IrishLass (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Make that two. I removed another one this morning. People need to learn to be civil. IrishLass (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It was not appropriate for you to remove these. It is not at all incivil to point out a mathematical error that is unrelated to the dispute and try to teach the user the correct way to consider percentages. It's not a matter of "thinking" someone is wrong either, basic arithmetic facts are not up for debate. —Random832 15:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It is completely uncivil to act as a superior person. If I have been asked to watch a talk page for someone, it gives me the right to remove condescending diatribes such as the one you placed here. Then again, maybe I should really just let her rip you the new one she would inevitably give you. BTW, check history, you are the second person to pull the "this is how you do math" BS. IrishLass (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[1] says "It's 11 divided by 7000 which equals 0.0015714285714285714285714285714286 therefore .001 percent." - this implies "It's 3500 divided by 7000 which equals 0.5 therefore 0.5 percent" - do you actually think that 3500 of 7000 is 0.5% and not 50%? The problem is not the division, that was absolutely correct - the only issue is the interpretation of that result as a percentage—Random832 16:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Is that your idea of being civil to someone? And you report me. I can't wait until tomorrow to see the new one she rips you. I'll be laughing my azz off.IrishLass (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


Nitpicking about percentages.

Sorry, but this bugs me and I have to get it of my chest.

100% of 7000 is 7000
10% of 7000 is 700
1% of 7000 is 70
0.1% of 7000 is 7
11 out of 7000 is about 0.15%.

If you do work every day with percentages I suggest you improve on them.

thx. Taemyr (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


Percentages

I saw this on the village pump... You're actually wrong - it's a common mistake, though. In fact, there is no integer that is so small as .001% of 7000 - 1 is .014% of 7000. If 11 were .001% of 700, then by the same logic 3500 would be .5% of 7000, and 7000 would be 1% of 7000 - do you see the problem there? —Random832 15:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:

I just want to address the whole removing comments from my page. I have asked her to do that if she sees something she knows I'll flame at and since there was already an issue over the percentage thing, she was right to remove it. She emailed me first, so I knew, but she did it so I wouldn't get my foot caught in my mouth telling people where to go. Sorry such a simple favor that I asked to be done caused such an issue, but it might have gotten bigger and more noses out of joint if the comments had been left. CelticGreen (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC) [2]

(responding here rather than on WQA because it's closed there and this is just one question for you) I just don't understand why you're not willing to, you know, listen to people when they try to explain something. Why should this be "something you'll flame at" in the first place? Part of what bothered me was that I could not imagine how my explanation of percentages could have possibly been offensive or "inflammatory". And the reason I brought it up is that, even if you know what you meant, .001 percent is a MUCH smaller percentage (1 out of 100,000) than the actual amount (11 out of 7,000) of .15%, so it can be misleading for other users. —Random832 15:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


One edit removed

Hey, I removed a comment that was uncivil. You may, of course, see it in history but as mad as you were last night, revisiting such problems with non-involved users would not be best for Wikipedia. This AnteaterZot issue should be tabled and avoided based on all the additional issues it is causing. I made a final statement on Village Pump this morning. Let's move on. Please. IrishLass (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Make that two. I removed another one this morning. People need to learn to be civil. IrishLass (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It was not appropriate for you to remove these. It is not at all incivil to point out a mathematical error that is unrelated to the dispute and try to teach the user the correct way to consider percentages. It's not a matter of "thinking" someone is wrong either, basic arithmetic facts are not up for debate. —Random832 15:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It is completely uncivil to act as a superior person. If I have been asked to watch a talk page for someone, it gives me the right to remove condescending diatribes such as the one you placed here. Then again, maybe I should really just let her rip you the new one she would inevitably give you. BTW, check history, you are the second person to pull the "this is how you do math" BS. IrishLass (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[3] says "It's 11 divided by 7000 which equals 0.0015714285714285714285714285714286 therefore .001 percent." - this implies "It's 3500 divided by 7000 which equals 0.5 therefore 0.5 percent" - do you actually think that 3500 of 7000 is 0.5% and not 50%? The problem is not the division, that was absolutely correct - the only issue is the interpretation of that result as a percentage—Random832 16:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Is that your idea of being civil to someone? And you report me. I can't wait until tomorrow to see the new one she rips you. I'll be laughing my azz off.IrishLass (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please explain, explained

You made a personal decision without consulting the WP:SOAPS project or anyone who has ever worked on a Days of our Lives article to add the template to the bottom of every character page. Please explain why you did not first try and discuss this personal decision first. I do note that it was a personal decision on your part because we were told to clean up the pages and shorten them and the template makes them longer and makes stub pages look worse. Also, the templates are to remain in alpha order and contain common names, not married names. KellyAna (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, I made a personal decision to add the template to the bottom of every character page. I did not first try and discuss this personal decision first because I was unaware that I had to consult the WP:SOAPS project or anyone who has ever worked on a Days of our Lives article before making changes to such articles.
As to why I did it, which I suppose is what you're looking for, I saw this huge, nice template somebody made, which was only linked to a handful of other pages. Nowhere did I see anything that said not to add a show template to a character page, so I made the changes. I thought it would be a helpful way to improve the articles, and to get some more use out of the template, which someone obviously worked hard on. Please show me where it says not to put a template in a character page, and I'll personally go back and remove every one of them myself.
As for the template itself, it was out of alphabetical order beforehand. All I did was fix links which were redirecting, or were pointed toward disambiguation pages or, even worse, links which were pointed toward British fashion retailers. The names themselves in the template remained exactly as they were; only the internal links were changed. Again, I was only trying to help. MWB1138 (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Add to that a question of did you use AWB or do it manually?? Also please provide an edit summary when making many sweeping change. It assists other edits to understand why mass changes are being made to articles.KellyAna (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it was all manual, baby. As far as edit summaries, I'll usually provide them when I personally consider them necessary. Please note that I included edit summaries in my edits to the template page. But adding a template to a character page, when that character page is already included in the template, doesn't qualify as a "sweeping change," as far as I'm concerned. It's more like an "improvement." MWB1138 (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I am advised

Your rudeness is noted and if it happens again, you will be reported. You do NOT call other editors "baby" and at best if I can find an admin around this weekend, I'm having them come in and note your incivility and disrespect. I am not your "baby" and that was rude. KellyAna (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Relax. It's just a way of speaking. I certainly wasn't inferring that you were my "baby." I think any rational third-party would be hard-pressed to find any rudeness, incivility, and disrespect in my comments, but please feel free to report me if it makes you feel better. Thanks. MWB1138 (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Linebreaks

Why are you changing <br/> into <br>? Ilkali (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Where? We don't even edit the same types of articles and I have always done line breaks without the / and they work just fine. I've never edited one article you have so what are you talking about? KellyAna (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Example: [4]. What's the reason behind this change? Ilkali (talk) 11:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
What is the reason you are asking? Did you bother to read the edit summary or are you just attempting to annoy me with a question for questions sake? Are you implying there is something wrong with the edit or does it just bother your personal sensibilities? Again, you've given no reason for asking about an edit made three weeks ago. A single edit, not a pattern, just a single edit. Your original question implies I'm running all over Wikipedia changing it everywhere.KellyAna (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The edit summary says it's per "wiki formatting guidelines", but I've never seen these guidelines. I think the edit is detrimental (which in itself is enough reason to ask about it, I think), but I don't know everything and I'm open to being shown that I'm wrong. I apologise if I gave the wrong impression with my original question. Ilkali (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
It is common practice to only use <br> for a break, the additional forward slash is not needed and removing it is not "detrimental" to an article because the forward slash is not needed. Looking at the reference, no harm was done. Seems as though this issue is causing strife, might it be best to move on since no harm was done to the article? Just a thought, I was here on a soap related matter and saw this. IrishLass (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
It's clear that you're not going to answer my very reasonable question. Let me explain this to you, then: Wikipedia is served as XHTML, and <br> is not valid XHTML. That's why the Image:Button_enter.png button inserts <br />, and it's also why <br> is converted to <br /> behind the scenes when a page is displayed. It's why your edit had no noticeable effect on the article's structure, and it's why there is no formatting guideline recommending the use of <br>, contrary to what you claimed in your edit summary. The extra work needed to parse the Wiki code is fairly negligible, which is why I don't campaign to get everybody to use the correct formatting, but when people are actually changing correct markup to incorrect markup, I feel I should intervene. Please don't change things that you don't understand. Ilkali (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Why would someone actively cause strife between themselves and another editor over ONE change made by a person? Did you know that the code buttons at the top do not work on IE6? Did you know that just using the <<< symbols around the br work? So what is up with you purposefully attacking someone for no good reason when they have clearly done nothing wrong (you'll note that there was conversation about this between Kelly and another editor who told her it was fine what she did). Your behaviour is notably uncivil. Those of us that don't rely on the buttons at the top do as we've been taught and since I taught Kelly to do the line break without a forward slash I find your post particularly offensive. As she has done nothing wrong, do not tell others what they can and can't do or what they do and do not understand. Kelly, ignore what was said, it doesn't matter if you have a forward slash or not (why take all that extra time?) and just keep working on your articles and ignore people who don't even work on the same articles as we do who are only trying to cause issues where there are none. Happy New Year!! IrishLass (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
"Why would someone actively cause strife between themselves and another editor[...]" - Asking someone for the reasons behind an edit is pretty common on Wikipedia, and is not "actively caus[ing] strife". Being uncooperative and evasive in the face of such a query, on the other hand...
"[...] over ONE change made by a person?" - It's over a misconception, not a change. The change is just an example consequence of that misconception. I'm going to reiterate, because you apparently missed it the first time: I am not taking issue with her using invalid markup. I am taking issue with her replacing valid markup with invalid markup.
"Your behaviour is notably uncivil" - Virtually everybody who disagrees with KellyAna's actions is at some point accused of incivility. I wasn't expecting to be an exception. Ilkali (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
She didn't accuse you, I did. I find you telling someone not to do something that is perfectly acceptable is uncivil and your tone only lends to that. Ignoring someone's question is not being evasive, it's moving on when others would rather beat a dead horse. Telling someone to do or not do something that is of no consequence is uncivil in my opinion. You have been told that your actions are causing strife, yet you continue to beat the dead horse over a one-time edit on a page you don't even edit. Makes one wonder how you found the edit and why you felt the need to bring it up three weeks later. I find that when you can see that a user has been online and they choose to ignore your comments, it's time to move on, not beat the horse into dog food. As she did nothing wrong, you should likely move on. If her edit had been so heinous, someone would have come along three weeks ago. As they didn't, it's your hang up, not a gross error. IrishLass (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
You don't actually read much of what people say, do you? Ilkali (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure I do. But what I know is that in all the months I've been editing, and all the thousands of times I've used a line break, no one has ever pitched such a fit over how I do breaks and, as I stated, since I'm the one that told Kelly how to do them because the buttons at the top don't work on IE6 (which is why I use Firefox), I take offense the attack you've launched and the statements that the mark up is invalid when it clearly is not. IrishLass (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, because you missed it twice: I am not taking issue with her using invalid markup. I am taking issue with her replacing valid markup with invalid markup. Did you read it that time? Here it is again, just in case: I am not taking issue with her using invalid markup. I am taking issue with her replacing valid markup with invalid markup.
"I take offense the attack you've launched and the statements that the mark up is invalid when it clearly is not" - You don't know what XHTML is, you don't know how its syntax works, you don't know the technical difference between <br> and <br/>, and you don't know what the term 'valid' means in this context. It's ridiculous that you and KellyAna have dragged this tiny matter so far out of proportion with your stubborn refusal to accept that she might've done something even slightly wrong. It shouldn't be a big deal - after all, the effect isn't even visible to the user - but you've managed to make it into one. I've continued this discussion with a kind of grim fascination, but now it's far past time to call it quits. I'm sorry I couldn't get through to you. Ilkali (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't let the door hit you on the way out. You could have just let it go, but, clearly, it's impossible for you to do. She didn't answer when she clearly had the time, but you pushed. Seems to me you are the one making mountains out of molehills and beating dead horses. As for what I do and don't know, you don't know what I do and don't know so try not stating things as fact when you clearly do not know. As it stands, I really just don't care. What I care about is your repetative rude behaviour over a freaking slash that doesn't make any difference. A freaking slash that was previously indicated as acceptable. Seriously, with such behaviour, how could you possibly think you could get through to anyone? IrishLass (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
For the record, and probably why Kelly won't ever reply, there's already a discussion about these edits here. I can tell you from experience, redundant questions tend to be ignored as "already answered." IrishLass (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Kristen Renton/Morgan Hollingsworth

According to soapcentral, the member on the message boards, known for his insights and detailed information posts, cited that Renton is now on contract, effective immediately. His name will be anonymous, because there is no reason for anyone, like you who is questioning my source, to locate his post. However, you may do that on your own time. Also, this is not an idea. Thank you so very much.71.255.62.199 04:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

What does "also this is not an idea" mean? Doesn't matter, you are wrong. Unsourced information, rumours from the internet, "some guy" are not sufficient to cite as references on Wikipedia. Since you feel there's "no reason for anyone to locate this post" it is obviously false information. Someone with legitimate forces isn't afraid to say where they got their information. CelticGreen (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Vandalism refers only to bad faith edits, and accusing good faith edits of being vandalism is generally considered to be a personal attack. The section, to be blunt, sucks. It relies on sources that do not even use the word "supercouple," and its examples are utter nonsense - Buffy The Vampire Slayer never got ratings high enough to possibly be a supercouple - it was notable only to SF/Fantasy fans and die hard TV watchers. And Mulder and Scully, while a fine example of a will they or won't they couple, are dwarfed by Moonlighting. The section, as it stands, is trash. There's a good section to be written on the subject, but this isn't it. I am sure that primetime supercouples exist. Go find sources that actually use the word supercouple, though, and broaden your references beyond SF/Fantasy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It "sucks" in YOUR OPINION. You removed verifiable, referenced content. That's vandalism. And on a personal note ~ I don't watch sci-fi but very much enjoyed Buffy. CelticGreen (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Buffy is one of my favorite shows of all time. However, its ratings were terrible compared to most TV shows - it aired on a 5th and 6th string network and at its high point pulled ratings that would have gotten it cancelled on any other network. The content, meanwhile, wasn't referenced - it was OR. None of the sources mention supercouples. For an article on supercouples, that's a pretty big problem with the referencing. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The references dont have to say SUPERcouple. Your removal is vendictive and self serving. The section is well sourced and does not have to say supercouple only has to note strong support for the couple. Your removal is obviously personal and not contributal to an encyclopedia. CelticGreen (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
For an article on supercouples, yes - the word supercouple has to be used. This does not strike me as a particularly onerous requirement - if the term isn't used to describe these couples then they are not supercouples in any verifiable sense. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
No it doesn't. Read the supercouple article to understand what the criteria is, maybe then you'll get it. CelticGreen (talk) 05:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I have. This makes me even more sure that the examples are poorly chosen - neither Buffy/Angel nor Mulder/Scully are particularly financially successful, for instance. And, more to the point, it is OR to declare that a couple is a supercouple if nobody previously has done so. Please read our basic content policies WP:V and WP:NOR. This section flagrantly violates them. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
In any case, I hope you'll at least take this dispute to the talk page of the article, which is a more appropriate place to have it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The word 'vandalism' has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, described at WP:VANDALISM. No good faith edit is ever vandalism, and using the term incorrectly only serves to alienate others. In this case, it would be more productive to discuss ways that the section could be improved, rather than describing Phil's attempts to improve the encyclopedia inaccurately. Phil's concern that the source is being interpreted in violation of WP:NOR is well founded and warrants discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have issue with discussing the subject matter. I don't even have issue with adding a citation needed tag. I do have issue removing entire sections of an article because WP:IDONTLIKE which is why he deleted the entire section. Rather than stating it needed improvement, he mass deleted. That's just ridiculous. There are plenty of things on Wikipedia I don't like or think should be here, but I at least go through proper channels to delete them. CelticGreen (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
There isn't any proper channel for removing a section from an article; the basic premise of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit any article, as long as it is done in good faith. That includes removing information. In this case, I think Phil is concerned that it might be original research to use a set of criteria we have fashioned to identify characters as supercouples when we don't have any reliable source that makes that identification. That is a subtle issues, because it's right at the edge of what might be permissible. Maybe you could pose the question on WT:NOR, to see what others think. That would bring some other opinions into the discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Really? Anyone can edit articles? NO!! I didn't know that. Okay, end of sarcasm. I disagree with you that removing entire sections of an article with an edit summary that they person doesn't like the section because it's all about sci/fi "Rm section - none of the cited sources refer to the couples mentioned as supercouples, and section was absurdly SF/Fantasy biased" That's personal opinion which is not good faith editing. Removing it because he didn't feel the citations were enough, not lacking, just not enough in his opinion. Flyer22 has gone to great pains to make sure citations reference super, power, notable couple when including. Phil came along and just deleted the section because he didn't like the citations that were there. At least they were there. If he didn't like the citations, he should have requested more, not deleted a sourced section. I read the OR policy this morning, for the umpteenth time. It does not say that sourced information is OR, it says unsourced info is OR. The section is not OR regardless of Phil's opinion. CelticGreen (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Do the sources literally say the couples are 'supercouples'? If so, you should point that out to Phil, and I think it will satisfy him. If they don't, that's an issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I seriously doubt he is in and of the mindset to be reasonable. Even Google searches and links do not satisfy HIS criteria. Apparently even Google isn't enough for him. I Googled supercouple = powercouple and got numerous hits and gave the link and one specific links that he apparently doesn't like the name of and claims it's "just a blog" regardless of evidence to the contrary. I don't like the name TMZ but I don't discount their reliability. The link provided was simply to indicate that the URL said "supercouple" but the story read "powercouple." To me that's enough to show that the two words are interchangable, but to Phil they are not. Reasonable at this point is doubtful. CelticGreen (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Carl, my opinion has only grown stronger. He's being difficult for the sake of being difficult, not to improve the article. The horse is dead, he keeps beating it and discounts every source given. There's no dealing with people like that. I know, I've encountered them before here. Good luck to Flyer. I gave Phil his precious final word to my comments. I doubt he'll move on though. CelticGreen (talk) 05:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think he's being difficult for its own sake. The issue seems to be the scope of the word supercouple - whether it includes all well known couples, or only ones that have been explicitly identified as supercouples. Phil will probably be very vocal in making his case, but I am sure he will work in good faith to improve the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Message from newradkid

Ok look. Ford Decker was a storyline for two months ok. And That part about Stefano needs to be added, because that is part of the brady/dimera fued!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newradkid (talk • contribs) 19:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Addition of false information and assumptions/speculation is not allowed. You're vandalizing the page by adding false information. CelticGreen (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
And it is not false information. Ok maybe we should make a Event page for days or our lives. Cause the page is just going to keep getting bigger and bigger and bigger, cause Days is still on the air! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newradkid (talk • contribs) 19:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Try understanding what the page is about before continual disruptive editing INCLUDING how you reply to other users comments. No, an event page is not needed. This is an encyclopedia, not a summary review of soap operas.CelticGreen (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I urge you to stop detagging

I see that you are detagging articles on extremely weak characters. I request that you stop. AnteaterZot (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Conflict with AnteaterZot

Listen, you really need to take a deep breath and step back for a second here. "Urge" is not a threat word, and AnteaterZot also did state "I request you to stop." I'm not going to get involved in your argument, but you really need to keep your cool and perhaps have a cup of tea. GlassCobra 04:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't start with "listen" and expect me to read any of what follows. I'm not a teenager and I don't take kindly to "listen" starting a statement. That's reserved for children and I'm far from a child. CelticGreen (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I apologize. I'm trying to defuse tempers here, not start anything else. I'm merely asking you to be more civil. GlassCobra 04:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Take HIS side in his spamming efforts, take his side in his threats, that's fine. I'm cool, I'm not uncivil. I was the one threatened. He's the spammer tagging like a gang banger. When "urging" someone to do something it is always an "or else" proposition. Obviously the fact that you are involved the "or else" was "I'll tell on you and get an admin involved" even though I only removed three unnecessary tags. I strongly disagree with their spamming, that's not uncivil, that's fact. CelticGreen (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I clearly stated that I am not getting involved in the argument, and certainly not taking anyone's side. I have not looked into either your or AnteaterZot's contributions. Urging is most definitely not an "or else" proposition; and indeed, AnteaterZot has stated that he is not trying to threaten you. GlassCobra 04:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Your AN/I thread and my discussion of your edits

I was reviewing the SarekOfVulcan thread, and was curious by some of what I saw when I looked back through his contributions...and saw the reverting that you were doing. I questioned why on AN/I, and IrishLass correctly pointed out that I should have come here with it first. Sorry for not doing that. This is the subsection where I brought it up. --Onorem♠Dil 15:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw the edits, some of which were very wrong, and just edited or reverted stuff. He appeared to be stalking and I was creeped out and didn't want to see his name on my watchlist, plain and simple. I'm sure admitting that is some sort of violation but it was weird to see so many edits by a person who's never participate in the Days articles. I didn't touch any other than the ones on my watchlist and only reverted edits I felt were wrong. Maybe they weren't, but at the time, my feelings were different. CelticGreen (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Message to Random

In answer to your repetitive question. I removed it once, that should have told you I was done with the issue. Since you persisted again, I'll say it outright ~ I am done with the issue. I will NEVER answer you. Please just move on. Thank you.CelticGreen (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

name change

See Wikipedia:Changing username. It's a pretty simple process, actually. Mangojuicetalk 03:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. If I get my wish I'll be KellianaCat. Kelliana ~ the name I wish I was born with or had given one of my daughters. Cat ~ I have soooooooooooooooo many. CelticGreen (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Congrats on the new name. :) Mangojuicetalk 04:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. You think people will know I'm a female now?  :^) KellyAna (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Reverts

I would say that all of the edits you made to the article were fine. I wouldn't have manually removed the slashes myself, but I also wouldn't have replaced them as Xihr did. I can't understand why they'd waste time reverted that change. I don't think a formatting issue is worth getting too upset over though. In the issue with SofV's edits, I wouldn't have brought it up if there had only been a few reverts that only had to do with formatting in the background. It was this revert that really confused me...and then I noticed other edits which, while not wrong, seemed to be unnecessary. I do think it's kind of funny that if he'd have followed his own advice to start with, there'd be nothing to potentially be upset about. --Onorem♠Dil 02:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Your signature

Question: Why are you signing your posts with your old username? Since that user does not exist, the user pages technicallyshould be deleted per WP:CSD#U2, which would delete the redirects here, also. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I understand. I only ever use the four tildes to sign. I'll do it here and we'll see what happens. KellyAna (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, as you can see, it's my new user name showing up when I sign so I'm not sure what the problem you are seeing is. KellyAna (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, I didn't check your other posts. I did notice this one. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
That's old. I just got the name change over the weekend. I wondered what was going on when you said it wasn't working. I didn't think I should go resign things because it would throw off the dates. KellyAna (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh really? I didn't do my homework on this one, just noticed the difference. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The comment I made was the 9th and I got the name change on the 15th. So it appears to just be just timing. KellyAna (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Nick Fallon Consensus? Where?

I definitely respect consensus; but there's no mention of retaining 'Fictional' on Nick Fallon's talk page. Please verify the consensus. Rcej (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, I have no clue where to find it, all I know is I bitched, was told "this is what we decided" and I conform. It's not about the one article, it's about ALL the soap articles. It could have been on one of 100 pages of soap articles I've talked on or one of 3000 soap articles. The project made the decision and I questioned it months ago, I am not able to find it now. Fact is, I was told to do it that way, I'm going to do all soap articles that way. I just let you know out of courtesy so you understood my edit. KellyAna (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Heh. We'll take this discussion to my place... getting my words mixed up. Rcej (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello

See, I went and responded to all your comments over on my page, to keep things simple, and now nearly thirty minutes have gone by, and you haven't responded, whereas with the responses I made here, you replied in literally seconds. This is why the talk page stuff is confusing to me. How do you know where to respond? Anyway, at this point, from your lack of reply, I can only assume two things: That you haven't seen my response yet, and that's why you haven't replied; or that you HAVE seen my response, and have no further comments to make on the matter. With that said, I'm anxiously awaiting your reply. If you choose to reply, that is. Thanks again. MWB1138 (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was/am cooking dinner and packing meat for freezing. I waited several hours for your replies, you can wait until my family gets dinner. It's dinner time where I am and my children are hungry. FYI ~ this is further proof of your uncivil behavior, demanding answers immediately.KellyAna (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I was just wondering if you had seen my response, that's all. I have no way of knowing if you've looked at my talk page or not, so I asked about it here. I certainly wasn't acting uncivilly or demanding immediate answers. And I assumed, since your previous replies came within just seconds after my replies, that you were still online here. I certainly have no way of knowing if you're away from the computer, preparing dinner or whatever the case may be. Anyhow, thanks yet again. MWB1138 (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Update: I'm going to go for a walk and then watch a football game, so if I don't reply for a few hours, that's where I am. Thought you should know, in case you reply to me and then wonder why I'm not replying to you. But I promise I will. Talk to you later. MWB1138 (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


Genevieve-Tamerlaine

I've removed your recent addition of User:Genevieve-Tamerlaine from Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. This username is not a violation of the username policy, and edits from that account do not appear to be vandalism as you indicated. -- Longhair\talk 03:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. If you understood the articles she's violated, you would see she's a vandal plain and simple. Her name is also excessively long and I added it back.KellyAna (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
And I've removed your report again. The username is not a violation of the username policy (please review the policy before reporting names that fall outside its scope), however if you feel the editor is vandalising as you suggest, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is the appropriate forum. This appears to be a content dispute, not clear cut vandalism, sorry. -- Longhair\talk 03:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
You are either a closet admin or not an admin at all. Do not remove names from the list unless you have authorization to do so. And stay the hell off my talk page unless you have constructive comments. KellyAna (talk) 03:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
What part of go away do you not understand. You aren't an admin, and if you are you hide it and that's ridiculous. Just get off my page. KellyAna (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
A closet admin? Is there such a thing? Please do a little research before you assume bad faith in others thanks... -- Longhair\talk 03:33, 28 December 2007 :(UTC)
Nothing is hidden. Take a read over my userpage. It's very clear. -- Longhair\talk 03:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH ~ everyone get off my page so I can reply to ONE PERSON. I've typed the same thing 6 times and it's not gotten through. The vandal needs to leave and I need to just talk to longhair.
And for whatever smartass said "for the love of God..." don't go there. KellyAna (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Backing the proverbial truck up. Longhair ~thank you for fixing the vandalism to my user page. As you can see little miss way too long of a name that was previously another name who vandalized articles is repeating her pattern. It is not content dispute when something has stood correctly for ever and one person adds her POV edits. Her changing of things, changing her user name, et al, are disruptive and vandalism (adding false information). As for your user page, longhair, I know a lot do not trust what one says. It's categories we go by and you are not listed as an admin in categories. Hence the "closet admin" comment. Sorry, too long user vandal name has thrown me off. KellyAna (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No harm done, but please, remember to chill a little, and assume good faith in others at all times. I was listed in some Australian Wikipedia administrator category a while back, but the category got renamed, moved, and then it eventually disappeared. I don't keep my userpage as current as I'd like to, but all administrators are highly visible by way of the user list, which is the most authoritative source of administrator status. Categories, well, anyone can add themselves to a category and remain there until somebody else finds them out, so I wouldn't be trusting them as the who's who of Wikipedia. I still think you've got yourself a content dispute by the way. Try the relevant talk pages to see what other editors think of the recent changes perhaps? Soap operas aren't my thing sorry. -- Longhair\talk 04:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, "darlin'" (a southern US term) telling a woman of my age to chill is like....well, I can't think of an analogy but it's not a term my generation (the uptight 80s) adheres to. GT, previously Yellowstone, has vandalized many a page with false information and disruptive formatting per the soap project. She makes it up as she goes along and that's not appropriate. It's not about assuming (Gods I hate that term) good faith, it's experience and dealing with the editor before. KellyAna (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: SoapCentral

It's my understanding that our manual of style doesn't care how other sites choose to bold and/or capitalize their names. Please stop undoing my edits while I try to confirm this. --Onorem♠Dil 04:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but all the soap article have it the CORRECT way per the site. Maybe being a team player isn't your style but all 3000 soap articles have or have had the title the same way with the bold and the project is committed to making sure it is consistant. Your edits are personal opinion, not project based. I'm trying to be respectful of you but your edits are not. KellyAna (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
My edits are personal opinion? What does that even mean? I was making my edits based on what I believe the guidelines currently say is correct. If I was wrong, I'd happily revert myself. I'm not sure what about my edits you don't feel is respectful, but you seriously need to look more closely into this guideline. --Onorem♠Dil 04:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Julie Pinson

Where is your source then?--68.199.62.0 (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It's listed, it says SOD right by the indication that she's leaving. I include sources when I make changes. You'll also notice out of my many thousand edits, I'm a stickler for factual verifiable edits so I do not add comings and goings on a whim, I require verifiable sourcing. KellyAna (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Julie's leaving? Sad. Which issue of SOD was it in or was it SOW? Just wondering, mine hasn't arrived yet. IrishLass (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)