User talk:TAnthony/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1   Archive 2   Archive 3   Archive 4   Archive 5   Archive 6

Contents 1 OLTL and Addie 2 NFCC 3 Gary Tomlin 4 "No, you're an idiot" 5 Family and relationship info 6 Relationship lists 7 Soap infoboxes 8 Carly Corinthos Jacks 9 Relationship lists 10 Hey 11 thanks 12 Disputes 13 STOP 14 Infoboxes 15 Your questions were answered 16 Dynasty middle names 17 Red links

[edit] OLTL and Addie

Hey there! I left this in the Cramer family Talk Section too, but I was wondering what you thought about working up a new page or at least an entry in "Minor Characters" for Addie Cramer? She's become such a vivacious and great supporting character since her recovery IMO and I think she deserves a bit more. I didn't know who else to talk to since I'm such a n00b. Thanks for listening.Jbt1138 (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to respond on the Cramer page ... yeah, I could see her on the "minor characters" page, but kind of want her to do something first, LOL. — TAnthony^Talk 21:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

On the second thought, the "Minor char" page is really for miscellaneous characters not necessarily related to core familes; Addie should really stay where she is, but in a slightly expanded section. Cassie and Melinda also redirect there. I created the article as a chronological overview of the family, but I envision a slight overhaul separating these three characters out a little better. Give me a little time. ;) — TAnthony^Talk 21:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good! Maybe I can dig up a picture of Laura Koffman.Jbt1138 (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm on a search for pics myself; remember, screenshots are preferred over promotional images, those usually fail fair use. — TAnthony^Talk 21:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NFCC

Hello - I'm afraid this is a common misinterpretation of the policy; minimal use really does mean minimal per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8; a FAQ here may also be useful. Black Kite 00:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The article isn't really a list, and no offense, but an FAQ on your own page doesn't satisfy me. — TAnthony^Talk 00:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Further, the link provided in your FAQ includes a comment that "List of characters in Neon Genesis Evangelion is more reasonable; it uses one image per character to identify the characters ... since one image would be allowed per article if these were split into separate articles, I think it can be defended." — TAnthony^Talk 00:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to start an edit war, and I certainly see your point, but if the policy is up for interpretation, what makes yours the correct one? At least half of these characters were contract players for years, they were assembled into this article pending expansion to keep the character article clutter down. Each character section here is the destination of the character links elsewhere; I could break them out into individual articles but it seems unnecessary. I am willing to compromise and remove some of the images by character importance, but clearing them all out is unnacceptable. — TAnthony^Talk 18:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hi - it's not my interpretation of policy, it's the Wikimedia Foundation's. WP:NFCC is a policy page. To answer your point, one image would certainly be allowed per character if the article was split out into individual articles, but this doesn't apply here since the characters aren't notable enough to have their own articles (though some of the actors are). Yes, the FAQ is a user subpage of mine, but I find it's the easiest way to help people confused by the policy (which I admit, isn't written particularly well, even if the meaning is clear) to certain problems they may be having. The problem really lies in the existence of non-free images to begin with. In an ideal world, all our images would be free, but unfortunately there are times when there are no free replacements for some fair-use images which are necessary to increase understanding in an article. Thus, the Foundation can't really say "zero non-free images in all articles" or "A maximum of one non-free image in every article" because there will always be some major article to which it doesn't apply (logos, for example, are problematic). Because this hasn't been enforced strongly enough in the past - it wasn't until March 2007 that the Foundation put it's foot down on this matter - many articles have gained many non-free images (there are still over 1,000 articles with more than 15 non-free images in them, 95+% of which violate the policy). Because this has been the status quo, understandably many editors have been reluctant to see the images removed from articles. In the end, though, minimal must really mean minimal in all articles. Black Kite 19:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It's your interpretation of "minimal" I'm taking issue with. Many of these characters could actually be spun out into their own articles, but why have a bunch of stubs pending expansion when you can keep them in one place? I have articles and other coverage to assert notability but only so much time! I am currently removing images and considering breaking out sections, please know that I take your concerns seriously and give me a little time today. — TAnthony^Talk 19:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Black Kite 20:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Tomlin

Hey TAnthony... A follow up on the Gary Tomlin article... He may have left the crew, but the episodes directed by Gary are still airing on DirecTV. Here is a list of directors for January 2008 (http://boards.soapoperanetwork.com/index.php?showtopic=24043&pid=537735&st=0&#entry537735). He continued directing into February too. DirecTV airs only 3 episodes of PSSN a month, so I guess that's why Tomlin's work is still on. Dmarex (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "No, you're an idiot"

(The smiley isn't working out!) :D (There!)

A bit stressed out? Hang in there! --SandChigger (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I couldn't resist responding to "hello i am the best" ... — TAnthony^Talk 02:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Family and relationship info

I don't think that the family and relationship info should be in some infobox. it should be out in open like everything else. Somebody please do something about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by King Gemini (talk • contribs) 07:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually like the infobox idea, as it was something we developed consensus for during work on the Pauline Fowler article, which is now at Featured status. Can you please explain more as to what you don't like about it? --Elonka 08:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I love it. It makes the articles cleaner and it was discussed before it was done. I think TAnthony can find the previous discussion. I know he'll agree that it is in there and looks better (since he took the time to create the infobox). It cleans up the articles and makes them look better and more encyclopedic. I agree with Elonka, it stays where it is. IrishLass (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Besides being more visually appealing, the endless lists within the article actually negatively impact an article's quality when we're talking about assessments and such. That's how it came about with Pauline Fowler, and that article obviously went up to Featured Status. But really, any important relationships should already be noted in an article naturally, like the character's parents and siblings and spouses as they relate to storylines. It's really unnecessary to list someone's adopted great-grandchild within the article if the fact isn't worthy enough to be mentioned in a plot summary area. Anyway, the info is still available. — TAnthony^Talk 16:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't like it, because it doesn't make any sense to me. For one, Joey Buchanan's article has a lot of space and his family and relationship info should be on the article, not some stupid info box. it should be a section just like it was before. So all that I am asking is to make it like it was. King Gemini

You are missing the point, which is that according to WP guidelines, lists are discouraged within articles, especially trivial ones such as these. Notable relationship info is already mentioned within the text of the article; the reader doesn't immediately need to know that Cord Roberts is Joey's his adopted brother if they've never even shared a storyline. Soap character articles already strain the limits of notability in most cases (the Kevin and Joey articles have absolutely no real-world references) and if they are dominated by these lists, they risk deletion. Specifically, the Relationship lists were challenged by unbiased editors assessing the Pauline Fowler article, which ultimately rose to featured status. Believe me, I think the information is notable, but we have to present it in the best way possible to preserve our articles. — TAnthony^Talk 05:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relationship lists

From User talk:King Gemini

Hey there, thanks for your ongoing participation in WP:SOAPS. I wanted to let you know that I've removed your Relationship lists and restored the infobox in Joey Buchanan and Kevin Buchanan. The Project has an ongoing effort to move these relationships into the collapsible area of the infobox rather than have them as an exhaustive list. This is a result of the Pauline Fowler peer review and other discussions, which have basically identified these lists as trivial. We want to preserve the information in the most unobtrusive way, as their presence has actually contributed to the deletion of articles under certain circumstances. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas#Prose vs. lists and Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas#Character relationships for our "guidelines" and links to the WP guidelines that spawned them. I also encourage you to monitor the Project talk page, as we often discuss issues which put soap articles under scrutiny. Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk 16:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove my work homie? I don't like that. Leave my work alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by King Gemini (talk • contribs) 21:13, March 4, 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Listen "homie," I've explained here why I reverted your misguided edits, and will continue to do so as long as you insist on adding the detrimental lists. This is not personal. — TAnthony^Talk 05:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't mock me. It sickens me. The King Gemini (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not mocking you, I just don't like your tone. Telling me you don't like your work reverted means nothing when you are wrong. I understand your preference for the lists, but understand that the rest of us at the Project are trying to look at the big picture, which is preserving the articles. There are a lot of editors out there trying to get rid of many of the soap articles, and to be honest, they have grounds. And the lists aren't helping. — TAnthony^Talk 05:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, I don't want to get in a fight with you over this, we appreciate your participation in the Project. I like having the info available too, but it is just unnecessary and detrimental to the articles in list form. Please try to understand our reasons. — TAnthony^Talk 06:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to get in a fight over this either. I just don't understand why my work has to be reverted into some stupid info box The King Gemini (talk) 06:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, no one means to belittle your work. It's just that the lists have been pinpointed as problematic. The information is still there, just not taking up the entire body of the article. In the cast of Joey, the article itself mentions his parents and Kevin and Dorian and Kelly, who are pretty much the people with whom he's had the most significant interaction. And it's simple to see who his other siblings are, if the reader is interested, by looking in the infobox. We could leave the lists, but then someone will come along, notice that Joey article is mostly a big list of random names, and tag it. And if we had to defend the notability of the article, we couldn't because it really isn't to anyone but us soap folks. — TAnthony^Talk 06:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soap infoboxes

From User talk:Spanish lullaby

Many of us have spent hours upon hours fixing the infoboxes from Character to Soap Character and that includes adding all the relations which were formerly in a list at the bottom and making them consistent. With soaps relationships are never cut and dry and in this world names are rarely gender specific. Then there are characters with two fathers so a step and father notation are appropriate. As for brothers and sisters, the infobox indicates all the relations and who they are related through. Your changes did a disruption to the Ethan Winthrop infobox. They don't clutter it, they define it. The infoboxes replace the lists that used to be at the bottom so more information is required/necessary in the boxes. KellyAna (talk) 05:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to tell me about the long hours spent trying to improve soap character pages; I, too, have spent many long hours merging minor character pages, fixing infoboxes, and improving the grammatical quality of articles. I understand your position, and I apologize if I have caused some sort of massive disruption, but when I check the sample soap character infobox at Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas#Templates, only parents and other relatives are given parenthetical explanations. Perhaps a decision was made somewhere else, and the sample infobox was never updated, but, in my opinion, if a reader wants to know how Ethan and Jessica are siblings, they can simply compare the two characters' articles and see that they share the same father; to add (half-sister, via Sam) is superfluous. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll send TAnthony a note but for as long as I've been here we've included the parenthetical denotation of relations. We don't force readers to tromp through other articles to see relations when we can put it in any infobox available with a simple notation. No reference document that I know of forces that thought process. KellyAna (talk) 05:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I just looked at the "example" and there were a few errors. I've fixed it based on little things over the last few months. This should straighten it out. KellyAna (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

KellyAna, I disagree with most of your notations and seem to share Spanish lullaby's feelings about this. However, I understand that we just have conflicting personal preferences, and for now I think we should just do it article-by-article based on the preferences of the editors who monitor them.

My basic argument is just to keep the infoboxes as uncluttered as possible; every bit of extra detail about the characters listed doesn't have to be noted if it is of limited importance in context and can be found by simply following a link. If Ethan and Jessica are listed as Joe's siblings, we don't need to write "brother" and "sister" except to perhaps note special circumstances like "step-brother" or "half-sister." I don't see the necessity in "explaining" all of the connections either, like "Niece via Sally" because anyone who actually wonders how Tina is Michael's niece can peek at Tina's article. I feel the same way about the maternal/paternal designations, or naming the other parent of every child listed for a character. This isn't essential info that has to be available in the infobox. Also, "dated" and "affair" seem redundant and unimportant when characters are already listed under "Romances," and I think dates are important for marriages and romances.

But again, I won't mess with yours if you don't mess with mine; hopefully you and Spanish lullaby can compromise on whatever article(s) brought this issue up, but we've never really set an "official" way of doing it and I'm hesitant to. — TAnthony^Talk 06:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I never ment to step on anyone's toes; I simply looked at the sample infobox and was under the impression that its style was to be used in all infoboxes. I would like to suggest, however, that Sarah, Jane, and Jonathan be wikilinked — they each have their own section at Children of Passions, which is where Ethan Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane redirects. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No apologies are needed, I see this as a good thing; obviously KellyAna and I never realized we had conflicting ideas about this. Any kind of discussion is good if it makes WP better, and I'm sure some of KellyAna'a arguments will sway me on this as mine may her. She makes a good point that there's no need to drive readers around to other articles when information can easily be included in the infobox, but I now personally feel like the actual use/value of stuff like "half-sister via Sally" and maternal/paternal designations is outweighed by clutter it creates. Complicated situations can even be explained in a footnote rather than spelled out right ion the box.

KellyAna, the parenthetical notations have indeed been in use forever, but they pre-date the new infobox, which obviously includes relationship categories now. They are still useful in many cases, but I still feel like it's unnecessary to put "father" and "mother" when these characters are listed under "Parents." Still, looking at Ethan Winthrop, though I may have done it differently, I think most of your notes are fine with me because of his complicated relations with the Bennetts and Cranes. Of course, even if I totally disagreed I'd leave it alone, I'm obsessed with One Life to Live, LOL. — TAnthony^Talk 16:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carly Corinthos Jacks

From User talk:Spanish lullaby

Why would you recreate a page that was deleted just to redirect it the correct page? Now I have to as the admin to delete it AGAIN. KellyAna (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Why would you delete a page instead of redirecting it to the proper article? ABC.com lists Carly as "Carly Corinthos Jacks", so it's not unreasonable that someone would search for her under than name. I didn't move the article, I simply made a redirect, and, considering all of the redirects to Carly Corinthos, I don't think that it was unreasonable. Wikipedia:Redirect didn't seem to contain anything opposing it, either. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

All the redirects were done by a vandal who is banned for good. That's why I asked why it would be remade. It was a simple question until SOMEONE turned it into a bigger deal than it is. KellyAna (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If I may interject, that is the point of redirects, so that if someone ever uses it in a link, it will lead to the correct place. Creating a redirect is not the same thing as "recreating an article." And by the way, I just checked "What links here" and it seems as though the GH navbox has the link Carly Corinthos Jacks, and so appears on nearly every GH page! — TAnthony^Talk 23:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted and reinstating a deleted page is against Wikipedia guidelines and it was deleted because of previous issues with a vandal / sock puppet. Please, TAnthony, don't interject in this, I asked a question and want to know why something was done, not your opinions on the painful situation. You weren't involved in the sock puppet issue and the pain that the page created. KellyAna (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with some vandalism issue, and you didn't "ask" a question -- you had a little fit. I'm going to fix the GH template in case you do have the redirect deleted so there isn't a big red link in the navbox. Someone unfamiliar with the past is going to end up recreating that redirect over and over as long as it's a possible name for Carly, because that is standard procedure. But by all means continue your steamrolling. — TAnthony^Talk 23:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but IT DOES. Okay, it does. You weren't involved, you didn't see what happened. You don't know. I asked a question, and you were rude calling it "a fit", and you've chosen to butt in for no good reason. It was a question and you're creating unnecessary issues over A QUESTION. KellyAna (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the navbox but these articles all still link to Carly Corinthos Jacks. So make sure you fix them when you delete it again. — TAnthony^Talk 23:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I clearly don't want to start a war over something this stupid, but I am aware of what happened, and as much as I understand that you want to protect the article and avoid all that crap, you're fighting a losing battle have a redirect deleted, especially when it has so many articles linked to it. It's going to come back. And it really should, because it's useful. Someone may indeed search by that name or use that as a link, and when they see it's red they may even start creating a new article thinking it's not there. And restoring an article as a redirect really isn't the same thing as recreating it. I interjected because Spanish lullaby is a helpful new editor, and you and I are very alike: bossy and easily angered, LOL. Again, don't want to fight, but you can't blame Spanish lullaby for something any Wiki editor would do. — TAnthony^Talk 00:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Lulliby ISN'T a new editor. She's an editor with a name change, Charity McKay and has been here a while. You interjected because you couldn't let a simple question be answered by someone who it was asked to. It was a simple question and NO, you don't know the half of what happened with the Carly stuff. Not the HALF of it. You didn't even know Spanish Lullaby was Charity McKay and had been here for several years. KellyAna (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I may have joined a few years ago (April 2005, I think), but, until recently, my edits have largely consisted of me correcting grammar in random articles that I searched or came across; I've only recently started participating more heavily in improving soap opera articles and I'm still learning all of the rules and regulations around here. You say that you asked a simple question, and maybe you feel that you did, but, to me, all of your questions and comments have come across as extremely hostile and argumentative. I, like you, am only trying to help Wikipedia, and I, like you, am bound to make mistakes at times — all that I ask is that my mistakes be accepted as being made in good faith. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There you go again, spazzing because someone said you were wrong. And I'm sorry, but I think you're being a little overdramatic here. Do what you want, but if I had some across the redlink I would have created the redirect myself. If you change all the links I mentioned above, feel free to delete it and I'll leave it alone. But try to resist getting mad at the next person who recreates or talks about it, new editor or old.

LOL, Spanishlullaby, now I remember the change, you tricked me LOL. ;) — TAnthony^Talk 00:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha, sorry, I didn't realize that the name change would be such a big deal. Charity McKay is a silly pseudonym that I came up with in the eighth grade, and I've been trying to slowly work my way away from it in recent months. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get "mad" until you butted in unnecessarily. Next time maybe minding your own business and not getting between two editors for no reason would keep things calm and between two people. And I didn't get mad at her, I got mad at you and your butting in for no reason, or would it be false reasons because you assumed without verifying. KellyAna (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Spanish/Charity you didn't make a mistake, that was done by SOMEONE ELSE. I simply asked you a question that I felt you were competent enough to answer. Apparently others did not. KellyAna (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, clearly I have the same compulsion as you — to have the last word — but listen to yourself! I perhaps shouldn't have said you had a "fit" or whatever, but Talk pages are public and I felt like I needed to interject. Sorry if you feel threatened by that, but editor has a right to comment on something they think is wrong. I didn't mean to agitate you, but look at how mad you're getting at me because I said you're wrong. Maybe you need a break. — TAnthony^Talk 00:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I love how long this discussion is, hahaha. — TAnthony^Talk 00:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Deity of other people expletive. I didn't feel expletive threatened, I just felt your overwhelming need to butt in for no reason. It's exasperating. You can't just let a question be asked and answered without butting in. Yes, talk pages are public, but you didn't need to "interject" under false assumptions. Oh, and insane people are mad, I'm aggravated by your constant "interjections for no reason." KellyAna (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am the first to admit that I can be perceived as a defensive, bossy know-it-all at times, and I get very annoyed when articles I monitor are messed with by vandals and stubborn editors who really don't know or care what they're doing. I was probably even a little snippy at the beginning of this. But I'm not going to pretend I haven't seen you flying around here on your broom with your condescending and snarky tone. It's very amusing how you're annoyed by my interjections here and elsewhere and yet you can't help but scold everyone over every little thing. Maybe you were just asking the question, but both Spanishlullaby and I perceived your exasperation. I don't comment on everything I disagree with, or revert every edit I don't love, but in this case I was arguing on her side because you clearly intended to delete the redirect.

We all know you're a valuable editor, and I am glad you're out there policing articles with vigilance because there are so many vandals out there, and soap fans who have no clue about Wiki guidelines and compulsively mess with articles. But maybe you should pick your battles; some things you should just let go. And when you talk about all the "pain" caused by the Carly issue, I am wondering if you remember that you're talking about a WP article about a soap opera character, not a starving orphan. — TAnthony^Talk 03:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Starving orphan? By the gods, talk about over dramatic. You are just driving this to a point of ridiculous I've not ever seen on Wikipedia. You TELL me this is a battle. Really? I thought it was a QUESTION. You've made it more than it was. Your meddling made it an issue. It was a QUESTION. Why is it you are making so much out of a QUESTION? And since you are unaware, witches don't fly around on brooms, that's a fictitious stereotype perpetuated by the media just like gays..... Don't make me go there, it would be as you rude as you disparaging Wiccans with your broom comment. Let's not go to that level of insulting because I really don't need to insult gays to offset your insults to witches and wiccans. KellyAna (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relationship lists

From User talk:24.222.149.99

Hi, not sure if you're aware, but WP:SOAPS has added a collapsible section for character relationships to the {{Infobox soap character}}. This is part of the Project's ongoing task of removing unnecessary and excessive lists from soap articles. Various article assessments have determined that these lists negatively impact an article's quality. Many articles have not gone through the "transformation" yet, but please do not add new lists to articles without them. Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk 02:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

I just wanted to apologize for the whole kerfluffle that went down on my talk page. However, I, personally, really appreciated you stepping in — despite the fact that I've been a registered member for a while, I still feel rather newbie-ish, and it was nice to know that I hadn't committed as massive a faux pas as I'd feared.  :) — Spanish lullaby (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I'd forgotten the name change, and your recent questions and work with photos and stuff gave me the impression you were "new." In any case, I've definitely found your recent work helpful and along my line of thinking.

No need to apologize, I probably should apologize for using your talk page for that extended argument! LOL, I could probably go on like that for pages and pages. I obviously admit that I can be stubborn and a know-it-all too, but I feel like she really has a hostile tone no matter the size of the issue. And she's so defensive I don't think she even takes time to comprehend what I'm trying to say. And that whole "by the gods" and wiccan business, LOL, that's when I realized she just isn't getting it, and is completely unreasonable. This is what separates us; I gave my opinion but I could care less if she deletes the damned redirect to avoid all the "pain" caused by it (LOL again). It does annoy me, however, that she'd had it deleted previously but didn't bother to fix all the links to it. It's like, why don't you spend more time doing constructive tasks like that, rather than revert and scold people for adding episode numbers a week in advance. Like who cares!

Thanks again for your hard work! — TAnthony^Talk 19:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

Thank you for backing me up, lol. I'm getting very stressed out. I just need to breathe a little. :) Alexisfan07 9 March 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 01:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As you can see above, I had an exhaustive discussion with KellyAna on User talk:Spanish lullaby so I know how frustrating it can be. She means well, but I really don't think she sees that she is obsessing or being unnecessarily stubborn about unimportant things. I mean, what is her issue with switching the photo? And she really is, plain and simple, hostile about just about everything. I have resisted commenting on the Theresa name change because, frankly, I don't know why anyone is fighting about it, LOL. I actually want to agree with her, but she's being so unyielding. If some other people want to use Crane, who cares, let them do it! — TAnthony^Talk 02:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

But doesn't using Crane in the article title, simply in the article title, go against policy and verifiability? That's my position on it, article title only. KellyAna (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with you that if the most reliable online sources say one thing, that's what we should go with. And yet, adding "Crane" isn't really incorrect, so is it a bad thing? Is it likely to be challenged or cause a problem? With redirects, people will get to the article no matter what. I do get very annoyed when people move articles every time someone gets married, because obviously soap marriages never last long, but in this case I don't feel like it's worth getting upset over. But yes, you're really in the right here. — TAnthony^Talk 02:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say in the body of the article adding Crane isn't a bad thing. Adding it to the title is. I've watched on and off for years and I've never heard her referred to as TLF Crane by anyone that watches the show. Which goes back to the common names policy. I know it's not "proof" but I did a random survey on a couple of boards I post on and neither vote was very "Crane" heavy when they think of Theresa's name. Granted, it's only a handful of people over the last hour and it's not proof, I know that, but as far as policy and verifiability go, Crane fails the test, doesn't it? I appreciate you saying I'm right, I do. Thank you. I get as annoyed as you when they move articles like that. I've got a harder one, EJ Wells. One week he's Wells the next he's DiMera and the following he's both. That page moves more than "Two Guys Move You" does. KellyAna (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the "common name" thing is impossible to prove either way, because it's not like most soap characters are talked about in the mainstream like Bill Clinton. And even if you amassed 100 soap magazine articles, it seems like it's sort of arbitrary based on the article and the writer, really. I actually left a comment in the discussion. — TAnthony^Talk 02:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputes

Sure, I'll help as I can. I see that there is definitely some trouble with incivility in edit summaries, but I haven't looked into it more than that. I'd recommend that you start here:

• Read/memorize WP:DR
• Always stay civil, never let yourself be goaded
• Engage on the editor's talkpage
  • Start with a gentle good-faith comment. I find it helpful to try and picture the individual as someone who I used to respect, but whose behavior has recently become problematic. For example, picture them as a retired university professor who has gotten a bit old and slow, and may just be confused and frustrated. Or perhaps picture them as someone who is ill and on medication, and just needs some patience and guidance
• Document, document, document. When you see unambiguous problems, post them to the editor's talkpage. Build a paper trail. Explain why the behavior is a problem, include a diff, link to the appropriate policy, and suggest how to do better. These posts serve multiple purposes:
  • They alert the editor that there's a problem
  • They are a good faith effort on your part to try and solve the problem (who knows, it may work!)
  • They alert other editors that there is a problem
  • If you have to proceed to another step of DR, those talkpage messages will be really helpful in documenting the history of the situation
• If the problems are related to a specific article, consider an article RfC, even if you feel that you know how it'll turn out.
• If the RfC doesn't do any good, suggest mediation
• If mediation doesn't do any good, try a User Conduct RfC
• ANI is also an option, but I'd only go there if you have a really clear and unambiguous case that a harried admin could come up to speed on the situation within a couple minutes -- they're not going to want to get involved with ambiguous cases
• ArbCom is also an option, but they're going to want to see that all of the above steps have been tried first
• If it helps, look at each clear unambiguous example of a problem, as another diff that you can use later. When you've got a dozen solid diffs saved up, presenting them all in one place is really powerful.

I've got a watch set on a couple of the pages, I'll try to keep an eye out, but I'm starting from zero. My first check was to the editor's talk page but I didn't see any cautions from you. I'd definitely start there.

If you're on IMs, feel free to send me a message, and I can give you further advice off-wiki.

Good luck, Elonka 03:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] STOP

For the love of the gods stop following me around Wikipedia. Can NO ONE "fight their own battles" without you commenting? I can't talk to one editor without you butting in. What the hell is with that? I don't need another stalker, I have enough already. KellyAna (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay everyone, enough with the name calling. Please try to get back to discussing articles, instead of each other. --Elonka 04:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

TAnthony, as a gesture of good faith, would you be willing to review your recent comments, and remove anything which might be considered uncivil or a personal attack? I think it might help de-escalate things here. --Elonka 04:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

KellyAna, no one is stalking you, you just aggravate everyone to the point that we have to respond. Everything here is public, and I refuse to let you steamroll everyone if I can help it. I do not want to attack you or anyone, but I don't feel like anything I have said is any more uncivil than what you consider everyday conversation. Elonka, I always admire your calm under pressure, but I'll have to really consider things before I rescind a single comment. — TAnthony^Talk 10:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, of course I see your point, and yet KellyAna is now turning her own actions back on me and other editors; no one is "watching" or "stalking" her for some inappropriate reason, she attracts attention and criticism with every move she makes. Of course she doesn't want me looking in on what she's doing, most other people seem too intimidated by her to tell her when she's wrong. Which seems to be more often than not. I wouldn't care what she does if she wasn't committing irrational bad faith edits like in Sami Brady (The Rhani reverted here). The namecalling was inappropriate, but this kind of revert, without discussion and challenging reasonable sources, is KellyAna's typical M.O. — TAnthony^Talk 11:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed your comment on my page (where you admit to stalking me but lie to Elonka that you aren't) and reported you to her. Elonka said to stop and you obviously have no intention of doing so. Do not revert my removal and put it back. KellyAna (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

TAnthony, I realize that you think that KellyAna is the "party in the wrong" here, and I absolutely agree that some of her comments have been uncivil. However, some of your comments have been over the line as well. Often your posts are good, but I think they come off in a more confrontational way than what you intend. For example, "You are going to sabotage all soap articles" is a pretty clear implication of bad faith. "You are being unreasonable." "There is no inoffensive way of saying this, KellyAna, but you are becoming a bit of a nuisance with your behavior in general, from your snarky edit summaries to your completely unbelievable behavior on your own talk page." "You are truly out of control," "You aggravate everyone," "There are also several editors I feel she has terrorized and steamrolled lately." "I obviously take issue with her stubbornness." These kinds of comments (regardless of whether or not you feel that they are true) are the kinds of things which escalate a dispute, not de-escalate it. Further, they weaken your case considerably, because when a third-party reviewer comes in, they can't tell who's in the right and who's in the wrong. They just see two people yelling at each other, and you both look equally at fault.  :/

Your recent post to KellyAna's talkpage is pretty good, I hope that she will be able to take it in the proper spirit. For future reference though, you might want to use more of a "sandwich" approach on these. In other words, start with something positive, then say what you gotta say, and then end with something positive. When people read these, they often form a first impression from the first words, then they read the content, and then their final impression as to whether or not they're going to listen to you or write you off, will be based on the last thing you say. If you genuinely want to change behavior, remember that you're persuading, not just venting.

I hope you don't feel that I'm coming down on you too hard about this. I have huge respect for you and all the work that you do, and I know that your recent comments are more a case of "temporary frustration" than any kind of a longterm problem. I would, if possible though, like to see you give KellyAna another chance. She does a lot of good work, and as we both know, the soap articles can take all the help they can get! If we can figure out how to pull together as part of a team, where we're all adding our own strengths towards the overall mission (and covering for each other's weaknesses), I think that we, the articles, and Wikipedia would all reap the benefits.  :) --Elonka 20:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your perspective and advice, of course I respect you immensely as an editor or I wouldn't have involved you. And I can't help but always look to your ever-evenhanded tone as an example! I think you realize that I usually figure out pretty quickly when to stop and let something play out on its own. I actually supported her position in the name change discussion at Talk:Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald, and yet it is impossible not to challenge some of the arguments she made there. I would and have chimed in on any similar discussion with any other editors. Yes, those comments above (and more) were certainly made in times of frustration, but as much as she wrings her hands over such "attacks," I cannot help but take issue with her blunt reverts and dismissal of any and all criticisms of them, as well as what I have referred to as "steamrolling." I believe each of those issues started out with a polite comment, to which she snarled, to which I snarled back. This definitely escalated because we happened to cross paths one too many times on the same articles in the course of a few days, and my watching her talk page and edits probably fueled my annoyance in general. But if we look at the recent articles involved in this mess, she pretty much has not conceded a single point, no matter the validity of the challenge. Even you're not right that much, LOL.

I try to give everyone a new chance every day, and I have certainly tried to do so with KellyAna and will continue to. I have complimented her vigilance and hard work. I did want to be a bit more positive in my last remarks to her, but I sort of figured that after all this I'd come off sounding fake. I have not see her apologize to anyone recently or extend an olive branch, it is all defensive outbursts and accusations of stalking. I realize that I have contributed to that by goading her, and yet, is it worse to let her do something I feel is detrimental to an article, or challenge her as aggressively as she defends her own actions, and take a chance on making her mad? I really do hope she takes my comments to heart, and I hope that she and all of our editors can focus more on improving articles and less on policing minute details. Although maybe the mass deletions which will eventually come would clean house a bit. — TAnthony^Talk 22:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and for what it's worth, I've been exactly where you are, so I understand what you're going through. All I can advise is, that the "leading by example" thing is really important. Rather than you waiting for her to apologize or extend an olive branch, I think it would be enormously powerful if you were to show the initiative on that, especially by deleting previous comments of yours which were out of line. Especially that "flying around on a broom" comment, I mean, c'mon.  :/ Plus, if you delete those comments, it can have other collateral advantages. Other editors will see you doing this, and when you refactor a comment, it both makes you look more mature, and it also provides an example for everyone else. New editors who are lurking and not yet participating, are paying attention to how more senior editors such as yourself, deal with a dispute. Assume that for every one person who is posting on a talkpage, that nine others are reading but not posting. So, if not a favor for me, could you "do it for the kids"? Either refactoring your comments, or just deleting posts which were made in the heat of anger, could have longrange benefits. :) --Elonka 23:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean actually deleting sentences or entire discussions? I sounds like hiding the evidence, LOL. — TAnthony^Talk 04:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are multiple ways to do it, depending on what you're comfortable with:

1. You could <s></s> out the comments
2. You could delete the comment, with an edit summary like, "Refactoring my post now that I've calmed down"
3. You could delete the comment, and add a small comment after such as, "Post refactored, see <diff> for full version"
4. You could delete the entire post, via one of the above methods. See also WP:REFACTOR

In terms of what you choose, think of it this way. Suppose someone said, "TAnthony is an idiot." Would you want the information to stay on the page? If they <s></s> the comment, would that make you feel better or worse? Basically, it seems to me like some of your comments to KellyAna have hurt her feelings. Granted, she's not reacting with language like, "Hey, ow," she's reacting by, as you put it, snarling, but it's obvious that she's seeing, and remembering, what you say, and from there the resentment just festers.

Or to put it another way: You've said these things, she's read them, you have both responded to it... What good is being done by leaving the comments in place? If you can point out a positive reason that the comments should stick around, I'd be interested in hearing it. But if the negative is outweighing the positive, it's probably worth rethinking things. Will the talkpages be more useful to other Wikipedians, with or without those comments there? --Elonka 04:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infoboxes

Has there been a change in infoboxes lately? I got a message that they are "smaller" but I'm on a job site that uses IE and huge settings on their screens, so I can't tell. Do you know? IrishLass (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone seems to have changed the {{Infobox Television}} font size amidst other edits, but then it was changed back. The soap character box is unchanged. ;) — TAnthony^Talk 02:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your questions were answered

WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard#Screen caps of end credits -- Dougie WII (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dynasty middle names

Hey, thanks for your interest in the Dynasty character articles, but as noted in the main article, the middle names you are attempting to add are original research by Judith Moose that were never used in the series (and this inappropriate to add). Also, The Dynasty character template does not include an "Occupation" parameter (and does not need to), so adding that information is useless. Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk 23:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red links

From User talk:74.15.226.88

Please stop removing red links from articles ... they are perfectly acceptable per the Manual of Style and exist to encourage the creation of new articles. When these articles are created, the links to them are already in place. Obviously infant actors will probably not have articles anytime soon and can be unlinked, but an adult actor could presumably be deserving of an article at some point in the future. — TAnthony^Talk 15:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)