![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I know we ain't on the best terms, but I'd like to change that. Truce?-- KingMorpheus ( talk) 05:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I won't apologize for following Wikpedia guidelines. I'd also like to point out something at the bottom of every page we see when we edit:
That being said, I really don't want you to leave the article. I'm quite sorry you think I'm ruining it, and I'm not doing anything out of spite, nor do I appreciate your characterizations of me. However, you're a valued and appreciated contributor, and hope you will continue to contribute. AniMate 19:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
(title assumed because editor left random message) I'm a little confused. What was not proper about the changes I made?-- Jbrut
Why is the Carly Corinthos page blocked? I have images below (my contributions) that I would like to share. THey are now marked as orphaned. Can you put them in 4 me? -- Carly Fan 12 ( talk) 13:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow! That was a really rude answer! and uncalled for!-- 99.177.250.140 ( talk) 03:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I just added what was there, however, I did find sources. -- Yankeesrj12 ( talk) 02:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
For all the work you do reverting vandalism! Avruch T 23:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC) |
Hi KellyAna, I've noticed that you do a lot of vandalism reversion and I wanted to drop this barnstar on your page as thanks. I also wanted to say that it seems like in the last few days you've been involved in a few conflicts, and it looks like you've been pretty frustrated. Its tough to assume that other editors contribute in good faith (that is, they mean well and want to help the encyclopedia) when you see a lot of vandalism and editors that don't follow policies like civility and consensus editing. Still, even when dealing with folks you disagree with or don't like its important to stay calm and polite in return. If you find that its hard to do that, generally a little time off is in order. With all of the good work you do, I'd hate to see you end up blocked because someone saw some warnings in your talkpage history and a few frustrated reverts in your contribs. Keep up the good work, and feel free to let me know if you need help with anything. About the banner below... You should ask on the village pump to see if someone can find a way to make sure your banner stays at the bottom, that way people who don't see it and want to talk to you can do it without messing up your page. (I also saw the MOSDATE thing from earlier... Personally, I think project and page consensus stacks up pretty well against MOS guidelines but its generally a good idea not to dismiss MOS out of hand, people get upset!) Avruch T 23:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey there! User:Shapiros10 began promoting a possible Survivor Task Force today, and I decided to continue spreading the message. I figure this may help us gain a more standard MOS, which can benefit all related articles. As you are a frequent visitor to the Survivor pages, I thought you might want to help. If yes, then follow the link above (or to the left if your screen is really -really- long!) and help us start something great. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 09:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
(copying from my talkpage) A comment that makes no sense is nonsensical and I have a right to remove anything from my page that I don't understand the wording of. It is not "uncivil" it is fact. Have people speak in normal English and I'll not remove their comments. Comments that makes no sense will be removed as "nonsensical." KellyAna ( talk) 03:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
KellyAna, I do want to calmly clear the air with you on a few things. I admit I have been somewhat frustrated with some of your edits and comments lately, but I of course apologize for anything which may be construed as a personal attack. And though I have indeed been watching your talk page and looking in on your contributions (as anyone has a right to do), I have only "interfered" in soap article-related matters. I have had Sami Brady and Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald on my watchlist for awhile, and I started watching TheRhani's talk page before you even commented there (I had left my own comment there previously, after she made her first Sami Brady edits). I'm sorry if you feel "followed," I assure you that is not the case.
My main issue with your edits and behavior lately is what I perceive as you making repeated controversial edits and reverts without discussion and using false and misleading statements to support them (An example: "Soap articles are done this way"). You then seem to dismiss and ignore any and all discussion or criticism of these edits, including citations of policies and guidelines that challenge your edits. This is inappropriate. I don't believe you are purposely misleading; you obviously feel strongly about your practices, but I feel that some of them are incorrect and yet you will not consider this possibility. As I've said elsewhere, my concern is for the articles I believe you are impacting negatively, and also that other impressionable editors may see your edits and practices and mimic them. You yourself sometimes note that you're doing things how you've seen them done in other articles. As an experienced editor, you may be influential to others, and I am uncomfortable with your perpetuating some of these "questionable" practices by advising and admonishing editors when they contradict you or make edits with which you disagree.
I admit that I am guilty of this myself at times, but I feel that you often have an unnecessarily defensive, hostile and combative tone in your edit summaries and comments. I understand the frustration that comes with the constant senseless and incorrect edits to soap articles by IP users, etc. because I go through the same thing, so I do not wish to scold you but rather ask you to take more care in this area, as I will for myself.
I watch a lot of articles and user talk pages. I of course will never fully stop editing and commenting where I feel it is appropriate, but I regularly ignore plenty of edits I disagree with and discussions I could be useful in. You and I are a lot alike in that we are both very opinionated and strong-willed, and it appears very easy for us to goad each other into inappropriate and counterproductive behavior. Despite my dedication to the Project in general, I have little personal interest in the Days of our Lives articles, and will probably now ignore them and let you do whatever you want. I do ask that you try in the future to thoughtfully consider the good faith criticisms of other editors, and respect their opinions enough to sometimes just accept their changes to your work or leave their own edits alone — even if you disagree somewhat. You may also reconsider the way you maintain your talk page, as dismissing/deleting valid comments without acknowledgment can be considered uncivil. I also ask that you take more care with your justifications, and provide links to actual guidelines or precedents when you are asserting questionable practices or those likely to be challenged. — TAnthony Talk
Not sure if you're still monitoring the talk page, but I added another set of comments because I don't think the question has yet been answered to the point where it will be useful for the discussion of screencaps-as-proof at Talk:Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald. — TAnthony Talk 18:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for not being upset about my comments there, which I intend to remove. Of course, the admin to whom I was referring was Elonka, and thankfully her interaction has helped us put this behind us. — TAnthony Talk 02:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey there, just wanted to say I am sorry for our conflict over Sami Brady, I may have disagreed with you, but losing my temper is never appropriate. I know you also only want what is best for articles. Look forward to collaborating in the future. TheRhani ( talk) 19:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I'm looking at this edit. How can the image you removed be considered as having a "questionable license"? There's OTRS archive of the proof from the author of the photograph (Luke Ford) granting clear permission for the image to used here. Tabercil ( talk) 23:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, his comment was uncivil. Is this one in a pattern of multiple uncivil communications from him, or was it a one-time thing? If it's a one-time problem, the best way to deal with it is usually to delete or ignore. Pretty much anyone can have a bad day, so I like to give everybody a free pass for the first comment or two (unless of course they are really egregious).
There are also different ways to ignore the comment. You've done one (tell him in all caps to get off your page), though I don't think that's necessarily the most effective way of handling things (it doesn't reflect well on you). The trick is to express your concerns with his behavior, in a way that you come off as the adult. Take the high road. Are you familiar with something called " Transactional analysis"? It basically boils down to people communicating from one of three possible states, Parent/Adult/Child. In your own reactions to incivility, I'd recommend going for the medium level, the "adult" response. For example:
Now, if it does turn out that there's a pattern of rude comments from a particular editor, such that further admin action may be required, it's important to document these things. One of the best things you can do is to post a polite note to the editor's talk page, link them to the policy, and, most importantly, diff the problematic comment to them. Section headers and edit summaries are also important tools here, as you can really craft a very precisely-calibrated caution, depending on what's needed:
It may not sound like much, but someone getting any kind of a warning to their talkpage, especially when there's a flagged edit summary that shows up easily in the page history, often has tremendous weight. Of course, it's also a risk that it may escalate the situation, so there's a bit of an art to it. There's also some "Practice makes perfect" involved. As you get better at it though, it's a really really useful tool for your toolbox.
I hope that helps! I'll keep an eye on things and step in if needed. If there's a pattern, and they're not heeding good faith warnings, I won't hesitate to get involved. But (usually) before an admin is going to get involved, they'd want to see that you'd made an attempt on your own first, to see if you could resolve things. They would also watch to see if it's a case of one user causing problems, of if it's two users just yelling at each other. Speaking for myself, I'd also want to see a "paper trail" of multiple warnings (which make an admin's job much much easier).
So, think any of the above suggestions might help? -- El on ka 02:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I've said that I didn't want you to leave the article, and hope I've taken an action that will get you to participate again. I've noticed that both you and Flyer22 have had very positive interactions and value the opinion of Elonka. As such, I've asked her to give it a look over and offer her opinions on the direction of the article. Hopefully with a new set of eyes, we can all move forward with out any o the confrontations and anger. AniMate 10:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
It's true. I am you. We would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for those kids and their dog. I am sorry if this is shocking news, as I'm afraid your whole life is just my freaky dream. I've got to stop having cool ranch Doritos and rum right before bed. - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 01:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed your comments ( [6] [7] [8]) directed toward User:TenPoundHammer on his talk page had a lack of civility. They were quite confrontational, and it appeared as if you were assuming poor faith on his part. You need to calm down, take a look at WP:CIVIL, and try to assume good faith. The comments you have been making are increasingly rude, and cautioning TenPoundHammer for being incivil after he tried to work things out with you is simply unacceptable.
I can see that you have had other warnings in the past for this kind of behavior and would like to warn you that further incidence will result in a block. Please try to work out your dispute with TenPoundHammer in a calm and civil manner. Thank you, Malinaccier ( talk) 00:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I've changed it back to just plain "guitar" and cited it to the All Music Guide source in the article -- is that fair enough? Also, nowhere did I ever claim your edits as vandalism; you're putting words in my mouth there. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 00:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
As an administrator, I have tried to help mediate this dispute but you are continually ignoring my attempts at calming the situation down. I am now requesting another administrator's opinion on the matter, and if needed I will start a Request for Comment on the matter. Please calm down, stop pointing fingers, and assume good faith on the parts of myself and TenPoundHammer. Malinaccier ( talk) 01:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
On your own user talk page, you may remove others' comments, although archiving is generally preferred.
On your own user talk page, you may remove others' comments, although archiving is generally preferred.
Just wanted to repeat it since I was accused of wrongful doing.
KellyAna (
talk) 01:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
OK. KellyAna, I will agree to back out of this argument. I can see that I should have waited longer before saying anything (or anything at all) to you, but I thought that by cautioning both of you to cool it down a bit, I could head-off a much larger argument. Instead I should have waited.
I didn't give you an official warning or anything about removing my comment, but it seemed disruptive and against the talk page guidelines. Probably the only reason that I minded was because my comment was directed toward TenPoundHammer also. You were arguing over whether the use of Twinkle mattered or not. I simply sought to head-off another avenue of enflamed argument coming from you both.
I'm sorry that my comments coupled with TenPoundHammer's appeared to be ganging up on you and backing you into a corner. Once again, I should have waited before stepping in. I guess Elonka was right about the lashing out thing—for all the involved parties: Me, you, and TenPoundHammer.
I do object to your saying that I do not know talk page policy. The policy does say that editing other user's comments is unacceptable, and because my comment was not only directed toward you; was not a warning; and (as I thought at the time) was helping stop a larger argument, I believed that you should not have removed it.
Once again, I'm sorry for butting in. I'll say it again: I should have waited before stepping in. And I'll add to it: I should have gotten your side of the story first before warning you for incivility.
With that, unless someone requests that I continue to remain in this argument (let's hope not), I respectfully withdraw. I would like to note, however, that my warning about your incivility still remains. Please assume good faith and argue in a calm and civil manner. Happy editing from now on, Malinaccier ( talk) 14:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
You did a great job on the cleanup, I must say I'm impressed. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 21:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that my edit summary was either snotty or rude. I simply like bringing a little levity to what is otherwise a very droll thing. I'm sorry that you interpreted it as such, but no, it was not intended that way. — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 02:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I just wanted to apologize for the grief I gave you earlier on the Trace Adkins article. It was really stupid of me to do a little bit of original research and split hairs about what kind of guitar he plays. I would have apologized sooner, but my sister was hogging the computer and I couldn't get on to Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 04:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Your warnings are ridiculous. Todd Bridges doesn't need a filmography longer than Brad Pitt's. Also, This isn't satire. The vocalist for this band is named Gary LeVox, which literally means “Gary the Voice.” This is a truth, it is a Latin name. This is not comedic and false, as you so eloquently put. You cannot have me blocked for these edits, so spare me the templates. The Equilibrium ( talk) 04:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, can you please show me the talkpage discussion, that shows that Jebco's edits are incorrect? If there is deliberate vandalism, there are ways to address this, but if it's just a difference in opinion, a different tack may be needed. Thanks, -- El on ka 01:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Take the talkpage that's on the redirect (Crane?) and move it to be a subpage of the active talkpage: /Archive 1. Then post a note on the "real" talkpage saying what you did. -- El on ka 02:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC) on the central talkpage.
Please be aware that I have filed a request with the arbitration committee regarding the titling of Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane. -- Dougie WII ( talk) 02:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this diff, I don't think that it's acceptable to place external links within the text of the article -- I have never seen this in, say, GA-class articles, so I believe that it's discouraged. If you want to move that link to the "External links" section, that would probably be preferable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 02:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
KellyAna, I'm sorry, but all of the following comments by you are unacceptable in terms of civility. [11] [12] [13] This is your last warning. If you continue with this type of language, you will be blocked. -- El on ka 02:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Based on the diffs in my above warning, plus your comments since then, [14] [15] which are a violation of Wikipedia's policies on civility and no personal attacks, your account is blocked for 3 hours. Please reconsider your behavior. -- El on ka 03:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC) My
This [16] was clearly a personal attack. Please review Wikipedia's policy on no personal attacks, and Wikipedia's policy on civility. I'm serious. Please read both of them. -- El on ka 01:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello KellyAna. What a surprise after going to bed and waking up this morning to see what you said about me overnight. I don't engage in name-calling and other rudeness since that is childish behavior, so this will be my final comment on your page. I'm sorry you feel that I am a joke. In my ten years of doing my website, you're the first to say that. I do have a life, as "Days" is just a hobby for me. I have had many sources throughout the years and have been the first to report much information about the show. I also used to post scripts months in advance until I was asked by the show to stop, since it was spoiling too much too soon. I'm sorry you feel that I am an idiot. I provide tons of information about "Days" unavailable anywhere else on the Internet, so I don't see why you would feel that way. I've made available the weekly Nielsen ratings since 1989, a guest star gallery of every guest since 2006, biographies and pictures of all 27 head writers since 1965, a listing of the 269 preemptions since 1965, a contract archive since 1986, a listing of every Emmy nominee in Days history, a listing of every Soap Opera Digest article and cover about Days, a 1965 tribute including the entire first week of scripts, as well as the first-ever episode scripts of Deidre Hall (1976), James Reynolds (1981) and upcoming will be celebrating Suzanne Rogers' 35th anniversary as Maggie on Days this August by releasing her first episode script from August 1973. You seem to be a Days fan as well, so I thought perhaps you would enjoy some of those features, or at least not think I'm an idiot because of them. And yes, this is Jason47, not someone pretending to be him. All of the message boards I visit always have nice things to say about me, so it was surprising to me when you said that I've "been denounced as a source by intelligent people everywhere." They must be Days boards that I have not visited before. I hope you'll enjoy my tribute to Suzanne Rogers over the summer. All the best, Jason47 Jason47a ( talk) 16:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Way up there, you asked: "Question for you, do you consider album jackets "reliable sources" because it's the one band we have all the CD's for. I know for shows we use DVD features but I've never done expansion on a group like this."
As far as I know, album liner notes are considered reliable sources -- I use them as sources when I create a page on an album, for example. They're primary sources, but I don't see any reason not to use them. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 21:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
How can you possibly know this information about Irishlass if she never mentioned it yesterday to anyone? [17] Also, why is it, you feel the need to remove comments off of Irishlass's talk from another user? If I was Irishlass, I would want to see comments left to me from other users. Thanks DJS-- DJS24 ( talk) 20:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
You've failed to elaborate why Trace's case is any different from every single candidate that has been on the show before. The final two are not handled differently by any means; there is not a "runner-up" status for the one Trump doesn't choose. He is listed as "Fired" like every other losing finalist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tam001 ( talk • contribs) 23:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Personal attacks are not going to make your arguments stronger. I've mentioned more than once that the candidate doesn't have to hear "you're fired" to be considered as fired. He didn't win, so he is fired. Also, the job insult is pretty inappropriate; do you really think The Apprentice mirrors a real job interview? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tam001 ( talk • contribs) 23:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
You're completely missing the point; the text you wrote is nothing more than your personal POV, which has no place on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tam001 ( talk • contribs) 00:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I've warned the user who's repeatedly reverting the warning on your Talk page that their repeated reversions is bordering on harrassment and they need to stop. Corvus cornix talk 22:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
HELP ~ I tried to edit and it says I'm blocked still and cannot edit. Please unblock me for real. Obviously you meant to but it didn't work. KellyAna ( talk) 01:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi KellyAna. I wanted to apologize for the error I made in reverting the 3rr comment. I was working on multiple screens and was a bit distracted. The second note was a cut and paste error due to conflicting edits within the page. The diff shows the comment I intended to make as well as the cut-and-paste error I made by reincluding the 3rr comment. Corvus cornix reverted that comment too, so I don't know if you ever saw it. Corvus cornix was completely correct in reverting the 3rr part because that was my mistake but they overreacted in refusing to accept the explanation which was given in good faith. I hope this explanation is acceptable to you, but if you would like additional clarification please let me know. Thanks. --- Taroaldo ( talk) 23:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I understand the underlying debate... and don't really care one way or the other (I have never seen the programe). The point is that the screen cap demonstrates (reliably) that, at one point at least, the name Caine (or what ever it is) was used for the character. If the character had another name at a different time, that can (and should) be mentioned as well. Actually, the screen cap is not even needed... a simple citation to the episode date is enough to reliably source a statement that, as of that date, the character had that name. As to the underlying debate... I am more than willing to let you all argue over what the page name should be (Note that whichever name ends up not being used should be listed in bold as an "alternative", per Naming conventions and MOS). Happy Wiki-ing. Blueboar ( talk) 00:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Block message:
original block message
Decline reason: According to your block log, you have been unblocked. If this is not the case, please follow these directions exactly to lift any autoblocks that may still apply to your account:
Clearing an autoblock
Due to the nature of the block applied, we need additional information before we can decide whether to unblock you. It is very likely that you are not personally blocked. If you are prevented from editing, it may be because you are autoblocked or blocked because of your IP address. Without further details, there is nothing further we can do to review or lift your block. Please follow these instructions:
— Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 01:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the question, though I'll be honest that I don't have time to look at this right now, and "fair use" on images is a really touchy subject. I recommend that you post your query at the Wikipedia:Help desk. You'll probably get an answer there within minutes. -- El on ka 02:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I know we ain't on the best terms, but I'd like to change that. Truce?-- KingMorpheus ( talk) 05:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I won't apologize for following Wikpedia guidelines. I'd also like to point out something at the bottom of every page we see when we edit:
That being said, I really don't want you to leave the article. I'm quite sorry you think I'm ruining it, and I'm not doing anything out of spite, nor do I appreciate your characterizations of me. However, you're a valued and appreciated contributor, and hope you will continue to contribute. AniMate 19:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
(title assumed because editor left random message) I'm a little confused. What was not proper about the changes I made?-- Jbrut
Why is the Carly Corinthos page blocked? I have images below (my contributions) that I would like to share. THey are now marked as orphaned. Can you put them in 4 me? -- Carly Fan 12 ( talk) 13:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow! That was a really rude answer! and uncalled for!-- 99.177.250.140 ( talk) 03:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I just added what was there, however, I did find sources. -- Yankeesrj12 ( talk) 02:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
For all the work you do reverting vandalism! Avruch T 23:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC) |
Hi KellyAna, I've noticed that you do a lot of vandalism reversion and I wanted to drop this barnstar on your page as thanks. I also wanted to say that it seems like in the last few days you've been involved in a few conflicts, and it looks like you've been pretty frustrated. Its tough to assume that other editors contribute in good faith (that is, they mean well and want to help the encyclopedia) when you see a lot of vandalism and editors that don't follow policies like civility and consensus editing. Still, even when dealing with folks you disagree with or don't like its important to stay calm and polite in return. If you find that its hard to do that, generally a little time off is in order. With all of the good work you do, I'd hate to see you end up blocked because someone saw some warnings in your talkpage history and a few frustrated reverts in your contribs. Keep up the good work, and feel free to let me know if you need help with anything. About the banner below... You should ask on the village pump to see if someone can find a way to make sure your banner stays at the bottom, that way people who don't see it and want to talk to you can do it without messing up your page. (I also saw the MOSDATE thing from earlier... Personally, I think project and page consensus stacks up pretty well against MOS guidelines but its generally a good idea not to dismiss MOS out of hand, people get upset!) Avruch T 23:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey there! User:Shapiros10 began promoting a possible Survivor Task Force today, and I decided to continue spreading the message. I figure this may help us gain a more standard MOS, which can benefit all related articles. As you are a frequent visitor to the Survivor pages, I thought you might want to help. If yes, then follow the link above (or to the left if your screen is really -really- long!) and help us start something great. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 09:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
(copying from my talkpage) A comment that makes no sense is nonsensical and I have a right to remove anything from my page that I don't understand the wording of. It is not "uncivil" it is fact. Have people speak in normal English and I'll not remove their comments. Comments that makes no sense will be removed as "nonsensical." KellyAna ( talk) 03:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
KellyAna, I do want to calmly clear the air with you on a few things. I admit I have been somewhat frustrated with some of your edits and comments lately, but I of course apologize for anything which may be construed as a personal attack. And though I have indeed been watching your talk page and looking in on your contributions (as anyone has a right to do), I have only "interfered" in soap article-related matters. I have had Sami Brady and Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald on my watchlist for awhile, and I started watching TheRhani's talk page before you even commented there (I had left my own comment there previously, after she made her first Sami Brady edits). I'm sorry if you feel "followed," I assure you that is not the case.
My main issue with your edits and behavior lately is what I perceive as you making repeated controversial edits and reverts without discussion and using false and misleading statements to support them (An example: "Soap articles are done this way"). You then seem to dismiss and ignore any and all discussion or criticism of these edits, including citations of policies and guidelines that challenge your edits. This is inappropriate. I don't believe you are purposely misleading; you obviously feel strongly about your practices, but I feel that some of them are incorrect and yet you will not consider this possibility. As I've said elsewhere, my concern is for the articles I believe you are impacting negatively, and also that other impressionable editors may see your edits and practices and mimic them. You yourself sometimes note that you're doing things how you've seen them done in other articles. As an experienced editor, you may be influential to others, and I am uncomfortable with your perpetuating some of these "questionable" practices by advising and admonishing editors when they contradict you or make edits with which you disagree.
I admit that I am guilty of this myself at times, but I feel that you often have an unnecessarily defensive, hostile and combative tone in your edit summaries and comments. I understand the frustration that comes with the constant senseless and incorrect edits to soap articles by IP users, etc. because I go through the same thing, so I do not wish to scold you but rather ask you to take more care in this area, as I will for myself.
I watch a lot of articles and user talk pages. I of course will never fully stop editing and commenting where I feel it is appropriate, but I regularly ignore plenty of edits I disagree with and discussions I could be useful in. You and I are a lot alike in that we are both very opinionated and strong-willed, and it appears very easy for us to goad each other into inappropriate and counterproductive behavior. Despite my dedication to the Project in general, I have little personal interest in the Days of our Lives articles, and will probably now ignore them and let you do whatever you want. I do ask that you try in the future to thoughtfully consider the good faith criticisms of other editors, and respect their opinions enough to sometimes just accept their changes to your work or leave their own edits alone — even if you disagree somewhat. You may also reconsider the way you maintain your talk page, as dismissing/deleting valid comments without acknowledgment can be considered uncivil. I also ask that you take more care with your justifications, and provide links to actual guidelines or precedents when you are asserting questionable practices or those likely to be challenged. — TAnthony Talk
Not sure if you're still monitoring the talk page, but I added another set of comments because I don't think the question has yet been answered to the point where it will be useful for the discussion of screencaps-as-proof at Talk:Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald. — TAnthony Talk 18:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for not being upset about my comments there, which I intend to remove. Of course, the admin to whom I was referring was Elonka, and thankfully her interaction has helped us put this behind us. — TAnthony Talk 02:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey there, just wanted to say I am sorry for our conflict over Sami Brady, I may have disagreed with you, but losing my temper is never appropriate. I know you also only want what is best for articles. Look forward to collaborating in the future. TheRhani ( talk) 19:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I'm looking at this edit. How can the image you removed be considered as having a "questionable license"? There's OTRS archive of the proof from the author of the photograph (Luke Ford) granting clear permission for the image to used here. Tabercil ( talk) 23:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, his comment was uncivil. Is this one in a pattern of multiple uncivil communications from him, or was it a one-time thing? If it's a one-time problem, the best way to deal with it is usually to delete or ignore. Pretty much anyone can have a bad day, so I like to give everybody a free pass for the first comment or two (unless of course they are really egregious).
There are also different ways to ignore the comment. You've done one (tell him in all caps to get off your page), though I don't think that's necessarily the most effective way of handling things (it doesn't reflect well on you). The trick is to express your concerns with his behavior, in a way that you come off as the adult. Take the high road. Are you familiar with something called " Transactional analysis"? It basically boils down to people communicating from one of three possible states, Parent/Adult/Child. In your own reactions to incivility, I'd recommend going for the medium level, the "adult" response. For example:
Now, if it does turn out that there's a pattern of rude comments from a particular editor, such that further admin action may be required, it's important to document these things. One of the best things you can do is to post a polite note to the editor's talk page, link them to the policy, and, most importantly, diff the problematic comment to them. Section headers and edit summaries are also important tools here, as you can really craft a very precisely-calibrated caution, depending on what's needed:
It may not sound like much, but someone getting any kind of a warning to their talkpage, especially when there's a flagged edit summary that shows up easily in the page history, often has tremendous weight. Of course, it's also a risk that it may escalate the situation, so there's a bit of an art to it. There's also some "Practice makes perfect" involved. As you get better at it though, it's a really really useful tool for your toolbox.
I hope that helps! I'll keep an eye on things and step in if needed. If there's a pattern, and they're not heeding good faith warnings, I won't hesitate to get involved. But (usually) before an admin is going to get involved, they'd want to see that you'd made an attempt on your own first, to see if you could resolve things. They would also watch to see if it's a case of one user causing problems, of if it's two users just yelling at each other. Speaking for myself, I'd also want to see a "paper trail" of multiple warnings (which make an admin's job much much easier).
So, think any of the above suggestions might help? -- El on ka 02:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I've said that I didn't want you to leave the article, and hope I've taken an action that will get you to participate again. I've noticed that both you and Flyer22 have had very positive interactions and value the opinion of Elonka. As such, I've asked her to give it a look over and offer her opinions on the direction of the article. Hopefully with a new set of eyes, we can all move forward with out any o the confrontations and anger. AniMate 10:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
It's true. I am you. We would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for those kids and their dog. I am sorry if this is shocking news, as I'm afraid your whole life is just my freaky dream. I've got to stop having cool ranch Doritos and rum right before bed. - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 01:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed your comments ( [6] [7] [8]) directed toward User:TenPoundHammer on his talk page had a lack of civility. They were quite confrontational, and it appeared as if you were assuming poor faith on his part. You need to calm down, take a look at WP:CIVIL, and try to assume good faith. The comments you have been making are increasingly rude, and cautioning TenPoundHammer for being incivil after he tried to work things out with you is simply unacceptable.
I can see that you have had other warnings in the past for this kind of behavior and would like to warn you that further incidence will result in a block. Please try to work out your dispute with TenPoundHammer in a calm and civil manner. Thank you, Malinaccier ( talk) 00:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I've changed it back to just plain "guitar" and cited it to the All Music Guide source in the article -- is that fair enough? Also, nowhere did I ever claim your edits as vandalism; you're putting words in my mouth there. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 00:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
As an administrator, I have tried to help mediate this dispute but you are continually ignoring my attempts at calming the situation down. I am now requesting another administrator's opinion on the matter, and if needed I will start a Request for Comment on the matter. Please calm down, stop pointing fingers, and assume good faith on the parts of myself and TenPoundHammer. Malinaccier ( talk) 01:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
On your own user talk page, you may remove others' comments, although archiving is generally preferred.
On your own user talk page, you may remove others' comments, although archiving is generally preferred.
Just wanted to repeat it since I was accused of wrongful doing.
KellyAna (
talk) 01:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
OK. KellyAna, I will agree to back out of this argument. I can see that I should have waited longer before saying anything (or anything at all) to you, but I thought that by cautioning both of you to cool it down a bit, I could head-off a much larger argument. Instead I should have waited.
I didn't give you an official warning or anything about removing my comment, but it seemed disruptive and against the talk page guidelines. Probably the only reason that I minded was because my comment was directed toward TenPoundHammer also. You were arguing over whether the use of Twinkle mattered or not. I simply sought to head-off another avenue of enflamed argument coming from you both.
I'm sorry that my comments coupled with TenPoundHammer's appeared to be ganging up on you and backing you into a corner. Once again, I should have waited before stepping in. I guess Elonka was right about the lashing out thing—for all the involved parties: Me, you, and TenPoundHammer.
I do object to your saying that I do not know talk page policy. The policy does say that editing other user's comments is unacceptable, and because my comment was not only directed toward you; was not a warning; and (as I thought at the time) was helping stop a larger argument, I believed that you should not have removed it.
Once again, I'm sorry for butting in. I'll say it again: I should have waited before stepping in. And I'll add to it: I should have gotten your side of the story first before warning you for incivility.
With that, unless someone requests that I continue to remain in this argument (let's hope not), I respectfully withdraw. I would like to note, however, that my warning about your incivility still remains. Please assume good faith and argue in a calm and civil manner. Happy editing from now on, Malinaccier ( talk) 14:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
You did a great job on the cleanup, I must say I'm impressed. TheBlazikenMaster ( talk) 21:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that my edit summary was either snotty or rude. I simply like bringing a little levity to what is otherwise a very droll thing. I'm sorry that you interpreted it as such, but no, it was not intended that way. — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 02:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I just wanted to apologize for the grief I gave you earlier on the Trace Adkins article. It was really stupid of me to do a little bit of original research and split hairs about what kind of guitar he plays. I would have apologized sooner, but my sister was hogging the computer and I couldn't get on to Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 04:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Your warnings are ridiculous. Todd Bridges doesn't need a filmography longer than Brad Pitt's. Also, This isn't satire. The vocalist for this band is named Gary LeVox, which literally means “Gary the Voice.” This is a truth, it is a Latin name. This is not comedic and false, as you so eloquently put. You cannot have me blocked for these edits, so spare me the templates. The Equilibrium ( talk) 04:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Kelly, can you please show me the talkpage discussion, that shows that Jebco's edits are incorrect? If there is deliberate vandalism, there are ways to address this, but if it's just a difference in opinion, a different tack may be needed. Thanks, -- El on ka 01:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Take the talkpage that's on the redirect (Crane?) and move it to be a subpage of the active talkpage: /Archive 1. Then post a note on the "real" talkpage saying what you did. -- El on ka 02:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC) on the central talkpage.
Please be aware that I have filed a request with the arbitration committee regarding the titling of Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane. -- Dougie WII ( talk) 02:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this diff, I don't think that it's acceptable to place external links within the text of the article -- I have never seen this in, say, GA-class articles, so I believe that it's discouraged. If you want to move that link to the "External links" section, that would probably be preferable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 02:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
KellyAna, I'm sorry, but all of the following comments by you are unacceptable in terms of civility. [11] [12] [13] This is your last warning. If you continue with this type of language, you will be blocked. -- El on ka 02:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Based on the diffs in my above warning, plus your comments since then, [14] [15] which are a violation of Wikipedia's policies on civility and no personal attacks, your account is blocked for 3 hours. Please reconsider your behavior. -- El on ka 03:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC) My
This [16] was clearly a personal attack. Please review Wikipedia's policy on no personal attacks, and Wikipedia's policy on civility. I'm serious. Please read both of them. -- El on ka 01:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello KellyAna. What a surprise after going to bed and waking up this morning to see what you said about me overnight. I don't engage in name-calling and other rudeness since that is childish behavior, so this will be my final comment on your page. I'm sorry you feel that I am a joke. In my ten years of doing my website, you're the first to say that. I do have a life, as "Days" is just a hobby for me. I have had many sources throughout the years and have been the first to report much information about the show. I also used to post scripts months in advance until I was asked by the show to stop, since it was spoiling too much too soon. I'm sorry you feel that I am an idiot. I provide tons of information about "Days" unavailable anywhere else on the Internet, so I don't see why you would feel that way. I've made available the weekly Nielsen ratings since 1989, a guest star gallery of every guest since 2006, biographies and pictures of all 27 head writers since 1965, a listing of the 269 preemptions since 1965, a contract archive since 1986, a listing of every Emmy nominee in Days history, a listing of every Soap Opera Digest article and cover about Days, a 1965 tribute including the entire first week of scripts, as well as the first-ever episode scripts of Deidre Hall (1976), James Reynolds (1981) and upcoming will be celebrating Suzanne Rogers' 35th anniversary as Maggie on Days this August by releasing her first episode script from August 1973. You seem to be a Days fan as well, so I thought perhaps you would enjoy some of those features, or at least not think I'm an idiot because of them. And yes, this is Jason47, not someone pretending to be him. All of the message boards I visit always have nice things to say about me, so it was surprising to me when you said that I've "been denounced as a source by intelligent people everywhere." They must be Days boards that I have not visited before. I hope you'll enjoy my tribute to Suzanne Rogers over the summer. All the best, Jason47 Jason47a ( talk) 16:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Way up there, you asked: "Question for you, do you consider album jackets "reliable sources" because it's the one band we have all the CD's for. I know for shows we use DVD features but I've never done expansion on a group like this."
As far as I know, album liner notes are considered reliable sources -- I use them as sources when I create a page on an album, for example. They're primary sources, but I don't see any reason not to use them. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 21:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
How can you possibly know this information about Irishlass if she never mentioned it yesterday to anyone? [17] Also, why is it, you feel the need to remove comments off of Irishlass's talk from another user? If I was Irishlass, I would want to see comments left to me from other users. Thanks DJS-- DJS24 ( talk) 20:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
You've failed to elaborate why Trace's case is any different from every single candidate that has been on the show before. The final two are not handled differently by any means; there is not a "runner-up" status for the one Trump doesn't choose. He is listed as "Fired" like every other losing finalist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tam001 ( talk • contribs) 23:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Personal attacks are not going to make your arguments stronger. I've mentioned more than once that the candidate doesn't have to hear "you're fired" to be considered as fired. He didn't win, so he is fired. Also, the job insult is pretty inappropriate; do you really think The Apprentice mirrors a real job interview? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tam001 ( talk • contribs) 23:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
You're completely missing the point; the text you wrote is nothing more than your personal POV, which has no place on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tam001 ( talk • contribs) 00:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I've warned the user who's repeatedly reverting the warning on your Talk page that their repeated reversions is bordering on harrassment and they need to stop. Corvus cornix talk 22:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
HELP ~ I tried to edit and it says I'm blocked still and cannot edit. Please unblock me for real. Obviously you meant to but it didn't work. KellyAna ( talk) 01:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi KellyAna. I wanted to apologize for the error I made in reverting the 3rr comment. I was working on multiple screens and was a bit distracted. The second note was a cut and paste error due to conflicting edits within the page. The diff shows the comment I intended to make as well as the cut-and-paste error I made by reincluding the 3rr comment. Corvus cornix reverted that comment too, so I don't know if you ever saw it. Corvus cornix was completely correct in reverting the 3rr part because that was my mistake but they overreacted in refusing to accept the explanation which was given in good faith. I hope this explanation is acceptable to you, but if you would like additional clarification please let me know. Thanks. --- Taroaldo ( talk) 23:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I understand the underlying debate... and don't really care one way or the other (I have never seen the programe). The point is that the screen cap demonstrates (reliably) that, at one point at least, the name Caine (or what ever it is) was used for the character. If the character had another name at a different time, that can (and should) be mentioned as well. Actually, the screen cap is not even needed... a simple citation to the episode date is enough to reliably source a statement that, as of that date, the character had that name. As to the underlying debate... I am more than willing to let you all argue over what the page name should be (Note that whichever name ends up not being used should be listed in bold as an "alternative", per Naming conventions and MOS). Happy Wiki-ing. Blueboar ( talk) 00:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Block message:
original block message
Decline reason: According to your block log, you have been unblocked. If this is not the case, please follow these directions exactly to lift any autoblocks that may still apply to your account:
Clearing an autoblock
Due to the nature of the block applied, we need additional information before we can decide whether to unblock you. It is very likely that you are not personally blocked. If you are prevented from editing, it may be because you are autoblocked or blocked because of your IP address. Without further details, there is nothing further we can do to review or lift your block. Please follow these instructions:
— Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 01:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the question, though I'll be honest that I don't have time to look at this right now, and "fair use" on images is a really touchy subject. I recommend that you post your query at the Wikipedia:Help desk. You'll probably get an answer there within minutes. -- El on ka 02:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)