Hi there. I asked Yamla if she could help but she said she can't. There is a user Myolo editing the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady page in such a way as to bias the article towards a view that is not shared by many. Since you took an interest in this early on, I'm hoping you can help.
There is controversy over a certain scene and I have addressed that in the controversy section but user Myolo continues to edit the page to refer to a scene in an absolute view that is not shared by everyone and I believe this is in violation of the neutrality policies of Wikipedia. Myolo is also using fictional dialogue as "proof" of their view and is even stating things that are incorrect. I have explained further my reasons for disagreeing on Myolo's user page. (I'm sorry but I'm not sure how to link directly to a user page)
If you could just pop over and take a look for me and give me your honest feedback, I will respect whatever you think is best for the article. This issue definitely needs another point of view. Thanks! Radiantbutterfly 17:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
you asked a question. the answer would be no. Antigone28 17:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
But, anyway, I'm moving on. Flyer22 17:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I completely understand what you are saying about the supercouple page and I think you are right in doing so, I don't by any means want to start a wiki war, or anything so thank you for correcting my error. I was trying to put a picture for the EJ Wells page last night but I couldn't do it so if you could please help me next time I'd be very grateful.once again thank you. User:Perfecttlovee
As for the Lucas and Sami topic you mention, I explained with this link... [1] Flyer22 01:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, don't forget to sign your user-name on talk pages, even though I know that it's you I'm talking to as of now, but such as on the Supercouple talk page, you forgot to sign your user-name. Flyer22 02:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
And, yes, I know of the link you speak of, if you mean the link from sofeminine.co.uk, but since that site is already referenced to twice within the Supercouple article, it's best that we don't link to them yet again within the Supercouple article. Also, to have most of the celebrity supercouples pointed out as supercouples from different sites, it adds to the fact that the reference to celebrity supercouples isn't just coming from one source. Flyer22 03:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:D2 tn.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Sam McCall (Main).JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Bianca and Babe.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Naming conventions I'm not necessarily personally invested in the spelling of "J. R."s and "J.R."s but the naming conventions say to put in the space. While moving the pages I have seen such variations as "X. Y. Name" (correct) "X.Y. Name" "X.Y.Name" "Name X.Y. Name" "Name.X.Y.Name" "Name X.Y.Name" etc. While that isn't exactly chaotic to the point of unintelligibility, it is 1.) arbitrary and 2.) in contravention of the simple rule. I didn't take your question as snide, but genuine and reasonable. Thanks for asking. If you want to respond, please do so on my talk. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 14:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the request to look over your expansion of these articles; I've been out of the country and haven't had a chance yet, but I took a quick look and I'm impresed with the work you put into them! Thanks for your contributions and I'll get back to you whan I can. TAnthony 15:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, TAnthony, I'm really trying to figure out how to cut down on the plot summary of the Bianca Montgomery article, or if it's that necessary, gven her status as a long-running character on a soap opera, in which soap operas naturally have more episodes than primetime shows. Josh Madden's plot summary is more than an acceptable length, but I'm sure that it'll eventually get longer, with other editors adding on to it. When that happens, I'll just have to find a way to get his article back to an acceptable smaller length, without taking out important parts of his storyline. Flyer22 15:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi - sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I took a quick look at the article, and I would say the plot summary is a quite long, but if this is a long-running and major character I don't think it's excessive. Cheers, EliminatorJR Talk 06:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
And, of course, don't worry about not having gotten back to me too soon on this matter. I know that editors on Wikipedia are busy with work, some more so than others. See you around, EliminatorJR. Flyer22 06:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Lily Montgomery.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Bianca Montgomery (Main).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you for your kind comments on my talk page. I am also really impressed with the way you debate and am incredibly grateful to you for your interest and help with the EJ and Sami page. You are much more familiar with Wiki policy than I am and so I really appreciate the perspective that you can bring to the debate. I'm pleased to hear that it appears as though the article will not be deleted. I really do think it is of interest to a lot of people (with an interest in this particular soap). Thanks again! Radiantbutterfly 21:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
And, on a totally different topic, as I stated on another editor's talk page, a tip that an experienced Wikipedian editor gave me when I first showed up at Wikipedia, is that it's best that an editor's user name on Wikipedia show up in blue instead of red. It just signals more a "real editor" vibe to experienced Wikipedian editors. You don't have to add on a lot to your user page, of course. You can just say "Hi" on your user page, and your user name will then show up in blue, of course. I've wanted to pass this tip on to you for a while now, so I finally did. Flyer22 23:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Flyer22, The site that you are linking is hardly dedicated to the couple of Lucy and Desi. It's mostly about Lucille Ball with a few parahraphs on her relationship with Desi. Lucille Ball is my favorite actress and I am sure that the website I have continuously linked it to after it was removed, deals with their relationship because it is the home website for the Lucille Ball-Desi Arnaz Center in Jamestown, NY which is run by their daughter, Lucie Arnaz. Their legacy is based on lucy-desi.com, so it should remain on this website. Thank you.
Hi Flyer22. You are off to such a great start on the article Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee ( Talk) 13:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
-- ST47 Talk· Desk 11:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
It has become impossible to explain to Esse123 the concept of neutrality. She's posting every opinion article available. Opinions are a wonderful thing, we all have them, but they do not make for fact or neutrality. Please fix the Luke and Laura section of the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady page. I sincerely apologize to you for asking for your involvement but I can't seem to make Esse understand that the EJami page is not "all about the rape" which she seems to think it is.
Hi, Flyer. A quick note, I don't have any problem with the entire Santo/Colleen article being included. As a matter of fact, here is the full text right here:
"New Twist in DAY’S Most Controversial Tale
Sami and EJ’s story will take a different turn when portrayers Alison Sweeney and James Scott assume dual roles to play out the love story of Colleen Brady and Santo DiMera.
This week, the letters are finally translated and will be read by various Salemites while Scott and Sweeney bring them to life on-screen. “It’s really romantic story.” declares Sweeney. “I personally think that the idea of these tragic, star-crossed lovers is wonderful and very classic soap. It’s weird to go into this story where you know Colleen’s going to find the love of her life and then it’s going to end tragically and cause this feud.”
While Santo and Colleen will be falling in love, Sami and EJ will not. Nevertheless, this story provides an opportunity for the actors to work together romantically in less controversial tale, “Naturally, we don’t expect anyone to forget about the rape, nor do we expect anyone to take EJ’s rape of Sami lightly,” notes Co-Executive Producer Stephen Wyman. “However, we know life goes on. People can change. At some point, the issue of the rape is going to have to be dealt with in the fundamental way, but meanwhile, there is the audience that wants to see EJ and Sami together. [But] they aren’t forgetting about the rape, either.”
At this point, Sami is unaware that EJ is a dead ringer for Santo, as she is Colleen. “I’m not thinking of her as Sami and him As EJ: I have to play it as a different story.” Explains Sweeney. “She doesn’t see it as any sort of reflection on her relationship with EJ at all.”
The dual roles required that the actors work intensively with a dialect coach; Sweeney to handle an Irish brogue, Scott to learn an Italian accent. “My first reaction was utter, complete fear.” confesses the actress. “It’s all well and good to do a second role, but to have to do an Irish accent and play a character from the ‘50’s? The only thing that preoccupied me from the moment they told me is ‘I don’t want to look like a fool on television and I don’t know how I’m going to have the time, but I have to learn how to do this accent.’ It really scared me but now I’m starting to feel more confident with it.”
As you can see, the part I opted to quote in the wiki article is the only part of the article that speaks directly to Ej & Sami's history/story as a couple. That is why it is the only portion that I included in the wiki article about EJ & Sami's history/story as a couple. It's also the only quote/"statement" that has been made by a Days executive about the incident. I personally don't know where the rest of the article would fit in but I'll leave that up to you to decide. But my reasoning was that since under the "Luke & Laura" section of the "Details on Popularity" portion of the article, it had already been questioned..."Whether the original intent of the the scene between EJ and Sami on December 29, 2006 is ever confirmed by Days of our Lives executives or writers...", I figured a quote from an executive of the show - and whether its an "official statement" or not it is currently the ONLY quote that exists (to my knowledge) from any executive at the show about the incident - it should be included and noted for its contribution to the "debate". Esse123 05:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22! I haven't been here for awhile because it seemed as though things settled down a bit after the deletion debate but I see that a new Lumi fan is trying to take away the neutrality of the EJ and Sami page again for some reason and is trying to turn it into a very negative article. I don't have any interest in getting into an edit war and was going to post something on their talk page but saw that it is filled to the brim with debate about this already so I decided not to add to it. It seems as though user Esse123 is trying to turn the article into a campaign against EJ & Sami being paired romantically by addressing the controversy in as negative a way as possible. Can this person be reported for vandalism or are they acting within Wiki policy in your opinion? I must say, it is tiring to see all these new editors sign up just to edit the EJ and Sami article in a negative way. There is a lot of negative stuff I could add to their Lucas and Sami article that is not there (how about a picture of Lucas hitting Sami as a memorable moment on that page? Or, a picture of Lucas sending Sami to death row?) but if this sort of thing is ok to do to the EJ and Sami article then I guess it sets a precedent and I will have to help them out by editing the Lucas and Sami article. Sorry for my frustration but I just find it hypocritical and childish for these people to vandalize the article like this when I don't believe anyone has even touched the Lucas and Sami article. As you yourself have acknowledged, EJ and Sami is a very popular pairing - if they weren't, the controversy wouldn't exist because the idea of them as a romantic pairing wouldn't exist. No one is calling them a supercouple yet but many viewers (Lumi fans can no more prove the popularity of Lumi than EJami fans can prove the popularity of EJami) think the potential is there. The simple fact that such a large and vocal fan base exists following the controversial scene in December speaks volumes about the popularity of the couple, in my opinion. Anyway, let me know where things stand if you have a minute. Thanks again for all your help with the article! Radiantbutterfly 17:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Flyer. I am also not interested in getting into another edit war so I will leave you to review the edit history and make your decision. While the contributions I made to the EJ & Sami article may be deemed by some to shed a "negative" light on the "couple", imo they are legitimate contributions. The "memorable moments" section, for example, has been repeatedly edited to remove moments that I contributed. There is no reason to remove those moments. It is my impression that the EJ & Sami article is not meant to be an advertisement for this "couple" but a fair discussion of their history. If "good" moments may be highlighted, then "bad" moments should as well; so long as they are "memorable" as the title of the section suggests. I also believe that the series of screenshots I contributed are relevant, much more so than a random screenshot of EJ and Sami talking in his office (though I did not remove that screenshot). If a screenshot of EJ "saving" Sami can be displayed (which I believe are misrepresentative considering his actions are what put her in danger in the first place), then imo the series of screenshots (or at least one screenshot) from "the incident" should be allowed to remain. Esse123 17:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Esse123, thank you for your interest in the article I created but with all due respect to Flyer and I have much respect for her because she has been a huge help to me with the EJ and Sami article, editing Wikipedia is a team effort and if there are concerns over an article's neutrality, there are means to deal with that but trying to pit editors against each other is not the way to go about things. You seem to be editing the EJ and Sami article based on your own personal opinion of the pairing and while I respect your opinion, personal opinions are not something you should be trying to convey in a Wikipedia article because it goes against Wiki policy. The article was created for those interested in the pairing but does remain neutral in that it addresses the controversy surrounding the pairing. Your edits seem to be based on the idea that the article isn't negative enough for you and that's because Wiki policy is to provide neutral articles - not positive or negative. The only section I've never been sure about is the memorable moments section and to be honest, I have been considering removing the section completely and I may still do that and just include the "moments" as character history in the text of the article. As far as the pictures are concerned, I am aware of copyright permission granted for only one of them and that is the first one I added and the copyright is based on the fact that the picture is a publicity shot provided by the network. The picture you added is not and neither are some of the others so perhaps they should be removed as well. Radiantbutterfly 18:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Flyer22 - if you would like to delete this conversation from your talk page and put it on mine, I am perfectly ok with that. I don't think above couple of paragraphs belong here but I didn't want to edit anything out of your talk page myself. Incidentally, is it possible to have a talk page for a specific article because I'm beginning to think this article needs it! :) Radiantbutterfly 21:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
BUT, I will concede that I may be grossly mistaken about the intent of wikipedia. If your explanation of what the couple page is intended to do - "to show the reason that some people see the couple as a feasible romantic pairing" - is accurate to the purpose of a couple page on wikipedia, then I will grant you that some of my contributions have been inappropriate. However, my belief that the intention of wikipedia.org is to present articles of an "encyclopedic" nature prompted me to make contributions that showed a balanced representation of the events that occured between the characters, whether they showed "the reason that some people see the couple as a feasible romantic pairing" or not. In short, it was my belief the page was intended to show an unbiased, purely neutral account of the events that have occured between the two characters, NOT a page aimed towards outlining the views of those who see them as a feasible romantic pairing. I would offer that the latter sort of representation of a couple's story is NOT what the general public would consider to be "neutral".
Perhaps Flyer22 can clarify for me if it is indeed the purpose of a couple page on wikipedia to so heavily favor the views of those who see them as a viable couple versus those who may not. Esse123 22:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I appreciate you acknowledging that there is "embellishment" in certain areas of the article. Esse123 23:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I would just like to point out something else that you might want to consider - the more you and other new Wiki editors edit and show interest in this article and only this article, the more credibility you provide to the argument that EJ and Sami are a very popular pairing and possibly more so than their rival pairing since to this point, I don't think anyone has even been interested enough in the rival pairing's article to bother editing it to make it more neutral. I'd just like you to consider, with respect, the intention of the article - to provide information about the pairing for those who are interested in them not to campaign for or against the pairing. If you wish to continue discussing things with me further, you can use my talk page. Thank you.
Radiantbutterfly 18:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Radiantbutterfly, it's good to see you back. I was wondering where you were and I was wondering how you'd feel about the new additions to the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article, although I had an inkling about how you'd mostly feel about them.
On to business:
You two haven't stated anything on each others' talk page about this specific conversation that has played out on my talk page...yet, I see.
As for the image subject and copyright laws as to images on Wikipedia, as I stated on 65.13.237.254's talk page, screenshots are allowed under a Fair-Use rationale on Wikipedia. You don't need NBC's permission to use those screenshots. All you need is a good Fair-Use rationale, along with proper licensing of those (or any screenshot or promotional) images. And the screenshots should be relevant to what's being addressed and or relevant to the plot summary of its article if it's within the plot summary. The screenshot of EJ and Sami in the Cultural impact section of the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article doesn't necessarily go with what's being addressed, but it is explained in the Fair-Use rationale of that image as to why it is being used in that section.
Fair-Use screenshots cannot be used as the main image for an actor or actress in an actor or actress' article, however.
Next topic:
Couple articles should remain neutral, of course. When a couple article is created, it should provide information as to why they are notable...more so in the form of real-world context, which the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article does have. If either of you are asking me if a couple article on Wikipedia is supposed to be for the fans of that couple, no, it's not...even though fans and non-fans who are familiar with that couple are more likely to visit that couple's article than a random internet surfer would. A couple article, any article on Wikipedia, for that matter, should be written from a perspective that a casual reader will want to read an article on Wikipedia that is valid, clear, and bits that may be important to fans of that article's subject may not matter all that much to that casual reader, thus too much of fan-cruft and or insignificant moments should stay out of an article on Wikipedia. The articles on Wikipedia should be able to pull in, interest, invite all readers...not just fans of that article's subject matter.
The other issue brought up -- Yes, Radiantbutterfly, there is a specific talk page in which we can discuss all that was discussed on my talk page in relation to the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article. The Talk:EJ Wells and Samantha Brady page is where we should further discuss this. Additional comments from you guys on the matter that the three of us have discussed here should be made on that talk page. Flyer22 00:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't until I spent countless hours trying to keep one page clean that I realized what a full time job being an editor can be if you make it. Thanks for all your help with the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady page. Those of us who are fans knew it would be an undertaking, thanks for helping us with it. CelticGreen 00:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:6-1-07-3 1 0003.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:086297.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the support! I am flattered by your comments. :) Also, just as a procedural note: The way that RfAs are structured is different from AfDs. Instead of people adding their comments to the bottom of the current list, there are three sections for "Support" "Oppose" and "Neutral". So I'd recommend moving your comment into the appropriate section. Also, there's a "total tally" number at the top of the page which should be updated to reflect the current totals. Though even experienced Wikipedians often forget to update that number, so it's usually a good idea to do not just a "plus 1", but to actually double-check totals and see if it needs to be brought into line with some earlier comments. Another etiquette thing is that it's usually a good idea to put a note in your edit summary indicating what you just did. But all of this is really just FYI... I'm sure that even if you don't do anything, the page will get cleaned up (it's getting watched pretty closely). But I did want to let you know! Thanks again, El on ka 21:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Colleen Brady.jpg and Image:SantoDiMeraPic.jpg have been flagged in a manner I don't understand. Could you help before they are deleted? Thank you. These are on the Colleen Brady and Santo DiMera pages. IrishLass0128 19:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the article has gotten a nice makeover. However, you've left out key plot points, like aborted relationships to other people. I know it's an article about that couple, but to cut out the context leaves gaping holes in understanding what they went through and why they went back together in the first place. I can understand maybe not mentioning Devon, but the death of Amy Stone and Nina's husband Matt Connolly do need to be mentioned, as they are very important to the plot. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 02:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I have tagged Image:Frankie_Stone.jpg as {{ orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{ not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Is that an actual image, or did you past two separate photos together?
Are there any promotional photos out there of the two posing while in-character? -- Silvestris 22:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
And, yeah, the main image that's there now is fuzzy in its appearance as being increased in size. It was displayed in a smaller size within that article. It will soon be replaced anyway, so I brought up the notion of the Image:Sami and EJ.png as the main image for the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article, though I feel that we should find a slightly bigger copy of that image. Flyer22 23:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Although I sincerely doubt it will help if you do, is there any way you could post a message to this user? They repeated edit the Santo DiMera page adding their opinion and assumptions. If you look at the history you will see numerous changes to the Santo date of birth based on assumptions of other characters' assumed dates of birth. As you and I know SORASs is always a factor in soaps but this person is not "getting it" and repeated changing a page to their assumptions. There are interviews and numerous other factors indicating that the Santo DiMera/Colleen Brady story is set in the 1950s but this person refuses to abide by the verifiable content rule. Any help would be appreciated. (ps ~ my apologies for putting this on your front page. I did not mean to, I've been beating my head over this user and one other vandal. CelticGreen 18:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
If you feel that what this editor keeps doing to those two articles you mention is being done, you may seek to get the thoughts of one of the Wikipedian administrators, of course. I'm not a Wikipedian administrator yet, though you all sure do make me feel like one when I'm approached on matters such as these by you all. I'm not complaining about that though. I like helping editors out on Wikipedia. Flyer22 21:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Esse123 refuses to leave the article neutral and keeps changing the neurtal page with the correct article and puts in place her opinions. The article she is choosing to refer to is NOT about the rape but is a two page article about Santo DiMera and Colleen Brady. While I believe she has every right to have the portion of the article, her version makes it sound like the article was an official statement when it was merely a quote within an article, not any kind of official statement. Additionally, the bolding of the word rape and the word count contribute nothing. I hope I did this right. I'm sorry if I didn't. 75.181.107.214 23:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
In an article about the Santo DiMera/ Colleen Brady storyline in the July 17 2007 edition of Soap Opera Digest, Days of our Lives Co-Executive Producer Stephen Wyman refers to the December 29 2006 incident between EJ and Sami as rape four times. He is quoted as saying:
"Naturally, we don’t expect anyone to forget about the rape, nor do we expect anyone to take EJ’s rape of Sami lightly,” notes Co-Executive Producer Stephen Wyman. “However, we know life goes on. People can change. At some point, the issue of the rape is going to have to be dealt with in the fundamental way, but meanwhile, there is the audience that wants to see EJ and Sami together. [But] they aren’t forgetting about the rape, either.”
The article which is about the Santo/Colleen storyline in which the actors Alison Sweeney and James Scott portray two characters from the past falling in love. Soap Opera Digest notes, "this story provides an opportunity for the actors to work together romantically in a less controversial tale." [1]
I hope this stays in line with Wiki's policy and again, sorry if I did this wrong. Talk pages confuse me. Here is a link to the full article, typed by someone, http://boards.sonypictures.com/soaps/showthread.php?t=93931 if you want to decide. Thank you again 75.181.107.214 14:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Flyer. I'm sorry to put you in the middle of all this. I don't know what Wiki's policies are on personal, verbal attacks but I'd like you to make note of some of what was said between myself and the other editor. It is all on my discussion board. I apologize for my part in this petty back-and-forth editing, but there was no call for some of what was said to me.
Also, regarding the "despite the debate" issue, the word "debate" was chosen specifically because it has been used multiple times in the article already. It was not my word, I took it from the wiki article itself. In fact the exact wording of "Despite the heated debate" begins the "Rival Couple" entry under "Details on Popularity". I would like for it to be added back to the Co-Exec Quote entry but will wait for your decision. Esse123 15:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I wrote an article a month ago you might find interesting. I'm surprised I didn't share it with you, since we are from the same town. Tell me what you think. Escambia High School riots. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Are they allowed insult other editors by calling them ignorant? CelticGreen 00:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Flyer22 01:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The reason I nominated the article for deletion was not because the content was "junk," as that is not a sufficient reason to delete. I nominated it because I feel that articles on soap opera couples should not exist if articles exist for each one individually. I stand by this regardless of how many such articles exist currently. That being said, there is no change that you could have made to the article that would have made it keep-worthy, since the whole concept of the article doesn't belong in Wikipedia.
As for notifying you, I don't see how you can be upset about that, considering that I responded directly to your comment on the talk page, saying that I would nominate the article for deletion. What's more, if you had taken even one glance at the article itself during the time in which its deletion was being discussed, you would have seen the AfD tag on top. If you had actually made any attempt to improve the article during that time, you might have been able to contribute to the deletion discussion.-- DLand TALK 13:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Once I fixed up that article, User:EliminatorJR, who certainly isn't too keen on soap opera supercouple articles existing on Wikipedia and nominated that article for deletion before I fixed that article up, even felt that that article provided notability by Wikipedia standards after I gave it an overhaul, not just by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Soap_Operas#Notable_couples standards. My fixing up those articles were also by Wikipedia's general notability standards, in while one mention by outside press is not substantial coverage of a soap opera couple, multiple outside press mentions of a soap opera couple as notable is enough to provide notability by Wikipedia standards. And I'm also not done expanding those first four soap opera couple articles that I saved from deletion. If the soap opera couple articles on Wikipedia provide creation/history/cultural impact, which the others will when I get through fixing them up, then they are not violating Wikipedia policy and have every right to stay on Wikipedia. I mean, as I mentioned before, some of these articles have already survived a deletion debate, and not many people showed up to debate their deletion either, but the ones that did show up to debate their possible deletion mostly voted Keep, so if you'e telling me that you're going to keep nominating these notable soap opera couple articles and soap opera supercouple articles for deletion until they are deleted from Wikipedia, because you don't want them on Wikipedia, even after they pass a deletion debate, I feel that that is a waste of time, even if a soap opera couple article that you want deleted from Wikipedia is eventually deleted from Wikipedia.
I tend to think like User:Ground Zero, who has what is mentioned below about notability on his user page --
Notability:
WP:NOTABLE, an essay on notability, states clearly (in bold text): "There is no official policy on notability."
Further, there is no consensus that "notability" should be a criterion for inclusion. See the grounds for deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and, for interest, Jimbo Wales' view on notability, as expressed in the poll where notability failed to become an accepted reason for deletion.
-- That is what is on experienced Wikipedian editor Ground Zero's user page, as I mentioned previously, and, of course, I'm not stating that it should really factor into what we are discussing at this moment, but I felt like posting it here. However, I also lean more toward what other (if not most) experienced Wikipedian editors define as notable and when it comes to soap opera couples, if their article is encyclopedic, which, yes, it certainly can be, and it shows that they are cited as a notable couple or a supercouple by outside press, then, I definitely feel that their article belongs on Wikipedia. All of the true supercouples had a huge impact on the television audience and Luke Spencer and Laura Webber's romance defined what a supercouple is, although more so by television standards in that case, though the term Supercouple was basically created due to the Luke Spencer and Laura Webber coupling, and it sent that term into pop culture, and this knowledge should be presented on Wikipedia in an encyclopedic way, which it can be. I would advise you not to expect me to fix up all or even half of these soap opera couple articles in a week and rather agree to what I suggested above. But, regardless, I have much work to do here at Wikipedia...and I will enjoy tackling that work. Flyer22 02:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
When it comes to these couple articles, I'm all about them being notable in having been mentioned as a notable couple by outside (non-soap opera) press multiple times or having had decent, good...or great coverage from outside (non-soap opera) press, which separates them from other soap opera couples and therefore proves their notability...notability, which I feel should be included on Wikipedia. Not every soap opera couple can have an article on Wikipedia, of course, only the notable ones by Wikipedia standards can, and what I mentioned above for soap opera couples in what being notable is about for soap opera couples is definitely the case. On the topic of improving these soap opera couple articles, I'm not, at this moment, interested in expanding the soap opera couple articles that have already been spared from deletion and deemed notable enough to be on Wikipedia. They can be expanded later. I'm more interested in improving the soap opera couple articles that are in bad shape right now, and are in clear violation of Wikipedia standards, so if you keep checking on my work here at Wikipedia, which I'm sure that you will, those are the main soap opera couple articles that you will see me working on. And, again, it is quite work-induced cleaning up these soap opera couple articles, so I'm asking you not to expect some improvements to all of them too soon. The ones that I cannot provide cultural impact on, outside of the soap opera press, I will relay to you. Flyer22 04:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I was hoping if you could go over a couple of articles for me, Lulu Spencer and Kate Howard. I've been trimming Lulu's article down quite a bit and later will be looking to add references and make it better. Kate Howard's article, I think it is pretty ok. I have added references to popular culture, as well as some research to tie it in to the "real world". I appreciate any suggestions you may have. I have also tried to trim down and fix Alexis Davis and fix Amelia Joffe and a bunch other in dire need of editing. But, these are the four I am focusing on right now.-- Charleenmerced Talk 19:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do. Soaps are not my forte, but that may be a benefit. I'm slightly familiar with Bianca, my mother is big into soaps, so I won't be flying completely blind. I'll try and give it a good read over tonight before I go to bed, and look at the peer review so as not to repeat anything else that is said. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Flyer, yeah I remember you. I have never even heard of these characters before (I'm Scottish, and American soaps don't get a whole load of coverage over here), but I found the article very interesting and was impressed with the amount of out-of-universe info that is so rare in fictional character pages. I have left advice for summarising plot sections and character histories at the Andrew Van De Kamp featured article review, if you want to take a look. Other advice/criticism of the article include:
Those are my only major concerns after a quick skim through the article. I'll read it over more thoroughly later, and if you have any specific questions or need help summarising the plot, just ask. :) Paul730 04:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
But wait, if you can see it, does that mean, it's just my computer? Something similar like this happened with the Criticism section as well, when I was editing and viewing this article in preview mode, and I couldn't see the Criticism section on this article's exterior. It seemed as though it might have had something to do with the way that the references were formatted. Flyer22 04:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
If they are not called that in the show, then it isn't relevant in the opening sentence. BAM seems to be some fanmade name, unless I'm wrong and the characters of the show call them "BAM". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Here are a couple of things I came across.
Hope this helps. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
First, the "Actresses approach" should probably just be titled "Casting", with included information on how they got their job. Hendrickson's comment about not wanting to be in a soap, and then later taking the job is a good starting point. If you could find out how she landed the job in the end, that would be even better. Same for the other. Then you can talk about how they approached their respective roles, and end with how those roles eventually affected them. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Bianca and Frankie often talked and relaxed in Frankie's room.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Bianca leans in to kiss Maggie after admitting that Maggie is so much more than a friend to her..jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hiya Flyer22, I had noticed that this article was up for deletion, but to be honest I'm not convinced that it should be saved. I think a good article could be written about the couple, but I dont think that very much in the current article should remain. It would have to be rewritten in my opinion. Most of the information in the article is already in the individual character articles and 'Dirty Den and Angie' just seems like a badly done rehash, with no references to back up anything. Also, to my knowledge, "supercouple" is an American term and not one that I have heard used to describe Den and Angie. I'm not sure what the other members of the EE wikiproject think about the article either, from what I remember it was mostly negative.
On the other hand, they were a hugely popular soap couple. The Christmas 1986 episode is currently the fourth highest viewed UK programme of all time. Stuff about their cultural impact in the UK and the effect they had on soap and television in general could definitely be included to bring it up to standard. I've also seen the great work you've done on the American articles, and it would be nice to see this one brought up to the same standard. So basically, i'm undecided :)
There is a lot of real world analysis I have written in the character development sections of the Den Watts and Angie Watts articles. Some of it could be tweaked and put into this one for the time being, if you think it would be beneficial for the AFD? Gung adin ♦ 23:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. :) -- Silvestris 00:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your invitation to edit the Montgomery and Maggie Stone article, and for the very kind words about my copyediting. I took a quick look at the article, and it appeared to be in pretty good shape already. I'm going on an indefinite wikibreak, so I am afraid that I won't be able to look at it. Keep up your excellent. I'm sorry I can't help out. Ground Zero | t 01:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh my, I'm dreadfully sorry about that. It was a genuine mistake. I was attempting to correct (read: redirect) 3 duplicates of that page and I guess I accidentally moved it after checking out the wrong page (normally I check before moving, of course). Thanks for making me aware of it. No malice or anything was intended. Zelse81 22:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Maggie helps Bianca during the aftermath of Bianca's rape..jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I see you actually read other editor's talk pages ;) You may want to take a look at the further response I left at User_talk:Jgera5#CBS_Mandate. Perhaps you have some ideas about what to do with this one... Oh, and if you haven't seen it yet, there's a reply to you on my talk page. Pairadox 04:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
As for the CBS Mandate article, what do you want me to do concerning that, give some insight on what needs to be done to improve that article? Flyer22 20:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22. I have only recently signed up on wikipedia and I have heard that you are the person to come to with any problems. You see there has been a bit of a disagreement between IrishLass0128 and myself. You see originally the show stated that Stefano was the seventh son of the seventh son, but with the recent flashbacks it has been stated that Stefano is Santo's only son. I understant that this is the current stroyline and we must go with it, but I also believe that Stefano must have had at least one brother, since Andre is Stefano nephew by blood. Since Stefano is Santo's only child, then this sibling/ siblings must have only been half-siblings from Stefano's mothers side. Unfortanatly Irishlass refuses to see my point that it is entirely possible that Stefano had other half siblings, but yet he is Santo's only child. Therefore Stefano would refer to himself as the seventh son of the seventh son, even though his six older brothers were not Santo's biological children, but his step children. I would really appreciate if you could possibly post a comment to Irishlass, as she refuses to understand my motives for constantly editing the Santo DiMera page. —Preceding comment added by Grant Chuggle 17:36, 4 September 2007
—Preceding comment added by Grant Chuggle 17:36, 4 September 2007
-- GeeJo (t)⁄ (c) • 13:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:For the first time, Maggie admits to being in love with Bianca (C).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Flyer22 I could use your help. The user IP also known as Grant Chuggle has left a vile message regarding his penis and what I should do to it. I need direction or your help in blocking him from editing for this vile personal attack. Any help would be appreciated. CelticGreen 16:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Grant Chuggle, if you would still like to give your side on why you so strongly feel that your edits to the Santo DiMera article on the subject that you cited above are necessary, then, of course, I am still willing to "hear" you out regarding your feelings on that matter. Flyer22 19:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I stumbled across the Jill Farren Phelps article today, and it has grown to such an enormous cesspool of crap from disgruntled fans. I know a lot of people hate her but at the same time, we need a good solid article. Considering you're so good with soap articles, will you put this as a high priority? I can help if needed. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 16:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Bianca and Maggie (D).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I've replied in depth on both Talk:Ennis Del Mar and Talk:Jack Twist. Again thank you for updating my talk page to notify me. Best regards. Conrad T. Pino 07:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you make sure I put the right tags on these images Tony DiMera (I got a message it would be deleted) and Tyler (no message yet but I don't want it deleted). I'm trying hard to get this image thing right and I appreciate your help. CelticGreen 23:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Warned. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 00:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Just putting my grammar-police tendancies to good use. :) Vintagevixen 00:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
So sorry, my last edit just undid your reference, can you add it again? The edit looks confusing and I don't want to muck it up. TAnthony 02:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I put this on the discussion board for the article as well.
Although his legal name is Adam Chandler, Jr, the character goes by "JR". However, as it's referred to on Wikipedia, "J.R.". By using periods after each letter, it implies both the "J" and "R" stand for something, such as John Ross "J.R." Ewing (on Dallas). Therefore, shouldn't the title of this entry simply be "JR Chandler"? Additionally, the official All My Children site list the spelling as "JR" and not "J.R."
I'm not trying to cause trouble, I see you've done quite a bit of work on the soap pages so I thought I'd consult you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowsSoaps ( talk • contribs) 22:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, KnowsSoaps, remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~), when talking on talk pages here at Wikipedia, without the parentheses, of course. Flyer22 22:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that rv. I'll take more care in the future. Julesn84 03:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I rated their article and gave it a B. With more work and sourcing and possibly trimming down fair use pictures, it can make it to GA easily. Good job! Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Mike. I already cut down on the fair-use images in that article though. I feel that the images that are there now significantly add to that article. I could lose one more though, the one Bignole originally edited out in his example edit of that article -- the first one showing Bianca and Maggie meeting.
I also requested a copy-editor at League of Copyeditors for that article, but, yep, no copy-editor from there has gotten around to copy-editing it yet...which is why I'll soon either ask can one of them get to it at this time, or I'll specifically ask a copy-editor to copy-edit it. I'm not certain how much more sourcing can be done on that article, except for the storyline part. And does your feeling that it's only a little away from Good Article (GA) status mean that you agree with Bignole's assessment that I should nominate this article for GA before I nominate it for Featured Article (FA) status? Flyer22 05:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused as to why every mention of this storyline is linked to JR's profile. Since the story doesn't have it's own page, then the info should be put into where it belongs. JR was a big part, but it's more relevant to Bianca and Babe. I was wondering if you could help. I'd probably just copy and paste that whole section into their profiles. I also didn't actually watch the show during that year so I don't know all the facts. -- Maestro25 09:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
The Barnstar of High Culture | ||
For your dramatic improvements to the article Greg and Jenny Nelson, I thank you and award you this Barnstar. I have cherished Jenny and Greg for almost 30 years, and your improvement to this article means there is at last a fitting monument to their everlasting love. Thank you, Jeffpw 13:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC) |
Nominate an article for deletion? It's been nominated before, been deleted, and then added back. Essentially it's an article full of self promotion, badly constructed, and even includes a "how to buy" stuff link. CelticGreen 00:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
So just like Kendall Hart Slater, the same applies for Theresa. Theresa refers to herself and is referred to commonly as Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AugustAugust ( talk • contribs) 05:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Not you, let me get that out right now. It is quite possible I am OCD, because I am about to change all your times referring to yourself in the third person to one thing, Flyer22. This is not insulting you, and if you desire to delete my edit for any reason, or if you wished to have it that way, be my guest to do so. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink *Get to the bunker* 01:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, have you left him a message lately? I left one on his talk page this morning, a general question I thought he could answer, and instead of replying, he "archived" (aka deleted) the message. Any idea what might be going on? IrishLass0128 15:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to find better infobox pics to use on AMC characters. I see you have used willowfriend.com as a source so, to avoid orphaned images, I will upload new pics on a few of your images. Only those with the same source though. -- Maestro25 03:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Kendall's new photo is great. :) -- Maestro25 03:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'm seriously suspicious that "she" is GrantChuggle. They have gone around adding ages and making up SORAS ages (as he did); already rewritten the retcon of Santo DiMera, to exactly what Chuggle did. Added spoilers after repeated warnings. All while playing innocent in their edit summary. Take a look and see if you agree before I ask Daniel to file a report. I noticed once Cajo (however you spell it) was accused of being a sockpuppet, they stopped editing. Let me know what you think. IrishLass0128 12:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you for taking the time out to explain your reasons on my talk page. I felt it was honestly polite of you and I would like to say I really appreciated the gesture. Sakura rin24 13:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed there are several articles that shoud be updated with images.
Marian Chandler (AMC) Kathy Mershon Opal Cortlandt Gabriel Devane Edmund Grey Maria Santos Grey Ruth Martin (AMC) Jeff Martin (AMC) Livia Frye
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
Thanks for reverting all those bad edits on the Supermodel page. Number1spygirl 02:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC) |
ME: I'm all for rvting vandals but threats arent allowed. Be careful & pls stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.220.141 ( talk) 21:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
ME: Who cares about laughing? You were threatening to continually rvt. That'll be a rvt war. If U violate 3rr u'll b in the wrong. Seems u wanna give threats (calling them advice) but not heed it. Ah well.
138.88.220.141, I responded on my talk page to your latest comment to me, as you may know. Hopefully, this matter is cleared up now. Flyer22 23:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Bennifer was speedy deleted as it was based on a neologism derived from popular culture media. This doesn't satisfy criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. I'll go ahead and leave a Prod template on Posh and Becks for a time (as it's title is a slightly less-obvious neologism) but after the requisite number of days, it may be deleted. Bumm13 12:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I asked Yamla if she could help but she said she can't. There is a user Myolo editing the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady page in such a way as to bias the article towards a view that is not shared by many. Since you took an interest in this early on, I'm hoping you can help.
There is controversy over a certain scene and I have addressed that in the controversy section but user Myolo continues to edit the page to refer to a scene in an absolute view that is not shared by everyone and I believe this is in violation of the neutrality policies of Wikipedia. Myolo is also using fictional dialogue as "proof" of their view and is even stating things that are incorrect. I have explained further my reasons for disagreeing on Myolo's user page. (I'm sorry but I'm not sure how to link directly to a user page)
If you could just pop over and take a look for me and give me your honest feedback, I will respect whatever you think is best for the article. This issue definitely needs another point of view. Thanks! Radiantbutterfly 17:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
you asked a question. the answer would be no. Antigone28 17:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
But, anyway, I'm moving on. Flyer22 17:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I completely understand what you are saying about the supercouple page and I think you are right in doing so, I don't by any means want to start a wiki war, or anything so thank you for correcting my error. I was trying to put a picture for the EJ Wells page last night but I couldn't do it so if you could please help me next time I'd be very grateful.once again thank you. User:Perfecttlovee
As for the Lucas and Sami topic you mention, I explained with this link... [1] Flyer22 01:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, don't forget to sign your user-name on talk pages, even though I know that it's you I'm talking to as of now, but such as on the Supercouple talk page, you forgot to sign your user-name. Flyer22 02:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
And, yes, I know of the link you speak of, if you mean the link from sofeminine.co.uk, but since that site is already referenced to twice within the Supercouple article, it's best that we don't link to them yet again within the Supercouple article. Also, to have most of the celebrity supercouples pointed out as supercouples from different sites, it adds to the fact that the reference to celebrity supercouples isn't just coming from one source. Flyer22 03:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:D2 tn.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Sam McCall (Main).JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Bianca and Babe.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Naming conventions I'm not necessarily personally invested in the spelling of "J. R."s and "J.R."s but the naming conventions say to put in the space. While moving the pages I have seen such variations as "X. Y. Name" (correct) "X.Y. Name" "X.Y.Name" "Name X.Y. Name" "Name.X.Y.Name" "Name X.Y.Name" etc. While that isn't exactly chaotic to the point of unintelligibility, it is 1.) arbitrary and 2.) in contravention of the simple rule. I didn't take your question as snide, but genuine and reasonable. Thanks for asking. If you want to respond, please do so on my talk. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 14:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the request to look over your expansion of these articles; I've been out of the country and haven't had a chance yet, but I took a quick look and I'm impresed with the work you put into them! Thanks for your contributions and I'll get back to you whan I can. TAnthony 15:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, TAnthony, I'm really trying to figure out how to cut down on the plot summary of the Bianca Montgomery article, or if it's that necessary, gven her status as a long-running character on a soap opera, in which soap operas naturally have more episodes than primetime shows. Josh Madden's plot summary is more than an acceptable length, but I'm sure that it'll eventually get longer, with other editors adding on to it. When that happens, I'll just have to find a way to get his article back to an acceptable smaller length, without taking out important parts of his storyline. Flyer22 15:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi - sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I took a quick look at the article, and I would say the plot summary is a quite long, but if this is a long-running and major character I don't think it's excessive. Cheers, EliminatorJR Talk 06:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
And, of course, don't worry about not having gotten back to me too soon on this matter. I know that editors on Wikipedia are busy with work, some more so than others. See you around, EliminatorJR. Flyer22 06:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Lily Montgomery.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Bianca Montgomery (Main).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you for your kind comments on my talk page. I am also really impressed with the way you debate and am incredibly grateful to you for your interest and help with the EJ and Sami page. You are much more familiar with Wiki policy than I am and so I really appreciate the perspective that you can bring to the debate. I'm pleased to hear that it appears as though the article will not be deleted. I really do think it is of interest to a lot of people (with an interest in this particular soap). Thanks again! Radiantbutterfly 21:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
And, on a totally different topic, as I stated on another editor's talk page, a tip that an experienced Wikipedian editor gave me when I first showed up at Wikipedia, is that it's best that an editor's user name on Wikipedia show up in blue instead of red. It just signals more a "real editor" vibe to experienced Wikipedian editors. You don't have to add on a lot to your user page, of course. You can just say "Hi" on your user page, and your user name will then show up in blue, of course. I've wanted to pass this tip on to you for a while now, so I finally did. Flyer22 23:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Flyer22, The site that you are linking is hardly dedicated to the couple of Lucy and Desi. It's mostly about Lucille Ball with a few parahraphs on her relationship with Desi. Lucille Ball is my favorite actress and I am sure that the website I have continuously linked it to after it was removed, deals with their relationship because it is the home website for the Lucille Ball-Desi Arnaz Center in Jamestown, NY which is run by their daughter, Lucie Arnaz. Their legacy is based on lucy-desi.com, so it should remain on this website. Thank you.
Hi Flyer22. You are off to such a great start on the article Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee ( Talk) 13:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
-- ST47 Talk· Desk 11:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
It has become impossible to explain to Esse123 the concept of neutrality. She's posting every opinion article available. Opinions are a wonderful thing, we all have them, but they do not make for fact or neutrality. Please fix the Luke and Laura section of the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady page. I sincerely apologize to you for asking for your involvement but I can't seem to make Esse understand that the EJami page is not "all about the rape" which she seems to think it is.
Hi, Flyer. A quick note, I don't have any problem with the entire Santo/Colleen article being included. As a matter of fact, here is the full text right here:
"New Twist in DAY’S Most Controversial Tale
Sami and EJ’s story will take a different turn when portrayers Alison Sweeney and James Scott assume dual roles to play out the love story of Colleen Brady and Santo DiMera.
This week, the letters are finally translated and will be read by various Salemites while Scott and Sweeney bring them to life on-screen. “It’s really romantic story.” declares Sweeney. “I personally think that the idea of these tragic, star-crossed lovers is wonderful and very classic soap. It’s weird to go into this story where you know Colleen’s going to find the love of her life and then it’s going to end tragically and cause this feud.”
While Santo and Colleen will be falling in love, Sami and EJ will not. Nevertheless, this story provides an opportunity for the actors to work together romantically in less controversial tale, “Naturally, we don’t expect anyone to forget about the rape, nor do we expect anyone to take EJ’s rape of Sami lightly,” notes Co-Executive Producer Stephen Wyman. “However, we know life goes on. People can change. At some point, the issue of the rape is going to have to be dealt with in the fundamental way, but meanwhile, there is the audience that wants to see EJ and Sami together. [But] they aren’t forgetting about the rape, either.”
At this point, Sami is unaware that EJ is a dead ringer for Santo, as she is Colleen. “I’m not thinking of her as Sami and him As EJ: I have to play it as a different story.” Explains Sweeney. “She doesn’t see it as any sort of reflection on her relationship with EJ at all.”
The dual roles required that the actors work intensively with a dialect coach; Sweeney to handle an Irish brogue, Scott to learn an Italian accent. “My first reaction was utter, complete fear.” confesses the actress. “It’s all well and good to do a second role, but to have to do an Irish accent and play a character from the ‘50’s? The only thing that preoccupied me from the moment they told me is ‘I don’t want to look like a fool on television and I don’t know how I’m going to have the time, but I have to learn how to do this accent.’ It really scared me but now I’m starting to feel more confident with it.”
As you can see, the part I opted to quote in the wiki article is the only part of the article that speaks directly to Ej & Sami's history/story as a couple. That is why it is the only portion that I included in the wiki article about EJ & Sami's history/story as a couple. It's also the only quote/"statement" that has been made by a Days executive about the incident. I personally don't know where the rest of the article would fit in but I'll leave that up to you to decide. But my reasoning was that since under the "Luke & Laura" section of the "Details on Popularity" portion of the article, it had already been questioned..."Whether the original intent of the the scene between EJ and Sami on December 29, 2006 is ever confirmed by Days of our Lives executives or writers...", I figured a quote from an executive of the show - and whether its an "official statement" or not it is currently the ONLY quote that exists (to my knowledge) from any executive at the show about the incident - it should be included and noted for its contribution to the "debate". Esse123 05:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22! I haven't been here for awhile because it seemed as though things settled down a bit after the deletion debate but I see that a new Lumi fan is trying to take away the neutrality of the EJ and Sami page again for some reason and is trying to turn it into a very negative article. I don't have any interest in getting into an edit war and was going to post something on their talk page but saw that it is filled to the brim with debate about this already so I decided not to add to it. It seems as though user Esse123 is trying to turn the article into a campaign against EJ & Sami being paired romantically by addressing the controversy in as negative a way as possible. Can this person be reported for vandalism or are they acting within Wiki policy in your opinion? I must say, it is tiring to see all these new editors sign up just to edit the EJ and Sami article in a negative way. There is a lot of negative stuff I could add to their Lucas and Sami article that is not there (how about a picture of Lucas hitting Sami as a memorable moment on that page? Or, a picture of Lucas sending Sami to death row?) but if this sort of thing is ok to do to the EJ and Sami article then I guess it sets a precedent and I will have to help them out by editing the Lucas and Sami article. Sorry for my frustration but I just find it hypocritical and childish for these people to vandalize the article like this when I don't believe anyone has even touched the Lucas and Sami article. As you yourself have acknowledged, EJ and Sami is a very popular pairing - if they weren't, the controversy wouldn't exist because the idea of them as a romantic pairing wouldn't exist. No one is calling them a supercouple yet but many viewers (Lumi fans can no more prove the popularity of Lumi than EJami fans can prove the popularity of EJami) think the potential is there. The simple fact that such a large and vocal fan base exists following the controversial scene in December speaks volumes about the popularity of the couple, in my opinion. Anyway, let me know where things stand if you have a minute. Thanks again for all your help with the article! Radiantbutterfly 17:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Flyer. I am also not interested in getting into another edit war so I will leave you to review the edit history and make your decision. While the contributions I made to the EJ & Sami article may be deemed by some to shed a "negative" light on the "couple", imo they are legitimate contributions. The "memorable moments" section, for example, has been repeatedly edited to remove moments that I contributed. There is no reason to remove those moments. It is my impression that the EJ & Sami article is not meant to be an advertisement for this "couple" but a fair discussion of their history. If "good" moments may be highlighted, then "bad" moments should as well; so long as they are "memorable" as the title of the section suggests. I also believe that the series of screenshots I contributed are relevant, much more so than a random screenshot of EJ and Sami talking in his office (though I did not remove that screenshot). If a screenshot of EJ "saving" Sami can be displayed (which I believe are misrepresentative considering his actions are what put her in danger in the first place), then imo the series of screenshots (or at least one screenshot) from "the incident" should be allowed to remain. Esse123 17:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Esse123, thank you for your interest in the article I created but with all due respect to Flyer and I have much respect for her because she has been a huge help to me with the EJ and Sami article, editing Wikipedia is a team effort and if there are concerns over an article's neutrality, there are means to deal with that but trying to pit editors against each other is not the way to go about things. You seem to be editing the EJ and Sami article based on your own personal opinion of the pairing and while I respect your opinion, personal opinions are not something you should be trying to convey in a Wikipedia article because it goes against Wiki policy. The article was created for those interested in the pairing but does remain neutral in that it addresses the controversy surrounding the pairing. Your edits seem to be based on the idea that the article isn't negative enough for you and that's because Wiki policy is to provide neutral articles - not positive or negative. The only section I've never been sure about is the memorable moments section and to be honest, I have been considering removing the section completely and I may still do that and just include the "moments" as character history in the text of the article. As far as the pictures are concerned, I am aware of copyright permission granted for only one of them and that is the first one I added and the copyright is based on the fact that the picture is a publicity shot provided by the network. The picture you added is not and neither are some of the others so perhaps they should be removed as well. Radiantbutterfly 18:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Flyer22 - if you would like to delete this conversation from your talk page and put it on mine, I am perfectly ok with that. I don't think above couple of paragraphs belong here but I didn't want to edit anything out of your talk page myself. Incidentally, is it possible to have a talk page for a specific article because I'm beginning to think this article needs it! :) Radiantbutterfly 21:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
BUT, I will concede that I may be grossly mistaken about the intent of wikipedia. If your explanation of what the couple page is intended to do - "to show the reason that some people see the couple as a feasible romantic pairing" - is accurate to the purpose of a couple page on wikipedia, then I will grant you that some of my contributions have been inappropriate. However, my belief that the intention of wikipedia.org is to present articles of an "encyclopedic" nature prompted me to make contributions that showed a balanced representation of the events that occured between the characters, whether they showed "the reason that some people see the couple as a feasible romantic pairing" or not. In short, it was my belief the page was intended to show an unbiased, purely neutral account of the events that have occured between the two characters, NOT a page aimed towards outlining the views of those who see them as a feasible romantic pairing. I would offer that the latter sort of representation of a couple's story is NOT what the general public would consider to be "neutral".
Perhaps Flyer22 can clarify for me if it is indeed the purpose of a couple page on wikipedia to so heavily favor the views of those who see them as a viable couple versus those who may not. Esse123 22:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I appreciate you acknowledging that there is "embellishment" in certain areas of the article. Esse123 23:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I would just like to point out something else that you might want to consider - the more you and other new Wiki editors edit and show interest in this article and only this article, the more credibility you provide to the argument that EJ and Sami are a very popular pairing and possibly more so than their rival pairing since to this point, I don't think anyone has even been interested enough in the rival pairing's article to bother editing it to make it more neutral. I'd just like you to consider, with respect, the intention of the article - to provide information about the pairing for those who are interested in them not to campaign for or against the pairing. If you wish to continue discussing things with me further, you can use my talk page. Thank you.
Radiantbutterfly 18:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Radiantbutterfly, it's good to see you back. I was wondering where you were and I was wondering how you'd feel about the new additions to the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article, although I had an inkling about how you'd mostly feel about them.
On to business:
You two haven't stated anything on each others' talk page about this specific conversation that has played out on my talk page...yet, I see.
As for the image subject and copyright laws as to images on Wikipedia, as I stated on 65.13.237.254's talk page, screenshots are allowed under a Fair-Use rationale on Wikipedia. You don't need NBC's permission to use those screenshots. All you need is a good Fair-Use rationale, along with proper licensing of those (or any screenshot or promotional) images. And the screenshots should be relevant to what's being addressed and or relevant to the plot summary of its article if it's within the plot summary. The screenshot of EJ and Sami in the Cultural impact section of the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article doesn't necessarily go with what's being addressed, but it is explained in the Fair-Use rationale of that image as to why it is being used in that section.
Fair-Use screenshots cannot be used as the main image for an actor or actress in an actor or actress' article, however.
Next topic:
Couple articles should remain neutral, of course. When a couple article is created, it should provide information as to why they are notable...more so in the form of real-world context, which the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article does have. If either of you are asking me if a couple article on Wikipedia is supposed to be for the fans of that couple, no, it's not...even though fans and non-fans who are familiar with that couple are more likely to visit that couple's article than a random internet surfer would. A couple article, any article on Wikipedia, for that matter, should be written from a perspective that a casual reader will want to read an article on Wikipedia that is valid, clear, and bits that may be important to fans of that article's subject may not matter all that much to that casual reader, thus too much of fan-cruft and or insignificant moments should stay out of an article on Wikipedia. The articles on Wikipedia should be able to pull in, interest, invite all readers...not just fans of that article's subject matter.
The other issue brought up -- Yes, Radiantbutterfly, there is a specific talk page in which we can discuss all that was discussed on my talk page in relation to the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article. The Talk:EJ Wells and Samantha Brady page is where we should further discuss this. Additional comments from you guys on the matter that the three of us have discussed here should be made on that talk page. Flyer22 00:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't until I spent countless hours trying to keep one page clean that I realized what a full time job being an editor can be if you make it. Thanks for all your help with the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady page. Those of us who are fans knew it would be an undertaking, thanks for helping us with it. CelticGreen 00:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:6-1-07-3 1 0003.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:086297.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the support! I am flattered by your comments. :) Also, just as a procedural note: The way that RfAs are structured is different from AfDs. Instead of people adding their comments to the bottom of the current list, there are three sections for "Support" "Oppose" and "Neutral". So I'd recommend moving your comment into the appropriate section. Also, there's a "total tally" number at the top of the page which should be updated to reflect the current totals. Though even experienced Wikipedians often forget to update that number, so it's usually a good idea to do not just a "plus 1", but to actually double-check totals and see if it needs to be brought into line with some earlier comments. Another etiquette thing is that it's usually a good idea to put a note in your edit summary indicating what you just did. But all of this is really just FYI... I'm sure that even if you don't do anything, the page will get cleaned up (it's getting watched pretty closely). But I did want to let you know! Thanks again, El on ka 21:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Colleen Brady.jpg and Image:SantoDiMeraPic.jpg have been flagged in a manner I don't understand. Could you help before they are deleted? Thank you. These are on the Colleen Brady and Santo DiMera pages. IrishLass0128 19:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the article has gotten a nice makeover. However, you've left out key plot points, like aborted relationships to other people. I know it's an article about that couple, but to cut out the context leaves gaping holes in understanding what they went through and why they went back together in the first place. I can understand maybe not mentioning Devon, but the death of Amy Stone and Nina's husband Matt Connolly do need to be mentioned, as they are very important to the plot. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 02:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I have tagged Image:Frankie_Stone.jpg as {{ orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{ not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Is that an actual image, or did you past two separate photos together?
Are there any promotional photos out there of the two posing while in-character? -- Silvestris 22:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
And, yeah, the main image that's there now is fuzzy in its appearance as being increased in size. It was displayed in a smaller size within that article. It will soon be replaced anyway, so I brought up the notion of the Image:Sami and EJ.png as the main image for the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article, though I feel that we should find a slightly bigger copy of that image. Flyer22 23:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Although I sincerely doubt it will help if you do, is there any way you could post a message to this user? They repeated edit the Santo DiMera page adding their opinion and assumptions. If you look at the history you will see numerous changes to the Santo date of birth based on assumptions of other characters' assumed dates of birth. As you and I know SORASs is always a factor in soaps but this person is not "getting it" and repeated changing a page to their assumptions. There are interviews and numerous other factors indicating that the Santo DiMera/Colleen Brady story is set in the 1950s but this person refuses to abide by the verifiable content rule. Any help would be appreciated. (ps ~ my apologies for putting this on your front page. I did not mean to, I've been beating my head over this user and one other vandal. CelticGreen 18:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
If you feel that what this editor keeps doing to those two articles you mention is being done, you may seek to get the thoughts of one of the Wikipedian administrators, of course. I'm not a Wikipedian administrator yet, though you all sure do make me feel like one when I'm approached on matters such as these by you all. I'm not complaining about that though. I like helping editors out on Wikipedia. Flyer22 21:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Esse123 refuses to leave the article neutral and keeps changing the neurtal page with the correct article and puts in place her opinions. The article she is choosing to refer to is NOT about the rape but is a two page article about Santo DiMera and Colleen Brady. While I believe she has every right to have the portion of the article, her version makes it sound like the article was an official statement when it was merely a quote within an article, not any kind of official statement. Additionally, the bolding of the word rape and the word count contribute nothing. I hope I did this right. I'm sorry if I didn't. 75.181.107.214 23:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
In an article about the Santo DiMera/ Colleen Brady storyline in the July 17 2007 edition of Soap Opera Digest, Days of our Lives Co-Executive Producer Stephen Wyman refers to the December 29 2006 incident between EJ and Sami as rape four times. He is quoted as saying:
"Naturally, we don’t expect anyone to forget about the rape, nor do we expect anyone to take EJ’s rape of Sami lightly,” notes Co-Executive Producer Stephen Wyman. “However, we know life goes on. People can change. At some point, the issue of the rape is going to have to be dealt with in the fundamental way, but meanwhile, there is the audience that wants to see EJ and Sami together. [But] they aren’t forgetting about the rape, either.”
The article which is about the Santo/Colleen storyline in which the actors Alison Sweeney and James Scott portray two characters from the past falling in love. Soap Opera Digest notes, "this story provides an opportunity for the actors to work together romantically in a less controversial tale." [1]
I hope this stays in line with Wiki's policy and again, sorry if I did this wrong. Talk pages confuse me. Here is a link to the full article, typed by someone, http://boards.sonypictures.com/soaps/showthread.php?t=93931 if you want to decide. Thank you again 75.181.107.214 14:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Flyer. I'm sorry to put you in the middle of all this. I don't know what Wiki's policies are on personal, verbal attacks but I'd like you to make note of some of what was said between myself and the other editor. It is all on my discussion board. I apologize for my part in this petty back-and-forth editing, but there was no call for some of what was said to me.
Also, regarding the "despite the debate" issue, the word "debate" was chosen specifically because it has been used multiple times in the article already. It was not my word, I took it from the wiki article itself. In fact the exact wording of "Despite the heated debate" begins the "Rival Couple" entry under "Details on Popularity". I would like for it to be added back to the Co-Exec Quote entry but will wait for your decision. Esse123 15:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I wrote an article a month ago you might find interesting. I'm surprised I didn't share it with you, since we are from the same town. Tell me what you think. Escambia High School riots. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Are they allowed insult other editors by calling them ignorant? CelticGreen 00:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Flyer22 01:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The reason I nominated the article for deletion was not because the content was "junk," as that is not a sufficient reason to delete. I nominated it because I feel that articles on soap opera couples should not exist if articles exist for each one individually. I stand by this regardless of how many such articles exist currently. That being said, there is no change that you could have made to the article that would have made it keep-worthy, since the whole concept of the article doesn't belong in Wikipedia.
As for notifying you, I don't see how you can be upset about that, considering that I responded directly to your comment on the talk page, saying that I would nominate the article for deletion. What's more, if you had taken even one glance at the article itself during the time in which its deletion was being discussed, you would have seen the AfD tag on top. If you had actually made any attempt to improve the article during that time, you might have been able to contribute to the deletion discussion.-- DLand TALK 13:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Once I fixed up that article, User:EliminatorJR, who certainly isn't too keen on soap opera supercouple articles existing on Wikipedia and nominated that article for deletion before I fixed that article up, even felt that that article provided notability by Wikipedia standards after I gave it an overhaul, not just by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Soap_Operas#Notable_couples standards. My fixing up those articles were also by Wikipedia's general notability standards, in while one mention by outside press is not substantial coverage of a soap opera couple, multiple outside press mentions of a soap opera couple as notable is enough to provide notability by Wikipedia standards. And I'm also not done expanding those first four soap opera couple articles that I saved from deletion. If the soap opera couple articles on Wikipedia provide creation/history/cultural impact, which the others will when I get through fixing them up, then they are not violating Wikipedia policy and have every right to stay on Wikipedia. I mean, as I mentioned before, some of these articles have already survived a deletion debate, and not many people showed up to debate their deletion either, but the ones that did show up to debate their possible deletion mostly voted Keep, so if you'e telling me that you're going to keep nominating these notable soap opera couple articles and soap opera supercouple articles for deletion until they are deleted from Wikipedia, because you don't want them on Wikipedia, even after they pass a deletion debate, I feel that that is a waste of time, even if a soap opera couple article that you want deleted from Wikipedia is eventually deleted from Wikipedia.
I tend to think like User:Ground Zero, who has what is mentioned below about notability on his user page --
Notability:
WP:NOTABLE, an essay on notability, states clearly (in bold text): "There is no official policy on notability."
Further, there is no consensus that "notability" should be a criterion for inclusion. See the grounds for deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and, for interest, Jimbo Wales' view on notability, as expressed in the poll where notability failed to become an accepted reason for deletion.
-- That is what is on experienced Wikipedian editor Ground Zero's user page, as I mentioned previously, and, of course, I'm not stating that it should really factor into what we are discussing at this moment, but I felt like posting it here. However, I also lean more toward what other (if not most) experienced Wikipedian editors define as notable and when it comes to soap opera couples, if their article is encyclopedic, which, yes, it certainly can be, and it shows that they are cited as a notable couple or a supercouple by outside press, then, I definitely feel that their article belongs on Wikipedia. All of the true supercouples had a huge impact on the television audience and Luke Spencer and Laura Webber's romance defined what a supercouple is, although more so by television standards in that case, though the term Supercouple was basically created due to the Luke Spencer and Laura Webber coupling, and it sent that term into pop culture, and this knowledge should be presented on Wikipedia in an encyclopedic way, which it can be. I would advise you not to expect me to fix up all or even half of these soap opera couple articles in a week and rather agree to what I suggested above. But, regardless, I have much work to do here at Wikipedia...and I will enjoy tackling that work. Flyer22 02:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
When it comes to these couple articles, I'm all about them being notable in having been mentioned as a notable couple by outside (non-soap opera) press multiple times or having had decent, good...or great coverage from outside (non-soap opera) press, which separates them from other soap opera couples and therefore proves their notability...notability, which I feel should be included on Wikipedia. Not every soap opera couple can have an article on Wikipedia, of course, only the notable ones by Wikipedia standards can, and what I mentioned above for soap opera couples in what being notable is about for soap opera couples is definitely the case. On the topic of improving these soap opera couple articles, I'm not, at this moment, interested in expanding the soap opera couple articles that have already been spared from deletion and deemed notable enough to be on Wikipedia. They can be expanded later. I'm more interested in improving the soap opera couple articles that are in bad shape right now, and are in clear violation of Wikipedia standards, so if you keep checking on my work here at Wikipedia, which I'm sure that you will, those are the main soap opera couple articles that you will see me working on. And, again, it is quite work-induced cleaning up these soap opera couple articles, so I'm asking you not to expect some improvements to all of them too soon. The ones that I cannot provide cultural impact on, outside of the soap opera press, I will relay to you. Flyer22 04:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I was hoping if you could go over a couple of articles for me, Lulu Spencer and Kate Howard. I've been trimming Lulu's article down quite a bit and later will be looking to add references and make it better. Kate Howard's article, I think it is pretty ok. I have added references to popular culture, as well as some research to tie it in to the "real world". I appreciate any suggestions you may have. I have also tried to trim down and fix Alexis Davis and fix Amelia Joffe and a bunch other in dire need of editing. But, these are the four I am focusing on right now.-- Charleenmerced Talk 19:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do. Soaps are not my forte, but that may be a benefit. I'm slightly familiar with Bianca, my mother is big into soaps, so I won't be flying completely blind. I'll try and give it a good read over tonight before I go to bed, and look at the peer review so as not to repeat anything else that is said. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Flyer, yeah I remember you. I have never even heard of these characters before (I'm Scottish, and American soaps don't get a whole load of coverage over here), but I found the article very interesting and was impressed with the amount of out-of-universe info that is so rare in fictional character pages. I have left advice for summarising plot sections and character histories at the Andrew Van De Kamp featured article review, if you want to take a look. Other advice/criticism of the article include:
Those are my only major concerns after a quick skim through the article. I'll read it over more thoroughly later, and if you have any specific questions or need help summarising the plot, just ask. :) Paul730 04:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
But wait, if you can see it, does that mean, it's just my computer? Something similar like this happened with the Criticism section as well, when I was editing and viewing this article in preview mode, and I couldn't see the Criticism section on this article's exterior. It seemed as though it might have had something to do with the way that the references were formatted. Flyer22 04:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
If they are not called that in the show, then it isn't relevant in the opening sentence. BAM seems to be some fanmade name, unless I'm wrong and the characters of the show call them "BAM". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Here are a couple of things I came across.
Hope this helps. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
First, the "Actresses approach" should probably just be titled "Casting", with included information on how they got their job. Hendrickson's comment about not wanting to be in a soap, and then later taking the job is a good starting point. If you could find out how she landed the job in the end, that would be even better. Same for the other. Then you can talk about how they approached their respective roles, and end with how those roles eventually affected them. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Bianca and Frankie often talked and relaxed in Frankie's room.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Bianca leans in to kiss Maggie after admitting that Maggie is so much more than a friend to her..jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hiya Flyer22, I had noticed that this article was up for deletion, but to be honest I'm not convinced that it should be saved. I think a good article could be written about the couple, but I dont think that very much in the current article should remain. It would have to be rewritten in my opinion. Most of the information in the article is already in the individual character articles and 'Dirty Den and Angie' just seems like a badly done rehash, with no references to back up anything. Also, to my knowledge, "supercouple" is an American term and not one that I have heard used to describe Den and Angie. I'm not sure what the other members of the EE wikiproject think about the article either, from what I remember it was mostly negative.
On the other hand, they were a hugely popular soap couple. The Christmas 1986 episode is currently the fourth highest viewed UK programme of all time. Stuff about their cultural impact in the UK and the effect they had on soap and television in general could definitely be included to bring it up to standard. I've also seen the great work you've done on the American articles, and it would be nice to see this one brought up to the same standard. So basically, i'm undecided :)
There is a lot of real world analysis I have written in the character development sections of the Den Watts and Angie Watts articles. Some of it could be tweaked and put into this one for the time being, if you think it would be beneficial for the AFD? Gung adin ♦ 23:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. :) -- Silvestris 00:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your invitation to edit the Montgomery and Maggie Stone article, and for the very kind words about my copyediting. I took a quick look at the article, and it appeared to be in pretty good shape already. I'm going on an indefinite wikibreak, so I am afraid that I won't be able to look at it. Keep up your excellent. I'm sorry I can't help out. Ground Zero | t 01:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh my, I'm dreadfully sorry about that. It was a genuine mistake. I was attempting to correct (read: redirect) 3 duplicates of that page and I guess I accidentally moved it after checking out the wrong page (normally I check before moving, of course). Thanks for making me aware of it. No malice or anything was intended. Zelse81 22:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Maggie helps Bianca during the aftermath of Bianca's rape..jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I see you actually read other editor's talk pages ;) You may want to take a look at the further response I left at User_talk:Jgera5#CBS_Mandate. Perhaps you have some ideas about what to do with this one... Oh, and if you haven't seen it yet, there's a reply to you on my talk page. Pairadox 04:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
As for the CBS Mandate article, what do you want me to do concerning that, give some insight on what needs to be done to improve that article? Flyer22 20:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22. I have only recently signed up on wikipedia and I have heard that you are the person to come to with any problems. You see there has been a bit of a disagreement between IrishLass0128 and myself. You see originally the show stated that Stefano was the seventh son of the seventh son, but with the recent flashbacks it has been stated that Stefano is Santo's only son. I understant that this is the current stroyline and we must go with it, but I also believe that Stefano must have had at least one brother, since Andre is Stefano nephew by blood. Since Stefano is Santo's only child, then this sibling/ siblings must have only been half-siblings from Stefano's mothers side. Unfortanatly Irishlass refuses to see my point that it is entirely possible that Stefano had other half siblings, but yet he is Santo's only child. Therefore Stefano would refer to himself as the seventh son of the seventh son, even though his six older brothers were not Santo's biological children, but his step children. I would really appreciate if you could possibly post a comment to Irishlass, as she refuses to understand my motives for constantly editing the Santo DiMera page. —Preceding comment added by Grant Chuggle 17:36, 4 September 2007
—Preceding comment added by Grant Chuggle 17:36, 4 September 2007
-- GeeJo (t)⁄ (c) • 13:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:For the first time, Maggie admits to being in love with Bianca (C).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Flyer22 I could use your help. The user IP also known as Grant Chuggle has left a vile message regarding his penis and what I should do to it. I need direction or your help in blocking him from editing for this vile personal attack. Any help would be appreciated. CelticGreen 16:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Grant Chuggle, if you would still like to give your side on why you so strongly feel that your edits to the Santo DiMera article on the subject that you cited above are necessary, then, of course, I am still willing to "hear" you out regarding your feelings on that matter. Flyer22 19:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I stumbled across the Jill Farren Phelps article today, and it has grown to such an enormous cesspool of crap from disgruntled fans. I know a lot of people hate her but at the same time, we need a good solid article. Considering you're so good with soap articles, will you put this as a high priority? I can help if needed. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 16:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Bianca and Maggie (D).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I've replied in depth on both Talk:Ennis Del Mar and Talk:Jack Twist. Again thank you for updating my talk page to notify me. Best regards. Conrad T. Pino 07:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you make sure I put the right tags on these images Tony DiMera (I got a message it would be deleted) and Tyler (no message yet but I don't want it deleted). I'm trying hard to get this image thing right and I appreciate your help. CelticGreen 23:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Warned. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 00:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Just putting my grammar-police tendancies to good use. :) Vintagevixen 00:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
So sorry, my last edit just undid your reference, can you add it again? The edit looks confusing and I don't want to muck it up. TAnthony 02:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I put this on the discussion board for the article as well.
Although his legal name is Adam Chandler, Jr, the character goes by "JR". However, as it's referred to on Wikipedia, "J.R.". By using periods after each letter, it implies both the "J" and "R" stand for something, such as John Ross "J.R." Ewing (on Dallas). Therefore, shouldn't the title of this entry simply be "JR Chandler"? Additionally, the official All My Children site list the spelling as "JR" and not "J.R."
I'm not trying to cause trouble, I see you've done quite a bit of work on the soap pages so I thought I'd consult you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowsSoaps ( talk • contribs) 22:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, KnowsSoaps, remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~), when talking on talk pages here at Wikipedia, without the parentheses, of course. Flyer22 22:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that rv. I'll take more care in the future. Julesn84 03:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I rated their article and gave it a B. With more work and sourcing and possibly trimming down fair use pictures, it can make it to GA easily. Good job! Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Mike. I already cut down on the fair-use images in that article though. I feel that the images that are there now significantly add to that article. I could lose one more though, the one Bignole originally edited out in his example edit of that article -- the first one showing Bianca and Maggie meeting.
I also requested a copy-editor at League of Copyeditors for that article, but, yep, no copy-editor from there has gotten around to copy-editing it yet...which is why I'll soon either ask can one of them get to it at this time, or I'll specifically ask a copy-editor to copy-edit it. I'm not certain how much more sourcing can be done on that article, except for the storyline part. And does your feeling that it's only a little away from Good Article (GA) status mean that you agree with Bignole's assessment that I should nominate this article for GA before I nominate it for Featured Article (FA) status? Flyer22 05:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused as to why every mention of this storyline is linked to JR's profile. Since the story doesn't have it's own page, then the info should be put into where it belongs. JR was a big part, but it's more relevant to Bianca and Babe. I was wondering if you could help. I'd probably just copy and paste that whole section into their profiles. I also didn't actually watch the show during that year so I don't know all the facts. -- Maestro25 09:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
The Barnstar of High Culture | ||
For your dramatic improvements to the article Greg and Jenny Nelson, I thank you and award you this Barnstar. I have cherished Jenny and Greg for almost 30 years, and your improvement to this article means there is at last a fitting monument to their everlasting love. Thank you, Jeffpw 13:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC) |
Nominate an article for deletion? It's been nominated before, been deleted, and then added back. Essentially it's an article full of self promotion, badly constructed, and even includes a "how to buy" stuff link. CelticGreen 00:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
So just like Kendall Hart Slater, the same applies for Theresa. Theresa refers to herself and is referred to commonly as Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AugustAugust ( talk • contribs) 05:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Not you, let me get that out right now. It is quite possible I am OCD, because I am about to change all your times referring to yourself in the third person to one thing, Flyer22. This is not insulting you, and if you desire to delete my edit for any reason, or if you wished to have it that way, be my guest to do so. -- Gen. S.T. Shrink *Get to the bunker* 01:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, have you left him a message lately? I left one on his talk page this morning, a general question I thought he could answer, and instead of replying, he "archived" (aka deleted) the message. Any idea what might be going on? IrishLass0128 15:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to find better infobox pics to use on AMC characters. I see you have used willowfriend.com as a source so, to avoid orphaned images, I will upload new pics on a few of your images. Only those with the same source though. -- Maestro25 03:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Kendall's new photo is great. :) -- Maestro25 03:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'm seriously suspicious that "she" is GrantChuggle. They have gone around adding ages and making up SORAS ages (as he did); already rewritten the retcon of Santo DiMera, to exactly what Chuggle did. Added spoilers after repeated warnings. All while playing innocent in their edit summary. Take a look and see if you agree before I ask Daniel to file a report. I noticed once Cajo (however you spell it) was accused of being a sockpuppet, they stopped editing. Let me know what you think. IrishLass0128 12:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you for taking the time out to explain your reasons on my talk page. I felt it was honestly polite of you and I would like to say I really appreciated the gesture. Sakura rin24 13:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed there are several articles that shoud be updated with images.
Marian Chandler (AMC) Kathy Mershon Opal Cortlandt Gabriel Devane Edmund Grey Maria Santos Grey Ruth Martin (AMC) Jeff Martin (AMC) Livia Frye
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
Thanks for reverting all those bad edits on the Supermodel page. Number1spygirl 02:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC) |
ME: I'm all for rvting vandals but threats arent allowed. Be careful & pls stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.220.141 ( talk) 21:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
ME: Who cares about laughing? You were threatening to continually rvt. That'll be a rvt war. If U violate 3rr u'll b in the wrong. Seems u wanna give threats (calling them advice) but not heed it. Ah well.
138.88.220.141, I responded on my talk page to your latest comment to me, as you may know. Hopefully, this matter is cleared up now. Flyer22 23:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Bennifer was speedy deleted as it was based on a neologism derived from popular culture media. This doesn't satisfy criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. I'll go ahead and leave a Prod template on Posh and Becks for a time (as it's title is a slightly less-obvious neologism) but after the requisite number of days, it may be deleted. Bumm13 12:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)