Thanks for uploading Image:Dre (Main).jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a mistake in my copy and pasting. Now go away, bot. Flyer22

I love that you reply to the bot! I wish he would go away too. Speaking of bot going away, is this image licensing right now? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Joshasroman.jpg IrishLass0128 20:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

No, that image should be tagged with a screenshot license, IrishLass. On another note, it's best to start using the new type of fair-use rationale that I've started using, as seen attached to the image of Dre above, just to be on the safe side (meaning...the side away from that bot). Flyer22 21:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

It's not a screen shot. It's from NBC's promotional section. Notice no little NBC logo or soap logo. That's where I got it, their website in the promotional pictures section. So should I still use the licensing you have on the Dre shot or leave what I have? IrishLass0128 21:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

It's still a screenshot, even though it was in the promotional section of the site you got it from. It's not really a promotional photograph, so, yeah, use the licensing (and fair-use rationale format) that I used for the Dre screenshot. Flyer22 22:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi I think of you as the "go to guy". You are very helpful. I have a wealth of knowledge about some soaps myself. Anyway, there are a few soap articles that would be vastly improved with images. such Edmund Grey, Erin Lavery, Sam Grey (AMC) Livia Frye and Alan Quartermaine. Also I see you add great images. Where can I find free content images of soap characters to add myself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.1.90 ( talk) 19:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello, 64.107.1.90. Yes, I'm aware that other All My Children articles and soap opera articles in general need images. I will continue to provide images for the ones that need them, of course. As for doing that yourself, you can find free images (for mostly All My Children characters) at Willowfriend.com. Just look at what is needed for uploading images...such as the above image of Dre Lerman...and you'll have no problem uploading fair-use character images. You can copy and paste the formatting of the information of that image and apply the same type of formatting to other images. Flyer22 20:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, I don't know about you, but I burst out laughing when I saw that list on my page. When an account user wants to create an article, that's good, but when an IP user shows up out of nowhere and just stuffs a bunch of requests into your talkpage like it's a complaint box, well I don't know how to say it. The only problem is Mmost (if not all) of those names in red links I've never even heard of. Maybe Susan Strickler, but that's about it. Wilhelmina Will 20:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

LOL. I see what you mean. Thanks for making me laugh today. Flyer22 20:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

No problem at all! Wilhelmina Will 20:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Little Adam (Main).JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Arrggh. Now I have to go apply the new fair-use rationale that I'm using to all the images I've uploaded that don't have it yet so that you can stop disturbing me. Flyer22 23:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

The bot got a JohnBlack image too. I'm going to follow your instructions to fix it. What a pain. Are all our soap images going to be tagged like this? CelticGreen 23:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, if we don't add the new type of fair-use rationale mentioned above. I'm hoping that will stop this annoying bot from tagging them. This rationale is longer in detail, mentions U.S. laws, and internal-links the name of the article it's applying to. If this doesn't work, we'll have to ask that bot's creator to fix his bot (though he's been asked that countless of times) or we'll have to start using the actual fair-use rationale template. Flyer22 00:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I only found out it was a problem because the John Black article is on my watch list and the bot left the message on the talk page. Then your talk page had the same comment about a picture. Good thing I watch your page, I would have freaked otherwise. I did a copy and paste of the Dre info and substituted John Black. Can you check the actual image for me. It's in his article. CelticGreen 00:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

That article is on my watchlist as well. I put it on there when you and that user were having disputes over it, and, well, I left that article on my watchlist. At this time, I have 999 articles on my watchlist. I'm sure that number will soon increase. Anyway, that image is fine. I corrected one instance about its description, but it's fine. Flyer22 00:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks....and I reverted some vandalism to your page. Apparently adults suck. LOL! CelticGreen 00:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I noticed, and thanks. That user won't stop vandalizing the Adult article. He or she definitely needs to be blocked. Flyer22 01:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, I left a message on the user who warned them a few times. BTW I updated the Sami Brady image, can you check it? If it's okay, I'll do the pages/pictures I can. CelticGreen 01:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

The Sami image is fine, yeah. Flyer22 02:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

What do you work for Wikipedia?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/Venez111 ( talk) 20:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC) reply

In a way, all editors of Wikipedia work for Wikipedia. But if you mean, am I an administrator on Wikipedia (someone with that kind of power that you don't have), no, I'm not...yet.

However, if you continue to violate Wikipedia policy, I will report you to someone on Wikipedia with such power. Flyer22 20:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Jake Martin (Main).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Bot, bot go away, don't come back any other day!!! Seriously, I'm doing all the images I can find trying to avoid this notice. CelticGreen 02:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Ha. Yeah, I really have to go update these images of mine with this new fair-use rationale, the ones that are lacking it, of course. Flyer22 02:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

So you liked my rhyme? The actual advantage is I've found some really sucky pictures on here and have replaced them, like the previous Shawn-Douglas Brady photo was horrid, I just replaced it with a better one. The disadvantage is there's a lot of Days' photos that need to be re-tagged with the new license info. CelticGreen 03:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Double-edged sword. Flyer22 03:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Swords! Yeah!! Ren Faire!! aka my other life and the reason I'm working 7 days a week. Which reminds me, I'll not be around tomorrow, can you keep an eye out for anything that smacks of vandalism? Sami marries EJ tomorrow Canada and her article is likely to be hit in an odd fashion, so is EJ's and the EJami article. Can you keep an eye out? CelticGreen 03:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Will do. I was going to ask you can you keep an eye on the Supercouple article sometimes. Some people, of course, try to add a couple or couples, without any references for those couples validating that those couples are important couples within popular culture. Anyway, yes, of course, I will keep an eye on the articles you've asked of me. Flyer22 03:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I can do that. I see a lot of people mess with it but don't know as much as I should about it. I'll get more involved with that. I know people think their couple is a supercouple immediately without long range thinking. Thanks for helping. I love working at the faire, but it's a lot of work for not a lot of money. CelticGreen 03:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey you. I'm going to add Johnny and June Carter Cash to your supercouple article. A 35 year marriage and a partnership that shaped country music deserves notability on the supercouple list. Hope that's okay with you. If Sonny and Cher qualify, Johnny and June definitely qualify. CelticGreen 02:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, they do. No problem there at all. The source you added states the impact they had on the entertainment industry and, well, how it fascinated so many within it. Flyer22 03:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply

With all do respect, do not presume to threaten me, when trying to get your point across. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBanks ( talk • contribs) 19:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

It wasn't a threat. You have repeatedly violated Wikipedia policy, and that naturally calls for your block. Don't want to be blocked, as an administrator has already told you that you will be if you keep up this nonsense? Then stop your nonsense. It is not just "my point"...but is also Wikipedia's point. Flyer22 19:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

So there's another run on moving pages? AugustAugust was doing the same thing within the last hour. Really makes you wonder, doesn't it. IrishLass0128 19:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

TimothyBanks has been absent from Wikipedia for a little while, however. I don't know what the obsession a few editors (usual editors, newbie editors...or IP-address editors) have with moving a woman's last name to her married name, but it is quite off when that equates to an uncommon name for that woman. I knew moves of that kind were off before I even knew about Wikipedia's common name policy. The moment that I saw TimothyBanks move Kendall Hart to Kendall Slater, I started thinking about this naming matter. Eventually, I moved Kendall Slater to Kendall Hart Slater, since the Hart-part of her name is very important, she refers to herself as Kendall Hart Slater often, and it's not an uncommon name for her. TimothyBanks, for whatever reason, doesn't understand the factor of common name. I was a little shocked when I looked through his edit history and saw that he had even moved a real-life person — Heather Mills— to her uncommon name of Heather, Lady McCartney. I mean, seriously, what the ....? He did that twice, as seen with this link... [1], though it might have been more, knowing his editing style. The editors of that article were, needless to say, dumbfounded by such a move. And I would not be surprised if it were TimothyBanks who, at one time, moved Britney Spears to Britney Federline. TimothyBanks has been blocked before, and given most of his "contributions" to Wikipedia, I feel that he should (needs to) be blocked permanently. Flyer22 20:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

AugustAugust moves a lot of stuff too. I was fortunately able to fix Sami Brady DiMera and move it back. I just find the timing of editors showing up together strange. Like "oops, signed in under the wrong name" type thing. Kendall's name makes sense, moving Sami's name 15 minutes after her marriage to EJ aired was ridiculous. I'm sure by the time I get back on the computer Monday it will be moved again (if you notice it, could you fix it). I hate weekends. I feel like I spend all day Monday fixing what others "just don't get." I saw your comments about the EJ and Sami article. I'm going to get some dates for things and plug them in. I think that will help immensely with that article. I have decided I'm tired of doing more repair damage than cleaning up. It gets a little old. I don't know how you've done it so long. Have a good weekend. IrishLass0128 20:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

So AugustAugust is still around and moving articles, huh? Oh, jeez. Mike H. protected the Sami Brady article from being moved before. Maybe he needs to protect it again. Yes, I will make sure that article stays titled Sami Brady. You have a good weekend too. Flyer22 20:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I have the Sami page on my watch list and apparently AugustAugust moved it today and Irish moved it back. Looks like she moved a couple others back too and requested admin warning. [2] Hopefully that will fix it. I stopped by after watching Walk the Line to add them to supercouples and find this. Ugh. Do you ever wonder if you can actually take a couple days off? My other question was why aren't Johnny and Baby listed as a supercouple but noted in the paragraph below? And what about Forrest and Jeannie? Sorry, you asked me to look at it, I just saw a few that I would definitely add. CelticGreen 03:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, I'd noticed that IrishLass went to the Adminisrators noticeboard about AugustAugust. As for Johnny and Baby from the film Dirty Dancing not being on the list, but their love story being mentioned right below that list, I hadn't noticed that they weren't on the list. Thank you for pointing that out. I'll go add them to that list now. I think they were on it before I gave that article an overhaul. There's still much that I want to do to improve that article, of course. And I take it by Forrest and Jenny, you mean the pairing from Forrest Gump. Well, I didn't think to add them. And I know that movie had a huge impact on the film industry and was hugely popular, but I'm not so sure about that romance. But if a valid source lists them as a great love story or couple, go ahead and add them. Anyway, tonight and probably up into the morning as well, I'm going to be working on turning the Tad Martin and Dixie Cooney article into one of the best soap opera couple articles on Wikipedia. It's better to work at night and early morning on Wikipedia, you know? The watchlist is less busy. So I take that to mean...Wikipedia is less busy at that time, which is good because it means less vandals and less worry about vandals.

Oh, and even when an article is on your watchlist, you cannot see when someone moves it. I wanted to let you know that, since you stated what you did about watching the Sami Brady article in concerns to AugustAugust. Flyer22 03:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, Susan Strickler, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Burger. Thank you. LeyteWolfer 16:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply

At first, my mind went "What?"

Because I'm not used to hearing or seeing that name. I made tiny edits to that article, but I cannot say that I'm too interested in its deletion debate. Flyer22 19:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC) reply

The image in the Piper Halliwell article is of Holly Marie Combs, I thought that wasn't allowed. Am I wrong? Am I confused again? Could you clarify oh wise one with all knowing knowledge of images. IrishLass0128 20:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Just a note from my side... I was told multiple times that if a free-use image of an actress sufficiently resembles the character that was played, then that should always be used (simply because yet another non-free image can be done away with in favour of free-use). I wouldn't be surprised if this ideology has changed since then. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 20:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for explaining that, Huntster. Maybe it has changed. IrishLass, you should check up on that. Flyer22 20:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Flyer. When you placed that link on the Piper Halliwell and Leo Wyatt articles, I assumed that it was just more garbage the likes of which get added all the time. I didn't take the time to read what it was about, and for that I apologize. I've gotten so fed up with the useless crap that gets thrown into fiction articles these days that I've developed a knee-jerk reaction to most of it. If you desire to work on these articles, then by all means do so...they really are in desperate need of cleanup and paring down. I myself, however, will be distancing myself from secondary fiction articles from now on...I'll keep watching the main Charmed and Charmed media pages, but no more characters, locations, artifacts, etc. Obviously I cannot maintain a neutral perspective with them anymore. Again, my apologies. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 14:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I should probably address this on Huntster's page, forgive me for taking up space on yours, but since this is about two subjects close to me, I'd like to volunteer to help clean up any Charmed articles that need cleaned. I, sadly, think I have every episode memorized except S1 because it wasn't that well written. I offer here so you know I'm not jumping in without warning since you did mention that "knee jerk reaction" thing. Feel free to discuss further on my talk page. IrishLass0128 14:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC) reply

As I mentioned, I will no longer watch these pages, so I won't be doing any more work there. Thanks for offering to help with the cleanup. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 14:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Huntster, I understand what you mean about the fiction articles, particularly the fictional character articles. As I stated on your talk page, there are far too many that need fixing up. So, really, I don't feel that I needed an apology from you about your knee-jerk reaction, but I appreciate the apology and am glad that you took the time to explain. I hate to lose a good editor overseeing these articles, and you seem like a good editor, but I also understand your frustration. I'm not sure I have as much knowledge about the Charmed series and characters as you or IrishLass do, though I did watch the show and sometimes watch its reruns, but I know that I could fix up those articles pretty well. However, as I mentioned to you before, I am so busy with other fiction-related articles that I'm not sure when or if I'll fix up those as well. I'm going to leave the Leo Wyatt and Piper Halliwell articles on my watchlist and will most likely add the other (main) Charmed characters to my watchlist to make sure they don't get any more in need of improvement, since you have stated that you will no longer watch those. I'd rather you still keep an eye on them as well, but you gotta do what's best for you. We all have our wikistress and have to find our own way to counter it.

LOL, Flyer, where was that wikistress link this morning when I was in tears? I could have used that reminder. It's funny, I'm ready to dive in to the fiction articles and stay away from the real world so whatever help you need, just give me a shout. Oh, I am looking for reference to add Phoebe and Cole as a supercouple, but not until I find a link in English. There are several in French and other languages, but not many in English. IrishLass0128 20:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure if you mind me asking what you were in tears about, but as for Cole and Phoebe...they are definitely a supercouple. And I was a little addicted to watching them while they were in love, bickering/battling each other while in love, or just plain bickering/battling. They are what pulled me into that series. I didn't watch that show from the start when everyone else did, the same goes for Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Instead I watched reruns years later of both shows while they aired new episodes and got caught up on the show that way, mostly watching those episodes before watching the new ones. As for finding a reference for Cole and Phoebe (or any couple) as a supercouple, all you need is a valid reference...either referring to them as a supercouple, power couple, dynamic duo...or displaying them as an important couple within popular culture. The words Supercouple, Power couple...or Dynamic duo don't have to be mentioned in the reference, as long as the reference shows them as an important couple within popular culture, some kind of influence or impact. Flyer22 20:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC) reply

That makes it so much easier. I thought the reference had to say supercouple like the reference you found for Leo and Piper. I'll look for something because they were what made season 4 bearable the first time around. The second time around was better because I'd grown used to Paige. As for the crying. I made an edit in complete good faith. You know how when our sockpuppet friend Grant sneaks in and makes edits, we revert them and generally remove his content. Well, I did the same on content from another sockpuppet and was just harrassed for hours this morning. I was called a vandal and all sorts of vile things to the point of tears. I finally got so frustrated I pulled an AfD because the sock had vandalized it and it was a mess with the plan being to renominate it later. A very nice sympathetic admin is trying to help me now and the user is being just as nasty to him which makes me feel better that it's just his general personality, not just me he's nasty to. So that's why I cried, I was pushed one step too far. I even offered to receive a warning but the admin said there was no need. Too much drama, I'll take soaps any day. IrishLass0128 20:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry about your bad day, IrishLass. I saw your talk page jumping, but I don't usually check the talk pages of other editors as soon as they pop up unless it's an IP address, because while it may seem as bad-faith thinking, most vandals on Wikipedia are IP addresses. And about Leo and Piper, the person who originally added them as a supercouple didn't provide a reference that even displayed their importance, so, as it seems you already know, I traded it out with another reference — TV Megasite.net — which tends to be a valid source of information often. But I will most likely trade out that reference with a more valid reference than that. When it comes to the supercouple lists within the Supercouple article, I'm still more for the word Supercouple being in the reference for soap opera and celebrity couples. And especially for soap opera couples, since it takes more for them to be deemed supercouples, as you know, and supercouples are rare in soap operas today. I'm going to create a soap opera couple list below the main soap opera supercouple list, which will be of the soap opera couples that are very popular, but aren't of true supercouple status (yet, and if ever for others). I'm also going to add a section in this article about gay/lesbian soap opera couples, an analysis on whether or not they can be just as prominent as heterosexual couples within the medium, and the ones that have impacted the medium. I can only think of two American ones that have, Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone and Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer. I'll look for information on the British side of gay/lesbian soap opera couples as well. Flyer22 21:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I've been vindicated by an admin and the guy still won't admit he was wrong in his accusations. Whatever. I looked at his contributes and it explained a lot. Moving on to Supercouples. As much as I hate it, should Lucas and Sami be added? They are referred to as a supercouple in some publications (albeit bias publications). One particular editor calls them a supercouple at every turn all the while reminding everyone how much she loves them. That screams bias to me. I know on Days and Passions there's never been a gay or lesbian supercouple. Passions had a noteworthy lesbian couple, but not "super." Simone and Rae, but Rae was killed. Then there's Norma Bates and Edna Wallace. They "tour" together as a musical act on the lesbian circuit in Paris and now call each other lover. They're cute, but not supercouple. I'll have to think more about it but I think Days is too milktoast to do a true gay story. 14:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IrishLass0128 ( talk • contribs)

Some (or rather a lot) would argue that All My Children didn't really have the guts to do a true gay or lesbian storyline, even though they had the perfect opportunity to with how popular the Bianca and Maggie romance became. As for Lucas and Sami, I was going to add them to the Supercouple category yesterday. I will do that today, and add more to the lead of their article, especially how TV Guide calls them a supercouple. But I'm not sure that they should be added to the main soap opera supercouple list in the Supercouple article. The thing about supercouples is that the audience is what makes them a supercouple more so than publications, though publications add to it. But I've noticed how there is still dispute over whether or not Lucas and Sami are a supercouple. And, really, a soap opera supercouple isn't disputed as a supercouple; it's just known that they are one, whether you like that particular couple or not. For instance, As the World Turns' Luke and Noah are called a supercouple by TV Guide, but they are not thought of as a supercouple throughout enough of the soap opera medium to be truly labeled one. Some of those couples that TV Guide recently labeled a supercouple should not have been labeled as such... Case in point, Nicholas Newman and Phyllis Summers. They have not even been together that long romantic-wise, haven't been through enough obstacles together, and are disputed as a true supercouple, despite their popularity. While some (mostly Nick and Phyllis fans) may not consider Nicholas Newman and Sharon Collins a supercouple, it is known that they are, or at least meet the definition of a supercouple more so than Nick and Phyllis do.

I feel that we, as editors, need to try and be as correct as possible and use as much wise judgment as possible. With soap opera supercouples, it isn't like a popular celebrity couple being referred to as a supercouple. You and I, and others familiar with soap operas and its medium, know that it takes even more for a soap opera couple to be truly defined as a supercouple. Not any celebrity couple is called a supercouple either, but we list a celebrity couple that is called a supercouple as one in the Supercouple article. We shouldn't list a soap opera couple on the main soap opera supercouple list just because a magazine, no matter how valid the magazine is, calls them one... Well, unless that magazine is USA Today or TIME magazine, of course (LOL). We let the viewers and the soap opera medium decide on who the soap opera supercouple is, and the media outside of the soap opera realm (if that outside media exists for that specific soap opera couple), and then, with a combination of all of that, we have a true soap opera supercouple. We hardly see that kind of combination anymore...and that is why you here people say that true soap opera supercouples do not exist anymore. Flyer22 19:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I think adding this to the supercouple talk page is an excellent idea. We've talked about a lot of good things and made some headway. I reverted the oddest edit today. Someone added the Brangelina are married. That's how rumours start. Irish Lass 20:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I saw that. As for what I stated above, I meant posting it at the top of the Supercouple article talk page (worded a little differently, and with more clarification) as a guideline. A guideline for why some popular soap opera couples go on the main soap opera supercouple list and others don't. But that probably won't be an issue anyway once I make the secondary soap opera couple list underneath the main soap opera supercouple list, which as I stated above, will be for the very popular soap opera couplings who are not quite supercouples (well, not true ones). Flyer22 22:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC) reply

A sockpuppetry case has been opened against "her" finally after "she" went nuts on the Days cast member list and edit warred with IrishLass. If you could add your opinions since you've previously expressed them, I bet it would be appreciated. I'm going to add my thoughts too, but the more the better and I only ask because you've previously been involved with the whole Grant Chuggle mess and were honest the last time about your thoughts on Colaatje5. The same would be appreciated this round. Thank you CelticGreen 00:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Looks like it's all good. It's over Just waiting for the actual block to go into place. CelticGreen 03:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, this outcome was certainly quicker than the other outcome related to it. Flyer22 04:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC) reply

This is the prettiest thing I've seen all morning. Nice to see a quick resolve to this. I was just coming to tell you about it. Glad you already know. Thanks for the help. Now let's see if M-townboy gets more active. Irish Lass 13:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for agreeing about June and Johnny Cash. It wasn't until watching Walk the Line tonight that I realized they qualify. They could really be called the original powercouple if you look at the dates on their romance and drive. As for Forrest and Jennie (yes, Forrest Gump, I will look for references because I believe they are a powerful movie couple. The article is very interesting looking at it. I picture many couples that might qualify and those that really should. Along with John and Jackie Kennedy, Ron and Nancy Reagan might be another couple to consider. Not a Republican, but do recognize Ron and Nancy. Want to go really far back in history, add some historical relevance, George and Martha Washington. I want to fortify the term. Going over 200 years back in history could do that. Just a thought CelticGreen 04:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply

LOL about the 200 years back thing. But, yes, more mention (a section) on the impact that historical couples had on the world would be good, rather than focusing so much on popular culture. But then again, historical couples being considered supercouples is a part of popular culture as well. Anyway, I'll get back to you on some of my plans for the Supercouple article, to where you and I can discuss your ideas for it as well. Right now, however, I'm about to go work on the Tad and Dixie article, as I stated above...getting everything organized before I add these improvements to it. Talk with you later. Flyer22 05:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply

On second thought, I'll fix up the Tad and Dixie article later today. As stated before, talk with you later. Flyer22 10:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, I finally fixed up the Tad and Dixie article. I wanted to (stll want to) add a section on their couple creation, but I couldn't (or rather didn't) find anything online specifically about their couple creation. I also wanted that diagram of Tad and Dixie's happy family, which is from the first study mentioned in their Cultural impact section, but this computer that I use these days (since my good computer needs to be fixed) isn't the best, and I couldn't download a HTML converter to convert it from HTML format to JPG format, or when I did, with an online image converter, it didn't do it right. Anyway. I'll talk with you later. Flyer22 04:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Lolu122 tried adding Zach and his girlfriend again with a link. I checked it and it just talks about them having a fight. I told her we don't deny they are a couple, just not a supercouple. I guess her edits did something to the page. CelticGreen fixed it this morning before I got on so I can't see what it was. I'm guessing Lolu is a kid since she's adding actors from High School Musical to the supercouple page. IrishLass 14:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I debated whether to bring you in on this one, your plate is so full. I finally got around to creating a page for the Children in Salem as was suggested a month or so ago. I thought it could fly under the radar for a while until I was ready to start redirecting people to the page from other existing character pages. No such luck. Well intentioned User:Evaglow already deleted the Will Roberts page and redirected it to the new COS page. It's too soon for that. She also took the existing redirect for Ciara Brady, which points to Hope Williams Brady and turned it toward the new page. And then she added some stuff to the COS page that just really made it funky. CelticGreen got to it before I could and left a message which I followed up this morning. I then fixed the redirects so all is "hopefully" good right now, but if you could just put it on your watchlist and if you see any additions to it that aren't you, TAnthony, me, Radientbutterfly, or CG, that might be people who don't understand that this is in the works, not ready for linking, I'd appreciate it. I'm off next week from work and am going to try and get to a Wi-Fi spot if I can, but that's a big if. Not sure I want to sit in Panera and play on the computer for two hours at a time. I am probably going to work offline and upload changes. It's got a long way to go and I want it to look good before we start redirecting other articles to the page. Thanks, as always, for your help. IrishLass 14:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

No problem. Flyer22 14:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you! Opinions are welcome. Let me know what you think. IrishLass 14:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I got your message and could you please help with the citation for the quotation I put on the Carly Corinthos Jacks page. I put up a quote about the creation of the character, that took me forever to do and figure out and could you help me with getting it right. Glo145 ( talk) 01:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Sure. Just look at how I do it, and it'll help you a lot on learning how to format references. Flyer22 ( talk) 01:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Thankyou so much Glo145 ( talk) 02:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey! Long time no talk. :) Eva left Tyra and Benny Medina's tutelage this year, and changed her "model name" from Pigford to her middle name, Marcille. With a last name like that, do you blame her? ;) In any case, that's the name she uses for her modeling now, and should probably stay there. Kind of like Mel Rose. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 07:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Oh, I see, Mike. Thanks for explaining. I started to figure it must have been an official stage name change. And, yes, I've missed talking with you too. Flyer22 ( talk) 07:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC) reply

And I must say that I've always thought of Mel Rose as just Mel Rose. I was never familiar with her last name. Flyer22 ( talk) 07:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, it was originally "Melrose," all one word, like " ______ Place" (and God knows Melrose had bitchy moments that would have made resident psycho Kimberly Shaw blush!) Now it's split into two. And for the first year, she was credited as "Melrose Bickerstaff." Again, another reason why she got rid of the last name. Too dorky. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 07:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Laughing out loud. Dorky indeed. I've been laughing a little more these days. Not too much, but more. Thanks for the help in getting a giggle out of me. Flyer22 ( talk) 07:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Why aren't you happy? What's wrong? What did I miss? :( Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 20:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Don't worry. I just don't laugh a lot. It's even mentioned on my user page, and that humorous vandalism has to be pretty creative to make me laugh. These days, however, the vandalism here is driving me nuts...and not in a good way, of course. Flyer22 ( talk) 04:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC) reply

You probably have not watched Canada's Next Top Model, but you may be interested in this just the same. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 03:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't watch that, Mike, but that is awesome that you scored that interview, and it was/is an intriguing read. Thank you a lot for sharing that with me. Flyer22 ( talk) 05:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi! Thanks for tidying up the Jason Morgan article a bit. I am slowly trying to fix it paragraph by paragraph but, it takes so long. Anyways, I was browsing through the changes you made and noticed that you put the external link after the footnotes. Stylistically speaking, shouldn't footnotes be last since they tend to be longer and footnotes should always be at the end? Anyways, just looking forward to your response. THanks, -- Charleenmerced ^Talk 00:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey, Charleenmerced, no problem. As for the External links section, I was following Wikipedia's layout guide...otherwise known as WP:LAYOUT. I believe the reasoning for External links being last is because it takes a person away from Wikipedia. Well, I mean, references often do too, but I suppose External links go last just because of the name...External links...and because that's how Wikipedia's layout guide has it. Flyer22 ( talk) 00:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

• Hi, thanks for the info. I will follow this from now on. Although, really, footnotes also take you away from wikpedia. Oh, and I agree with your comment on Sonny Corinthos, it really really really needs a rewrite, but everytime I see it I look the otherway. It is so much work. -- Charleenmerced ^Talk 14:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Knowing I would rather chew off a foot than address this, I'm going to anyway. Wiki doesn't call them "footnotes" they are called "references" here. I changed that and I added the clean reference list which is reflist with {{ }} around it. It is what is generally accepted on all articles and is smaller so you can have your gazillion references without taking up the whole page. Other than that I didn't touch a thing. Just wanted to mention why I did what I did as I hobble off with only one foot in tact. IrishLass ( talk) 14:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I blocked the second IP indefinitely. Since he circumvented a block, all IPs from that range are now going to be blocked indefinitely. I am also semi-protecting Janice Dickinson. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 23:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks a great deal, Mike. You are beyond awesome. Flyer22 ( talk) 23:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Mike (thanks to your asking for help from him) has blocked the moving of Belle Black for me. I know consensus has been reached on some pages, and I know you know that common name rule, can you tell me where it is so I can provide it to both Mike and Kingwhoever that keeps moving pages. Thanks CelticGreen ( talk) 02:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Sure, here it is... common name. And point whoever else is moving that article to this page as well. Flyer22 ( talk) 02:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I left KingMorpheus a message with links. Doubt he'll get the message. He's a chronic mover like others we know. CelticGreen ( talk) 02:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Oh, I'm familiar with KingMorpheus. He reads his messages, and responds if its important enough to respond to. There's a good chance that he'll start to abide by common name after reading the policy about it. Flyer22 ( talk) 03:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Question ~ who's the hotty playing Tom and where have I seen him before? IMDB doesn't list his name. CelticGreen 03:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

That's actor Jordan Bridges. You've probably seen him in a number of things. I have. But for some reason, I cannot pinpoint where I've seen him before yet. Flyer22 05:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Charmed, Paige's boyfriend that the demon possess in her first eps. Frequency, he was a rookie firefighter that worked with Dennis Quaid's character. Drive Me Crazy, he was the snotty wrestler boyfriend of the girl the nerd liked. I can't believe I just admitted to knowing who he was in the last one! IrishLass 14:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for that memory refresher, IrishLass. Flyer22 14:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I just weighed in because I was already here. I looked him up and IMDB doesn't list him on Bionic Women. How odd is that? Of course, I already knew IMDB wasn't reliable all the time. I'm still embarrassed by the Drive me Crazy fact. I'm too old to know that one. IrishLass 14:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Okay, watching this weeks ep now and I can't believe he is the guy from Drive me Crazy he's matured so much physically. There was just an angle shot that confirms it's him. Thanks for the info, ladies. I still can't believe it's him and I never would have connected him with Paige's boyfriend. He does..."have a face you can trust." From the ep a couple of weeks ago. CelticGreen 03:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I get a bad feeling. There's no new ep next week. I wonder if they have already run out of first run eps due to the writers' strike. Not happy. And did I miss something? At the end of last week's ep didn't she hook up with Tom? BTW ~ have you gotten into Chuck? It's just as good as Bionic Woman. CelticGreen ( talk) 03:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I think she hooked up with Tom at the end of the episode you mention. As for Chuck, no, I haven't watched it...yet. Flyer22 ( talk) 01:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Check out Chuck if you get a chance. It's really good and it's got the same action level Bionic Woman has. I'm actually surprised NBC didn't pair them together on some level but understand putting them on different nights at first to get more viewers. Chuck's a lovable geek with a heart of gold and the show has a healthy sprinkling of action. From your "likes" list I think you'd like it. CelticGreen ( talk) 01:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the recommendation. I'll check it out. I don't like to start late (not even a little bit late) in a series, though, so I'll probably wait until it starts airing reruns. Just tell me when reruns will be airing, once that happens, and I'm there. Flyer22 ( talk) 02:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, all eps are available online if you have a good connection. You could watch the pilot and see if it's for you. With the writers strike I'm sure they'll start some repeats soon. I'll keep you posted. CelticGreen ( talk) 02:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I do not see a reason for keeping this one controversy on the article. I tried to add a similar section about racial profiling two years ago to the Dillard's article, but it was decried as "unencyclopedic" and removed. Also, there is no similar section on the articles for Wendy's, General Motors, Chrysler, or Johnson & Johnson. Therefore, to prevent a double standard, I believe that it should be removed. -- Jnelson09 ( talk) 22:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC) reply

And I see no reason for its removal, as I stated in my edit summaries, or how it is at all unencyclopedic. It's about a controversy, which is a part of this company's history. That controversy being ten years ago does not mean that it is now irrelevant. If we include a controversy section in an article, does that mean that in five or ten years from now, that controversy section should be removed? Of course not. Plenty of articles have controversy sections or mentions on things that happened years ago, such as the controversies surrounding Michael Jackson. If a person were to look up J.C. Penney's history in books and such, this controversy of theirs is more than likely to be mentioned in those books and such. All of that is my reasoning for this controversy section staying in its Wikipedia article. Just because the articles Wendy's, General Motors, Chrysler, or Johnson & Johnson don't have a controversy section does not mean that this article shouldn't...or that it is discriminated against on Wikipedia when it comes to companies. Flyer22 ( talk) 22:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Then why was my addition to Dillard's unencyclopedic? And if it's that important, I'll just add the same thing to all the other companies and see how that goes. -- Jnelson09 ( talk) 00:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I have added the same information to the other articles. I'll see how well they go over. -- Jnelson09 ( talk) 00:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure why your addition was removed, but good luck on having added a controversy section to any other company articles. Flyer22 ( talk) 00:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

It just gave me a good laugh to see that you added that same controversy section to all of the above articles connected to it. Each one starting off with "so and so found itself the focus of a boycott..." Just made me laugh to see it in all of those articles. Flyer22 ( talk) 00:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

You gotta be kidding me. Okay, I suggest you ask User:Caldorwards4 why he found my contribution to Dillard's unencyclopedic. -- Jnelson09 ( talk) 03:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Gotta be kidding you about what? My laughing at seeing the same controversy section in all of those articles...or that no one has removed one of them yet? Flyer22 ( talk) 03:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Kidding me that you think I'm taking this seriously. -- Jnelson09 ( talk) 21:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't know. I was half and half about what you were and weren't serious about concerning this matter. Flyer22 ( talk) 01:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I am doing an interview with nine past ANTM contestants, and there is a section where fans can ask their own questions. Feel free to ask as many as you like for the girls. Diana was the last one to accept the invitation, so if you have any questions for her, that is probably the biggest priority, but again, feel free to ask questions to any of them about anything on their cycles. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 00:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Okay, I'm going to check this out. Flyer22 ( talk) 01:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Did you ask any questions? The interview is on Sunday. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 22:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I really can't think of a question to ask. For some reason, my mind has gone blank concerning what I would probably want to ask some of these women. Flyer22 22:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply