Jump to content

Talk:My Immortal (fan fiction)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources

[edit]

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Brustopher (talk) 08:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on My Immortal (fan fiction). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources, part two

[edit]

Inevitably repeating the sources in the previous section, but keeping links here for safe-keeping

~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mention in relation to Cursed Child

~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017 developments:

~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From Christo's Tumblr:

~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to the editors

[edit]

I just want to thank whoever made this article. I'd also like to know how you kept from losing IQ points while reading the fanfic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javerthugo (talk • contribs) 05:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doubts

[edit]

If XXXblodyblaktearz666XXX (Tara's supposed FP account) had been a usename in use as XXXbloodyrists666XXX (Fanfiction acc), then surely it'd be archived on Google search? Typing in the FP account only comes up with tumblr reblogs. Sure, there may be bloodytearz666 (Raven's account) which might add proof to the two being related, but who knows. Also, would she have remembered the password? JakeyPotter (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a WP:FORUM, so discussing it isn't really of any use. It was mentioned by the Daily Dot, and the content in the article hedges a little saying it's "supposedly" her account, though I was intending to make the language more strongly hedging because we cannot be sure. As for the Google search business, we can't really mention that because it's original research. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I knew that it wasn't meant for discussion. What I meant was for the article to be changed to be in line of the FP account not being tangibly related to Tara, but it's done now. Thanks. JakeyPotter (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I misunderstood. I'm sorry. At any rate, I'm glad I (somehow) managed to address the doubts. Because they're valid. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

[edit]

I'm attempting to update the article to reflect information published on September 7, 2017 (see the links added to this talk in this diff). However, I'm having some trouble determining how much hedging ought to be put into the article. Some sources, notably Vulture, hedge quite a bit in their coverage. And it's easy enough to add "allegedly" to certain sentences but I don't know if information about Christo's life that contextualize the writing of the work ought to be included at this time because of the hedging in secondary coverage? I fear it might make it seem more certain when some of the more solid sources are expressing some doubt (mostly to be on the safe side). I might be too cautious here, but does anyone have any thoughts on it? Pinging @Moloch dhalgren and Ajd: who seem interested in this. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just add that she wrote the fanfiction while in foster care? I don't think much more is needed unless we want to give backstory.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My question is really whether or not it's appropriate to add information like that, seeing as at least one of the more solid sources expresses doubt. Does the presentation of that information in the article under a development-type section frame the content as being less under doubt than some sources present it to be? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think with the way the article is framed now, stating she was in foster care probably wouldn't fit perhaps unless it was stated with her memoir (as it's about her time in the foster system). Hopefully I have not misunderstood you!--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Section

[edit]

I'm just wondering why the lead section is so long, because it looks kind of overwhelming if someone looks at it for the first time. Do we want to maybe thin it out and some of the information in other parts of the article?--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section follows MOS guidelines on lead. It summarizes the contents of the article. See WP:LEAD. It's not particularly long for the length of the article. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwifarms threads

[edit]

Rose Christo's brother posted on the website Kiwifarms and contradicted her claims. There's pretty good evidence that she is a liar and is not the author of my immortal. Read the thread here: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/terry-rose-christo-theresa-christodoulopoulos-tara-gilesbie.34690/ Barnabees (talk) 01:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is a forum thread, it does not meet the threshold for reliable sources, see WP:RS. In order for that information to be presented in this article, it needs to be reported in a reliable source. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely reliable. I guess we'll have to wait until the information is published elsewhere so we can add it to the wikipedia page, though. Christo's brother has proven his identity in this thread: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/author-of-my-immortal-possibly-found.33996/Barnabees (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What has been said in the forum isn't actually of any concern until, as you correctly said, the information is published elsewhere. Whatever proof he's posted in the forums or whatever statement of reliability we make doesn't move toward inclusion in the article. It needs to be published someplace that isn't a forum. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the page describing the WP:RS rules it says that there can be some exceptions fitting with common sense and while secondary sources are preferred primary sources can be used. As the proposed addition is saying that the forum post occurred and somebody verified as her brother revealed this information, rather than simply saying "it was revealed that..." it is appropriate and fitting with wikipedias source rules to link the forum, as all the source on that section needs to do is provide proof that the forum pages exist. I think those rules exist for this exact situation, where something is very clearly true but nobody has written an article about it. I think the section should be added with links to the forum as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepingitcool (talk • contribs) 08:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC) Further reading of the rules has shown me the WP:IAR page which I believe fits because the forum as I already mentioned and so have others is reliable. It may not be an article but it is factual and its addition improves the page and supplies factual information. To follow the rule in this case would cause the page to be outdated and hold easily disproved information, therefore making wikipedia less reliable. This should be given an exception and that is why I have returned it.Keepingitcool (talk) 09:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptions to the sourcing rules are for things like if, I don't know, the way George R.R. Martin makes statements about The Winds of Winter and Wild Cards on his LiveJournal blog; we are certain that the LiveJournal is actually his and it is actually him making the statements, and the statements he makes on his blog are very likely to not be false, so the primary source can be cited. Dave Filoni says something about the creative process for Star Wars Rebels on his verified Twitter, a television actor says what their birthday is on their verified Twitter, these things are also primary so they make exception to the secondary sourcing rule. Primary sources about people can be used as sources for information about themselves and their work, provided that it is certain that it is really them and provided that it is probably not false. (Given that this is about whether or not Christo is lying, it's worth pointing out that we also have to go with how the secondary sources reported it. That's just how Wikipedia is—we cannot throw doubt on secondary sources UNLESS we have secondary sources that throw such doubt.) Ignore all rules does not apply in the way you've applied it. Additionally, there is no deadline as to when a Wikipedia article has to be updated is how I view things; WP:DEADLINE. There is no pressing need for the article to be improved right this very second, especially since there IS a template at the top warning it may be out of date. It also does not make Wikipedia MORE reliable to use dubious sources. We can wait until, if there is to be such, reliable sources arise. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 14:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the information has been added with a secondary source (diff), this has been resolved. I still very much advise against using the original forum threads as a source. Stick to what's reported in secondary. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If WP:IAR couldnt be used before it certainly can now in regards to her name. A secondary source has provided reliability to her brothers statements so now those statements are the same as the the examples given for correct use of WP:IAR, as it is the account of someone who has been confirmed and backed up by secondary sources to know the information.Keepingitcool (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That just isn't at all how using secondary sourcing works, especially in an area where things are as murky as they are here and especially when dealing with something that the person themselves did not publicly disclose. I am reverting the addition on the name on the basis of BLP. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflit) You can't IAR when it comes to BLP policy; you need a source that Christo's real name is Christodoulopoulos. --PresN 17:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Also, to clarify something, in the examples I gave, it was the person talking about THEMSELVES, which is a wholly different case than what we have here. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Keepingitcool: IAR is a useful tool for skipping bueracracy when there's no opposition; it is not carte blanche to ignore anyone who disagrees with you, nor is it justification to override BLP issues. If you continue to add claims about someone's "real name" without a source, you may be blocked from editing. --PresN 17:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC) source now added with explanation for why it is IAR. This has been a large mess of confusion. Hope you now see why it fitsKeepingitcool (talk) 17:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. A psuedonymous forum post is not a reliable source for anything. For all you know I wrote that post- there's literally no way for you to prove otherwise. Please read WP:RS. Reverting again. Final warning on adding her "real" name without a reliable source. --PresN 17:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a... separate but related matter, the MoviePilot citation states: "It's worth noting that Kiwi Farms is notorious for perpetuating doxxing — publishing confidential information about people on the internet, leaving them vulnerable — and in fact this website was even shut down then re-opened earlier this year." Does anyone think this information is worth including in any capacity? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC) I have made some evidence as new information has come to light in the form of Christos blog post which as previously discussed does fit the terms of WP:IAR as it is her account. I have also edited it to express the uncertainty. If you believe I have made it too biased in one direction please discuss but I wanted to reflect that her claims are not confirmed and are growing weaker by the day. Keepingitcool (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because Christo has now made the statement herself, her former last name can be added and the alleged dropped from the "Christo's brother" statement. I do think that "growing uncertainty" and added alleged to the authorship claim is much, seeing as the Kiwi Farms posting has not stated that Christ did NOT write My Immortal. I made some amendments. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that it is unconfirmed and unknown. The more it is revealed that there are untruths in her story the more it is uncertain and her brother said he didn't know either way. The only people who know for sure are rose and the actual author, whether that's one person or two. The page should reflect this. Saying she didn't write it is wrong but so is saying she did which is what it's saying now. All my edits did were to express that this is not confirmed. To leave it as it is now is an innacurate telling of events whether she did write it or not because at this current point it is uncomfirmed. Please change it back to reflect this. Keepingitcool (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not our judgment call to say that because these parts of her story are confirmed to be not as initially presented that other parts of her story are also untrue. It's not how Wikipedia articles are written. And, again, Wikipedia does not need to be updated minute by minute, and in this case, it might be best to be slow to update until things land a little. The last thing we know is that MacMillan confirmed that she wrote it but she later failed fact checks relating to her family, and that her brother made statements refuting parts of her story but cannot make any statement about My Immortal; neither of these things necessarily state that she didn't write it. It's probably safer to leave the article at the last confirmed state: it was confirmed she wrote it, but now certain parts of her story are under doubt. It can always be changed later when things are more certain. We don't need to be moving ahead of a developing story. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

73.243.193.68/probably @Keepingitcool:: Do not revert other users' edits by claiming that they are "IAR" and therefore invalid. Just because someone told you that you couldn't use IAR as a club to get your way, doesn't mean that you can blow off any edits you don't like as IAR.

We can't take forum mods verifying someone's identity at face value as opposed to stating that those forum mods said they verified his identity. You don't just get to declare that all information from non-RSs that you agree with is objectively true, while all information that you don't agree with is not. Christo claims she wrote it- that doesn't mean she did, and the article accurately states that she claims to, not that she did. Someone says they're her brother, and that she lied about several things in her non-published memoir. The article states eactly that- it doesn't state that she lied, it doesn't state the it is her brother, it states the facts as given. --PresN 21:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not that user. It is a personal attack to accuse another of sockpuppetry for no justifiable reason whatsoever. Continue, and I will gladly report you (and I imagine WP admins will hastily verify that I am not said account). --73.243.193.68 (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmhmm. I wasn't accusing anyone of sockpuppetry, I just figured you weren't logged in. Feel free to report whatever you want ot whatever you want. Just please learn what IAR and other terms actually mean. --PresN 21:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And feel free to get your facts straight before making accusations. Believe it or not, you can be at odds with more than one person at a time. --73.243.193.68 (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:TenTonParasol

[edit]

Stop your IAR, please. --73.243.193.68 (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read the other cited article: "This could be a sock-puppet trying for fifteen minutes of internet fame, but there is a user on the Kiwi forums (a fandom gathering place) that goes by the moniker DawnDusk, who claims to be Christo’s brother. He says that while aspects of Rose Christo’s life are true, there are other items surrounding her story that seem sketchy at best (But since his identity is not verified, take this with a grain of salt). For what it’s worth: Admins at the forum have looked into DawnDusk’s identity and believe his claims are verifiable." I'm not ignoring any rules, I'm noting that out of the two sources there, one mentions it could be a troll. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Christo's tumblr

[edit]

Per WP policy, personal blogs are not preferred but accepted on a lesser basis.

It is important to note, and it is not IAR to do so, that she verified the Kiwi Farms forum user to be her brother through her blog before she deleted it. --73.243.193.68 (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I can make this clear, rose deactivated her social media. That is an objective statement doing nothing except describing the facts. It is sourced just above it (I'd add it to the sentence but putting the same source in twice right next to each other just seems redundant) and it is a factual event that is relevant in many ways. It is not implying anything to mention it. It is not inferring or analysing to simply state it happened. If you think it implies something that is you making your opinion on the facts that are presented, not the facts being presented in a biased way. If I was to say "she deactivated her tumblr and Twitter, increasing doubt on her statements" that would be biased and implying something. That is not what I am adding. I am adding the simplest and most objective way to describe this relevant and sourced event (it does not eleborate further than the source either) and there is absolutely no reason to remove it. The fact that someone thinks there is genuinely baffles me. The only reason I can think of is that you don't like my previous edits and automatically assume everything I add needs to be removed. Even if you were right in other cases, you aren't in this one. This addition is relevant and breaking no rule. Please do not remove it. Keepingitcool (talk) 10:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an article about Rose Christo, it's an article about the work itself. Why is it "relevant in many ways" to the work of My Immortal that the Tumblr and Twitter was deactivated. And, yes, it's IS implying something when the immediately previous sentence is how some believe the events throw doubt on her authorship. But, mostly, how is it relevant to My Immortal that the accounts are deactivated? How is it adding information about the work? It isn't. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 13:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following that logic, how is anything to do with Christo relevant? Except the bit where she claimed she was the author and the doubt was cast? The answer is that as all those other details, including the deactivation of her social media, are heavily tied into her claim to be author. They are all part of it. As this section is about her claim all things relevant should be included. And again, if you think it is implying something then that is just you interpreting the information. If we were to remove things because they can be interpreted in some way (any way as there are multiple ways this can be interpreted, none of which are discussed in the addition and that was done on purpose) then there would be no Wikipedia at all. Do not confuse you forming opinions based on the facts for the facts being biased. The sentence that her social media is deactivated is relevant as she as relevant, is factual as is sourced, and is unbiased and objective as it is a simple factual statement. It has every reason to be included and no reason not to be Keepingitcool (talk) 14:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I can see it both ways. This article is supposed to be about My Immortal, not Christo, so what she gets up to with her social media accounts isn't relevent. On the flip side, the article does already talk about that specific tumblr account (though not the twitter). I've merged it into the text instead of leaving it as a stand-along sentence, but I'm still conflicted. --PresN 16:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still personally feel that it's not really necessary to mention it, and I still maintain that it isn't a sentence alone that makes things NPOV, but how the information is presented in context. I feel like the implication that "deactivated = stronger doubt" is lessened if the deactivation comes BEFORE the doubt sentence. At any rate, I'll concede the article as is. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rose's accounts and doings regarding the memoir are important because half of the memoir was about My Immortal, is that not fair? 66.225.115.10 (talk)

Page views

[edit]

more views than the song In ictu oculi (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 May 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the fan fiction article to the plain title, and no consensus to move the other article at this time, per the discussion below. There is a hatnote at My Immortal pointing readers to this article, so hopefully that will prove to be sufficient for disambiguation purposes. Dekimasuよ! 02:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– As In ictu oculi showed above, this article is more popular than the one on the song. 2601:CE:C180:6B45:D4BA:E043:B090:95D8 (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will it? The passing of ten years has not led to it being forgotten; what's special about the next five? Pinkbeast (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

What about Todd-Gilesbie/XXXmidnitegoffXXX claiming to be the author?

[edit]

What about Todd-Gilesbie/XXXmidnitegoffXXX claiming to be the author? (At least they acknowledged it was a troll fic)

https://fanfiction.net/u/4130202/Todd-Gilesbie https://archiveofourown.org/users/XXXmidnitegoffXXX/pseuds/XXXmidnitegoffXXX — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamblerezra (talk • contribs)

There isn't third party coverage of that authorship claim beyond a passing mention in a 2017 Vulture article by Riesman, who is heavily cited in this article: "I can say that, after I published my initial article, I was approached by another claimant to the throne who went by the name “Todd Gilesbie,” who was unable to sufficiently convince me that they were the author." ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The author is https://www.fanfiction.net/u/999831 while the co-author is https://www.fanfiction.net/u/903576 "Profile Updated: Dec 21, 2009" (after the story was removed) Anyone claiming to be the author should update it for confirmation or post a thread on the forum. Unless she forgot or lost access to the email (which is used to log in or reset password), Rose Christo obviously can't be the author given that "she claimed to have provided proof through the email address with which she created the FanFiction.net account" and yet didn't confirm that she had ownership of the account through any means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F07:6110:BB00:1C78:3CDA:F0EC:A47A (talk) 09:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I found Raven's stories, which were removed as well: https://myimmortal.fandom.com/wiki/I%27m_Not_Okay and https://myimmortal.fandom.com/wiki/Ghost_of_You Anyone claiming to be the author ought to explain Raven, moreso if they claim it's satire. fanfiction.net apparently allows multiple accounts, but it's too elaborate to be a prank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F07:6110:BB00:1C78:3CDA:F0EC:A47A (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the supposed author's statement

[edit]

https://www.fictionpress.com/u/518933/XXXblodyblaktearz666XXX Joined Mar 31, 2006, ... - Updated: 8/2/17, 4:37 PM EST -

I guess nobody remembered that I was on FictionPress, too.

So, hi. I'm the girl you all knew as Tara. My account really was hacked (twice!), once in 2006 and again in 2009. As of 2017, Support still doesn't answer my requests to regain it, although I can't say I blame them. They're probably scared I'll flood their site with poorly written sex scenes again.

I'm lucky the hackers never migrated to this account, considering it had the exact same login credentials. (They've since been changed, don't worry.)

I'll let the account's creation date speak as to whether it's legitimate or not.

Thank you all so, so much for keeping My Immortal alive over the years. You fill my heart with so much love. (Preppy moment, oops.)

That's about all I have to say for now.

- Updated: 8/27/17, 10:55 PM EST -

Because I've received several messages asking this, and predict I may receive more, I'll answer it here. No, I am not Lani Sarem. Really bad fiction simply tends to read the same. No, I'm not on Facebook. Or Deviantart. Or MySpace. Or Youtube. (Etc.) I am on Tumblr. But I use my real name there, and it's not Tara. ...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:2f0e:c307:8a00:1c78:3cda:f0ec:a47a (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Name footnote

[edit]
Moved from User talk:Tamzin
 – Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "the fact that the work has myriad misspellings is well-documented in the article, so we do not need to illustrate it here". The listed misspellings themselves are not well-documented at all in sources covering the work, and the majority of them are, in fact, quite obscure and more WP:TRIVIA. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TenTonParasol: It's pretty standard to list variant names for the protagonist in a work. The many variant names used for Ebony are the subject of coverage in reliable sources [8] [9] [10], probably more so than the average novel where John also goes by Jack, so I don't see why we should depart from standard practice here. It is at once pertinent information; covered in reliable sources; a good sample for the reader of the quality of writing in the work; and, for good measure, entertaining (without being in any way insincere). Furthermore, it is confined to a single footnote, so it is not at all obtrusive and, even if it were trivial, which it is not, it in no way would run afoul of WP:TRIVIA's proscription of "lists of miscellaneous information". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair! My concern generally is "do we need every misspelling" when there's only really the three misspellings that are popularly known and mentioned in RS (and in popular consciousness, even the Fandom wiki article prioritizes just the "Ebony" spelling). I'd be much more comfortable if it was a "such as" and listing just the notable ones, but it appears the footnote already has all thirteen. Lots of words to say "well, yeah, actually, when you lay it out like that..." ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:My_Immortal_(fan_fiction)&oldid=1202113570"