User talk:Clana4life55
Identified
[edit]Your opinion of whether 22,000 sales is "disappointing" is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Please review WP:NPOV.
Kww (talk) 11:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- If you have a reliable source describing sales of 22,000 as "disappointing", feel free to include it as a reference. Until you have such a reliable source, please do not add the description back in.
Kww (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)- I didn't delete your change ... another editor did. First, if you want to reference something, don't just put the site name in at random. After the thing you want to source (in this case, the word "disappointing"), you put <ref>http://www.example.com/example.html</ref>. That way, people see the source. Second, you need to use a reliable source, as described in WP:RS. You can find a blog that will support anything ... I'm sure that there is a Vanessa fansite out there somewhere that is thrilled that it reached 22,000. Find a major, recognized critic (Rolling Stone, Time, Variety ... ), that calls it "disappointing", and I will help you make your change stick.
Kww (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't delete your change ... another editor did. First, if you want to reference something, don't just put the site name in at random. After the thing you want to source (in this case, the word "disappointing"), you put <ref>http://www.example.com/example.html</ref>. That way, people see the source. Second, you need to use a reliable source, as described in WP:RS. You can find a blog that will support anything ... I'm sure that there is a Vanessa fansite out there somewhere that is thrilled that it reached 22,000. Find a major, recognized critic (Rolling Stone, Time, Variety ... ), that calls it "disappointing", and I will help you make your change stick.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Identified. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.
Kww (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Reported
[edit][3RR violation report].
Kww (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
July 2008
[edit]
October 2008
[edit]Your edit to the Babe Carey article keeps getting reverted for a reason. Besides the fact that she was not killed off due to her unpopularity with Internet fans while Alexa Havins was in the role (unless you count Babe's fake death, which was not even about Babe's unpopularity with Internet fans), you have no valid source to go with your addition of stating that she was possibly killed off due to her unpopularity. If you continue to edit Wikipedia unconstructively, as you have done to the Babe Carey article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Clearly, judging by the top of your talk page, you know about Wikipedia's policy on sourcing. Do not add your unsourced addition back in. Flyer22 (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- I responded on my talk page, of course, to your reply to me about this. Flyer22 (talk) 06:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Again, I responded on my talk page. This is the last warning I am giving you about this matter. That section you are tampering with has a source. Stop editing Wikipedia unconstructively. You could add, "However, website Soap Opera Central states that the decision was Storyline dictated" beside the part about the recast possibly being the reason. But you had better add that Soap Opera Central source along with that sentence. Flyer22 (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- For now, I decided to remove that sentence until I better reconstruct that section, but it will be back, and placed with a valid source right after that statement so that there is no misunderstanding that it is, in fact, sourced. Flyer22 (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Replied again, but I am sure that you know to check my talk page by now for my reply after you have replied there. Flyer22 (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Just now, I changed a bit of my last paragraph there about Babe's death being spoiled on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Replied again, but I am sure that you know to check my talk page by now for my reply after you have replied there. Flyer22 (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- For now, I decided to remove that sentence until I better reconstruct that section, but it will be back, and placed with a valid source right after that statement so that there is no misunderstanding that it is, in fact, sourced. Flyer22 (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Again, I responded on my talk page. This is the last warning I am giving you about this matter. That section you are tampering with has a source. Stop editing Wikipedia unconstructively. You could add, "However, website Soap Opera Central states that the decision was Storyline dictated" beside the part about the recast possibly being the reason. But you had better add that Soap Opera Central source along with that sentence. Flyer22 (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Fictional characters are always fictional characters
[edit]When a character dies, that does not stop the character from being fictional. Per Wikipedia:Writing about fiction#The problem with in-universe perspective, we must not treat the characters as if they are real; the only exception to that is plot summary. This is why Babe Carey remains a fictional character. Flyer22 (talk) 12:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)