User talk:Flyer22 Frozen/Archive 5

Sexual intercourse

Thanks for the discussion, here is a source for AS causing pregnancy [1] "3] Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention, "Can I get HIV from anal sex?" December 20, 2002 http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/faq/faq22.htm " Thanks for adding that in then.Tstrobaugh (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are quite an editor, #729 on the latest list.Tstrobaugh (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is exactly what I was saying about the topic of pregnancy during (or after) anal sex, Tstrobaugh -- that it is only caused by semen having leaked into the vagina, as you know (thus, it is not pregnancy directly through anal sex, and this not being made clear in the lead would confuse some people; it is too unlikely/rare and complicated to note in the lead and a little out of place there). I also stated that I could not find any documented cases where this has happened to people but had found online sources saying that it is possible, even though unlikely.

To have this information fit perfectly in a section within the Sexual intercourse article, I will create a section there titled Pregnancy and possible causes. (Not sure about the title; it is a work in progress, but...) This information will fit perfectly there.

As for my being "quite the editor," I would say not that much these days, LOL. But I try. Thank you for the compliment, though.

Also, thank you for being so easy to work with. Flyer22 (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I would hope that everyone knows that a person can get HIV/AIDS through anal sex. But it is apparent that we should have a section about sexually transmitted diseases in the Sexual intercourse article. I will eventually get on to that. Flyer22 (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(butting in) I actually saw an episode on Talk Sex with Sue Johanson where a woman called in asking for advice and acutally uttered the words "I know you can't get AIDS through anal sex" at which point she was abruptly stopped by Ms. Johanson for obvious reasons...stupidity scares me. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 10:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Thanks for the laugh, Bookkeeperoftheoccult. You certainly do keep me in good spirits. Butt in any time, by the way.

I should get on to adding a section about pregnancy and its causes/possible causes to the Sexual intercourse article...either today or tomorrow, before I take even longer to do so. I really hate being so lazy on Wikipedia these days. I'm going to step it up a bit for a few days starting with that article. Flyer22 (talk) 02:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey Flyer, how you been? Long time no talk. Listen, I wanted to thank you for doing that copy-edit on Brad Pitt's article. Despite what others said at the FAC, I believe you did a great job! Forget them. Okay, the reason I'm here, your talkpage, is because I was wondering if you could do a copy-edit on List of awards and nominations received by Heath Ledger. I plan on nominating the list to FLC, but I want someone, who is unfamiliar with the list, to "change" somethings around. If you can't do it, its understandable. But, if you can, you'd do be a big favor. :) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, did others at the FAC say something against me? The last time I checked there, they were simply tidying up the article further. No one had said anything against my tiny copyedits of the article. If that is still the case, I am not offended at all by their further tidying of the article.

As for the List of awards and nominations received by Heath Ledger article, I may tidy it up. But I likely will not, due to several factors (such as being busy with offline stuff, fixing up other articles...and stress). Flyer22 (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just read the rest of the Brad Pitt FAC (and saw that no one directly called me out as a bad copyeditor, but did tweak a few of my copyedits; I agree with those tweaks). The thing is...I did not copyedit enough of that article and I did not tweak some of the parts good enough. I apologize for that. I should have given the article a better read-through and took it more seriously, no matter that I had a lot of stressful things going on in my life outside of Wikipedia and still do. I was already worried about the lead (intro) of that article, which I noted to you, but you said that I did not have to copyedit it. And yet I see that the lead (intro) was a big problem to a few reviewers there. I wish that I had not been so lazy, and copyedited it, anyway, and took more care with the article.

Thank you for believing in me, regardless, though, enough to even ask me to copyedit something else. Flyer22 (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for replying now. I saw you edit on Ben Affleck's history page and it hit me that I didn't respond back. No, it wasn't what you said. I forgot to respond, since it seemed you were busy with other stuff in your talkpage. Forget what those people said about the prose in the FAC. They criticized the minor things, which they made such a big deal about. I'm over it. Don't apologize, it wasn't your fault. Obviously, they just opposed without giving any input, really. You have a life, I have a life, I won't hold it against you. Well, the lead wasn't a major problem, just some tweaks there. You are welcome on that. Its fine about the list, not a big deal, really. I was in the mood of nominating it, but I lost interest. I hope I didn't give you the wrong impression of me. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is okay between you and I. Thank you for replying, no matter how late; sometimes I reply late as well, even a few times when it is a month later, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, cool. I was a bit panicked. But, I'm relieved everything is cool. :) Hey, you're welcome for me replying back. It was my duty to do so. ;) So, what are you up to these days? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia? Several articles that need tyding or additions (or both).

Off Wikipedia? Screenwriting projects. Flyer22 (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. I've actually seen that you've commented at Michael Jackson's talkpage. Man, it was a big shock in his death. Anyways, I don't want to get in trouble, screenwriting, that's cool. I took playwriting in highschool. IDK, I couldn't resist. :) That's awesome, though. Keep up the work here and not here. :P -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In trouble? What do you mean by that? Flyer22 (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTBLOG. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not quite get what you mean. Keep in mind that I am slow at times, LOL. You either mean that some people were adding personal or other types of faulty blog sources (which no doubt were quickly reverted) or that you have blogged about this and would not want to get in trouble for adding your blog as a source. Flyer22 (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant not getting out of topic. Meaning, talking about the passing of Michael Jackson. This is what I mean ---> "I've actually seen that you've commented at Michael Jackson's talkpage. Man, it was a big shock in his death." I hope that makes sense. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Yes, it is all clear to me now. Thanks for coming back both times just to make that clear. Flyer22 (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no need to thank me. I was just trying to make sense and not sound dumb. ;) On a serious note, how busy are you? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 15:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medium busy right now. Flyer22 (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well never mind. I hope to see ya around, Flyer. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You talking to me?

Wow, you are really rude. You don't have any right to stop me from editing articles. I do not VANDALIZE articles. And what other articles are you talking about? It's been a while since anyone has warned me about 'unnecessarily' editing ARTICLES, and most people that complain are just mad that I've dared to change anything in a article to which they have contributed. Also, respect my privacy and don't look into my history. If you got some beef with me because of the Cruise article (sorry, but I don't even recall changing anything), then you can let me know in a POLITE manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.46.8 (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit: I've taken a look into my history, and yes now I remember what I've changed. OMG, I didn't remove anything, or even added something (rude, inappropiate), I just changed something incomprehensible into a grammatically correct English sentence. The sentence I changed was just BAD BAD English. I even looked up some information on the name and the word Suri, because I could not understand what that person was trying to say. You actually should be greatful I IMPROVED the article. It wouldn't surprise me if you're the one who wrote it. I'm sorry, but I didn't know that only people who register can edit. If that's a rule, then they should put that in big CAPITAL LETTERS on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.46.8 (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two advantages to registering for a Wikipedia account that are relevant here. Firstly, you will never receive messages intended for another user who has edited Wikipedia using the same IP address that you yourself are now using (which could have happened in this case). Secondly, you are unlikely to be mistaken for another user (which did happen in this case).

Please accept that this was a mistake made by User:Flyer22 who was making a good faith attempt to fight vandalism on Wikipedia, and in future either register an account or accept that your IP talk page may get vandalism-related messages for either of the reasons above. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will accept that it was a mere mistake, but I would like to note that I was more shocked by the tone of the message than the wrongful accusation of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.46.8 (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP, if you vandalized the Relationship of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes article, yes, I was talking to you. It has not been a long time since your IP address has vandalized an article. I will talk to vandals in the way I talked to you all I want; what I said is hardly different than the usual warnings. Besides that, your talk page has had recent warnings not too long before mine. Vandals very much frustrate me here at Wikipedia, and I have no tolerance for them. I simply told it like it was, as is done to all vandals. And we are allowed to check into the edit history of vandals and restore their warnings. We can even check into the edit history of good-faith editors. If you did not vandalize the Relationship of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes article, then you have nothing to worry about. You should do like SheffieldSteel suggested, however, and register for an account.

I want to say that I do apologize, though, for you getting mistaken for another person; stuff like that happens all the time here on Wikipedia with shared IP addresses. Flyer22 (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my last warning was not that long ago, but that was an edit on the discussion page that went wrong. I tried to add a comment, but my computer didn't work right and I wasn't even aware that something was removed. Before that, my last warning was not recent and I already explained about how some Wikipedians are. But that's not even the point, I don't feel like arguing with you. You may believe whatever you want. Your tone however was different from , for example, the last warning I received. And may I suggest (ONLY suggest, nothing more!) that's something you might think about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.46.8 (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only part of my warning to you that had a somewhat different tone than the usual mild warnings is where I said, "It is time for you to be blocked from editing Wikipedia." But that warning is not too different from the stern warning templates issued to serious vandals, which state that they will be blocked if they continue vandalizing or that it is their last warning before they will be blocked. Your IP edit history and talk page warnings show your IP address to be a serial vandal. Thus, I gave you a serious warning. I was frustrated that such a serious vandal had not been recently blocked (though the block would have been temporary, anyway, seeing as we are not allowed to block IP addresses forever). I mean, as I told you before, I have no tolerance for Wikipedia vandals. And I certainly have no desire to be very polite to them, especially in regards to a serial one.

In any regard, I have apologized to you if you are indeed innocent of the vandalism I accused you of. But realize that the accusation is toward the IP address, which is guilty due to whomever made that edit. I do not apologize for my tone to whomever did indeed make that edit. Flyer22 (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I see that you are completely innocent. I obviously need more rest, because I mistook you for a completely different IP address regarding the edit to the Relationship of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes article, as shown above by SheffieldSteel, and I just now realized that.

I will now go warn the actual vandal, but with the mild warning template.

Sorry about all this.

Take care. Flyer22 (talk) 01:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well ok, let's leave it at that then.

An FYI

If you are interested or have any pertinent content to add to the case, please see this SPI. You had left a note at User talk:Excuseme99 here about possible socks with this user. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy Musgrave

Hey Flyer22,

I personally went to high school with Mandy Musgrave at Boone High School in Orlando. She dropped out of school. She did not finish. Her sister, Jamie, did. I am the source. Notice that she came out to Calif. before her sister's graduation date. Also, the show is no longer on air except in reruns. Funinsun11 (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I may comment ... we believe you, Funinsun11, but per WP:SOURCES, an editor's personal knowledge is not an appropriate source of information, especially in a biographical article. Information may be left alone if it is common knowledge, benign, or just not challenged by anyone, but unsourced or improperly sourced information may be removed at any time, by anyone, per policy. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 16:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of that, TAnthony. Flyer22 (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, remove any remark of her graduating from High School, since it can not be confirmed. Funinsun11 (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it is confirmed by the reliable reference in her article, Unless a more reliable reference turns up to dispute that one, one that we can actually use, we will go by that one. Flyer22 (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay

Thanks for the notice, I'll go check it out. I actually don't always check my watchlist (it tends to fly by a bit fast...) so I tend to stop by articles to check continuing conversations intermittantly. Tyciol (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not checked my watchlist in a long time (several months, due to seeing so much vandalism and so many tasks when I do look at it). I will again one day, though. Flyer22 (talk) 03:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AniMate

Dear User. I dont know what to do with AniMate. He or she continuously accuses me of being someone else called Randy and she is causing me so much grief. I just wanted to start editing here and she constantly bothers me. I'm begging you, my real account is M623 and N623 but since she blocked me, I had to create this new account so I can talk to you or another helful admin. Please talk to AniMate and help me. I have no one else but you for help.--F623 (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carangi

Thanks for the nice note. Even more sad than this forgotten bit of Carangi trivia is that I misspelled feat. Oh how I wish I could edit the edit summaries! --JayHenry (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Me too, JayHenry. Me too. Flyer22 (talk) 02:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One the Run

Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. You have new messages at ShelfSkewed's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi I just wanted to say hi and I wanted to ask you if you can show me around this site. Thanks and my name is Leslie Roak on the site but you can call me Roak (my first name).

.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leslie Roak (talk • contribs) 18:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have the time to show you around. I do not mean to sound cold, but that is how it is. I point you to Wikipedia:About, however. Flyer22 (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyway tho! --Leslie Roak (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I am glad that you seem to be learning quickly here. Not that you should be slow, LOL, but everyone learns at a different pace. Flyer22 (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Supercouple R&J

Hello, thanks for the message. Describing Romeo and Juliet as a super-couple, not only undermines the concept of the super-couple, but also shows a complete misunderstanding of the play. R&J is a love between precisely the least appropriate, and least socially acceptable, partners, both of whom are children with no power to choose their spouse. The point is that they gladly sacrifice everything. Neither of them have any power, desire for status, or ambition. THis is exactly the opposite of the power-couple concept (you might just as well list brokeback mountain in the article).

Antony and cleopatra might be an example of a super-couple from literature/history. R&J is the complete opposite. If we want to talk about great love affairs, we have many other articles on wikipedia. But the play is entirely irrelevant in an article about power-couples.

86.26.0.25 (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP, thank you for taking the time to visit my talk page to address this matter (though, as I suggested to you before, I would have preferred it be taken to the Supercouple talk page). A couple can be a supercouple even if they are "the least appropriate, and least socially acceptable, partners, both of whom are children with no power to choose their spouse," especially in regards to fictional supercouples. Within fiction, not all supercouples are rich and not all or even most have any power, desire for status, or ambition." The point of Romeo and Juliet being in the article is that they are considered a supercouple due to their popularity in the real world and their enduring legacy. As the first part of the lead of the Supercouple article states, "A supercouple is a popular or financially wealthy pairing that intrigues and fascinates the public in an intense or even obsessive fashion." We have the word "or" in their for a reason. A supercouple does not have to be rich (whether real or fictional, they can simply be a popular couple, such as a high school couple, who have become a super popular couple due to their peers being very fascinated by their relationship) and a few real-life supercouples are not exactly popular (meaning rich supercouples who are considered supercouples simply because of their impressive financial combination and their peers or the general public being fascinated by that). The term "Supercouple" did not exist back when Romeo and Juliet were created (that we know of), but now that it does...Romeo and Juliet are often considered a supercouple and as a couple having elements which often make great fictional supercouples. This is briefly mentioned in this article by Agnes Nixon (and noted in the Decline and remolding: 1990s-2000s section of the Supercouple article). I will add them back to the section you removed them from because of this. If you want, either one of us could add a bit about why they are considered a supercouple in today's world -- their tragic love story having remained (extremely) popular after all these years to the point of being thought of as the most iconic example of true love.

By the way, "Brokeback Mountain" is mentioned in the article...but it is the film version that is mentioned due to the film being responsible for the two characters becoming as popular a pairing as they have.

And, oh...thank you for adding a couple in place of one of the couples you removed. I get your point about not listing popular couples just for the sake of listing them when they are not mentioned as supercouples within the references. But, as I stated, within the Supercouple article, we also name popular couples who are not necessarily supercouples when relevant to whatever point that particular part of the Supercouple article is making.

Any more issues you have related to me on Wikipedia, do not hesitate, of course, to address me about them. Flyer22 (talk) 23:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supermodel

Hi there, Flyer! The Present day section in the article should contain more info than just about Bundchen, Heidi Klum is welcome, definitly a supermodel in this decade! Go ahead, the section is now too short. Regards, Vanthorn ^{msg ←} 18:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Vanthorn, that information about other models than Bundchen being "super" in present day should be mentioned in that section (or one more, if only Heidi Klum is to be noted). But it was like that when we all agreed to add that section. Why do you want me to add the information about Heidi Klum or other models? I am sure that no one would have any problem with you doing it, as long as the references are reliable. Flyer22 (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was you that refered Klum, that´s. all. Regards, Vanthorn ^{msg ←} 19:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

God Complex - Link Dump

Here are some not so reliable links; I will add more here as I find them. I will also try to find better ones later, but some are better than none.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-god-complex.htm http://www.anxietyzone.com/glossary/god_complex.html

Erm . . . I will try to find some peer review journals. Do you have access to them or do you need a copy of the PDF? Ismouton (talk) 01:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would need a copy. I must say that I have never studied the term god complex, outside of narcissistic personality disorder. Flyer22 (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So...

Obviously we are both irked beyond reason at our mutual failure to agree or get our points across to each other in the age discussion, but I know we're also mature and experienced enough to not let it affect our interactions in the future ... we're stuck with each other! LOL — TAnthony^Talk 00:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though some of your comments about this have hurt (when I am usually not hurt that much by words), I hold no grudges against you. Flyer22 (talk) 01:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I just looked at the John Paul McQueen and Craig Dean page and thought it's a bit too long. It could to with the plot being shortened and the same with the 'timeline' and 'writing and portrayals'.

As for removing the British, well I did that based on all EastEnders articles. I'm trying to make Hollyoaks articles as well written and sourced as EastEnders ones. So I put, for example: "Jacqueline Bernadette "Jacqui" McQueen (previously Malota) is a fictional character from long-running Channel 4 soap opera, Hollyoaks, played by Claire Cooper. The character first appeared in September 2006." If this is a problem, then I will change them and add British back. Thanks anyway! Whoniverse93 talk? 09:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The John Paul McQueen and Craig Dean article as a whole is not too long, and I am not seeing how or why its Writing and portrayals section should be trimmed. The plot section maybe (MAYBE) can be trimmed a bit without taking out important information, but I explained about that and the annoying timeline section on the talk page of that article, which is where discussion about this should ideally take place.

As for removing "British" from the lead (intro), I suppose it is not super important, since the person can click on the soap opera and find out that it is British, or read further down in the article and realize that. But why make people do that? From editing articles about American topics, such as American soap operas, it has been considered ideal to specify somewhere at the beginning of the lead that it is an American soap opera (to point out the country the show is from). However, the EastEnders article Pauline Fowler, for instance, is a very good example of a well-written/well-sourced soap opera article, and it does not state "British" at the beginning (so you may have a point about removing "British" from other articles). Pauline Fowler is a Featured article, and I point out that it does not have a comma after the "soap opera" part. The example you gave above about Jacqueline Bernadette "Jacqui" McQueen should not have a comma after the soap opera part. Why should a comma be placed there? It should not be; I am not going to go into a long essay about correct grammar. I mean, if that is an alternate British way of doing it, then call me wrong. But, in short, the reason that period does not go after "soap opera" in these cases is because you are introducing and directly stating the soap opera (such as the soap opera Hollyoaks). If you were saying "another soap opera," then a comma would be appropriate, because, of course, the soap opera is not "another soap opera Hollyoaks," it is "the soap opera Hollyoaks." If you said "another," then you would have to specify which soap opera it is with a comma, as "another soap opera, Hollyoaks." Get it?

Anyway, if you have not replied on the John Paul McQueen and Craig Dean talk page, I am going to copy and paste this entire discussion there, where I asked for your thoughts on the matter about the article.

I will see you around. Flyer22 (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing with commas is right, meaning you are right, however, as I have just done using comments here, it is the way you would say it: Jacqueline Bernadette "Jacqui" McQueen (previously Malota) is a fictional character from long-running Channel 4 soap opera, Hollyoaks, played by Claire Cooper. Not including the commas would be like saying a sentence in monotone, for example after this comma would be said differently to the line before. Anyway it sounds confusing so I'll leave it. Thanks Whoniverse93 talk? 01:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Well, we all have a little robot in us, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol :) Whoniverse93 talk? 01:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Tree Hill!

Hi! Yeah no problem, I don't mind the changes you made on the article. Its great. All I want was to give the article a proper suit, and that's what I got it. I was seeing the article for a while now, and I wanted to made some changes because I love the show, but nobody cared about the article, so... I didn't make the changes before because I thought there is some user who is making most of the changes and is kind a "guarding" the article and If he saw the changes he would retrive it, like always. Most of the wikipedians think that some articles are theirs and don't let anyone change anything, I hate that. But I am really glad that you accepted my changes. Yeah I understand about the stuff that are removed from the lead section, and I am fine with it.

I also changed the section structure because it wasn't kind a right! In the matter of the "guest artists" section I don't mind removing it, actually I want to be removed is stupid, but I didn't remove anything about the reason I told you above. So that's it. If you want for us to cooperate on some way to improve the articles or if you need help of any kind just note me :) ---Max^(talk) 11:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For some time, yeah, no one really cared about taking care of the One Tree Hill article, except for Russell29 (and probably a few people before him). I came along, and then it was me and Russell29. Some time back in 2008, the article did not look too differently than the way you recently formatted it (as seen in that edit by an IP). I know that an editor came along and cleaned the article up, and the look in that link may have been the result of that, and that a different editor later cut the plot down (which was one of the best things for the article). Right now, there are about four editors taking care of that article, five with you included.

I will go ahead and make the two changes to the article I said I was thinking of making to it, when I commented on your talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFD on Salem (Days of our Lives)

Is this an article you would be interested in saving? Mike H. Fierce! 01:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, hey. Long time, no see. Whoa, asking me to save that article is like asking me to put out a burning building all by myself. If that article goes, though, it does not bode well for other soap opera articles about their fictional towns. That article should exist for the mere fact that the topic needed/needs its own article and cannot/nor should be in the Days of our Lives article. I will give it a thorough look over and search the Internet for whatever good sources (if any) I can use to help save it. Flyer22 (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Supercouple" articles nominated for deletion

Some articles that you have made significant contributions to have been nominated for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soap Opera "supercouples". Thanks, DJ 09:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Okay. Thanks for the heads up. Those articles should be deleted until they establish notability. Flyer22 (talk) 12:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are five I feel should not be deleted, and one that I feel/know most definitely should not be deleted (Luke Spencer and Laura Webber). Flyer22 (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I revoked the Luke and Laura article from the deletion discussion - I clealry didn't read the introduction properly. Sorry for the inconvenience. DJ 17:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, thanks a lot. Flyer22 (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of John Paul McQueen and Craig Dean

I just find it unnecessary. Perhaps if it wasn't the only storyline article for Hollyoaks I may agree to keep it (for example: creating one for Niall's revenge on the McQueens or something else) I'm not quite sure whether the page is a "super couple" page or actually about the storyline. EastEnders have articles about many storylines but these stop when the storyline ends, John Paul McQueen and Craig Dean's article just seem to go beyond that and if they were still on the show, people would keep adding pointless info. Whoniverse93 talk? 13:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments should not be based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I do not know what you mean by it being the only storyline article for Hollyoaks, but Wikipedia is generally not about what is fair (unless we are talking about WP:Neutral or something similar to that); it is about what is WP:NOTABLE and WP:RELIABLE, first and foremost, and this topic certainly is. If people were adding pointless information to the article, it would be getting removed. The article, as witnessed from the edit history, is carefully watched by me and another editor. Your arguments for deleting the article are not valid, and neither are the nominator's. Flyer22 (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I've changed my mind now. Whoniverse93 talk? 14:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soap Opera Articles

Thanks! I'm just trying to improve the quality of soap opera articles like I contributed with the Chloe article and also with the Adam Wilson article, and plan to fix up more. So if you ever think you need to tweak up some of my additions, please do so!! Candyo32 (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TomKat

I've encountered that blindness that you describe only once, that I can recall. Personally, I think a source should not be cited consecutively in the same passage/paragraph, and if some moron expresses that blindness, you should stand your ground and revert them, telling them to read the darn thing, and I, for one, would back you up if you wanted me to. But if you insist on putting two of the four citations back in, I'm not going to make an issue out of it. :-) Nightscream (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Thank you for the support, Nightscream. Flyer22 (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logan family

Do you know why someone has redirected all of the detailed, well-written articles on characters B&B characters such as Brooke Logan and Bridget Forrester all to Logan family? Candyo32 (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles were/are not well-written. Well-detailed, yes, but not well-written. When someone is ready to write decent (as in more than just plot) articles for them, they can have their own articles. Flyer22 (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forget Sonny

Our little friend has done a number on Carly Corinthos. The way our friend has the article now, Tamara Braun received 6 emmy nominations... in the same year. I'm literally running out the door, but will have some time Sunday to begin trimming down L&L. AniMate^draw 02:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. So this means that you want me to focus my attention on fixing up the Carly Corinthos article instead? If so, will do. But I still plan to add more real-world content to the Sonny Corinthos article than is already there. Flyer22 (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just fix the edits our pal did today. They're a lot of fun, with great punctuation and appropriate capitalization! AniMate^draw 02:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. And looking at the Carly Corinthos article, it is clear that it has been getting fixed up by you guys. Thank goodness. Oh, and have fun on your night out. Flyer22 (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Material

I am aware of that thank you and that is exactly why I removed it because the source wasn't very credible. I was going to include that in my summary on the history page, but it slipped my mind because I was moving too fast probably. I'll make sure to include that next time, but I am well aware that it is very important to eliminate bias's when working on Wikipedia and stick to the facts and I have always done that.Sparrowhawk7 (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thank you, Sparrowhawk7. Flyer22 (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invite

Hey, I noticed you are an editor on Hollyoaks. Myself and User:Raintheone have decided to consider a creation of a Wikiproject for Hollyoaks, mainly to improve articles to a higher standard. I just thought I would ask if you would consider joining, if you don't that's fine but I just thought I would ask. If you do decide to, then please add your username to the 'support' section on Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Hollyoaks. Thanks :) Whoniverse93 talk? 21:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luke and Laura, and the warnings and sockpuppets of certain users

Well, I've taken my trusty chainsaw to the storylines section and removed quite a bit while still leaving in the major plot points. It can probably use another pass, but I don't think I can handle anymore right now. Take a look, as I'm sure there are typos galore. I'll probably come back to it tomorrow. AniMate^draw 01:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm much more pleased than I thought. After some fast math, it looks like I removed about 16,000 bytes of pure fluff. Not too shabby. Still, I'll tighten it tomorrow. AniMate^draw 01:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AniMate, you have done an excellent job on trimming that article's plot section. Thank you a lot. You should go ahead and remove the plot tag. The rest of the article will be more detailed and longer than the plot section, and it is not like a couple with as much history as Luke and Laura can be expected to have as short a plot summary as a film. Flyer22 (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the tag, and am quite happy you like the rewrite. A couple of notes. I've given User:KSNEMC1 a final warning here. If you're interested, TAnthony has opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leslie Roak. AniMate^draw 22:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather surprising. AniMate^draw 01:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot say that I am exactly surprised. Not that people do not sometimes talk alike, but both recent sockpuppets of this user used "Dude" in a lot of their comments and ended their comments with the -- signings. I was wondering why TAnthony was even treating the two as different, no matter benefit of the doubt. It seemed quite obvious to me that they were/are the same person. Flyer22 (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TAnthony's just too nice for his own good, but yeah, it was obvious. While it's not a huge surprise, the fact that he's been using multiple accounts for as long as he has and in such large numbers is an eye opener. In more good news, I've given User:KSNEMC1 a month off from editing. Should they return after the block and make another bad move, I'll throw down the indef block. AniMate^draw 22:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those other accounts I had never seen before were a bit of a surprise. And thanks for the action against KSNEMC1. Flyer22 (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Favor please

I just did one of my rewrites for an article on Joey Henderson a character from the New Zealand soap Shortland Street. I've never watched the show before, and I hadn't actually heard of it and am not exactly sure how I arrived at the article anymore. Here's the state it was in before I got there. If you don't mind, just look it over and see if it makes sense. I know I need to cut out alot more text (the character lasted a little over a year I believe), but I need some fresh eyes to see if the actual words I've written... make sense. After spending a few hours on the article, I'm solid on the story, I just don't know if someone who hasn't watched the show would get it. AniMate^draw 08:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good rewrite to me. And, as such, makes sense. Whether the actual stories do or not is not your fault, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I wanted to know. Thanks, because condensing something you really don't know isn't that easy. I should probably focus on some of the other character article on the less edited soaps. I shudder to think what state ATWT and Y&R articles are in. AniMate^draw 22:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The As the World Turns character articles are in very bad shape. The Young and the Restless character articles, however, have been getting fixed up by Rocksey and Candyo32 (but mostly by Rocksey); I feel that fixing up those articles is very much covered by Rocksey, though she could use some help (of course). I helped out on the Chloe Mitchell article, for example. But I must state that I looked at The Young and the Restless article some weeks ago, and that article most definitely needs fixing up and a lot of sourcing. Flyer22 (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at the As the World Turns article, and the same goes for that one. Flyer22 (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words

I do believe that people are fundamentally good. I hope DionysosProteus helps us fix this just one glaring issue with an appropriate citation. I was going to try my hand at it, but he has so many references he should be able to fix it. I do hope and wait for his response,--Work permit (talk) 07:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I really cannot believe that people are fundamentally good. At least not all people. Of course, I have no doubt that you know some people are bad or what we would call "evil," but I am just saying. Maybe my outlook comes from having had such a tough and painful life, but I also do not come across too many very nice people on Wikipedia or other Internet outlets. I come across some very nice people at times, but the Internet gives people this "power" to be jerks, or, pardon me, complete assholes. Why? Well, because they say things they would never say to a person's face just because they can. I see that you believe in DionysosProteus and speak positively of him, but I most certainly cannot...for the reasons I (and two other editors) stated on the Character (arts) talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Danes edit

Not sure if you knew, but I changed the Golden Globe template out because the template on the page was dead. The separation has changed to make it more even between years because there was one small template, one huge one, then another small one. The old template has been blanked and has been requested for speedy deletion by author. I replaced the current new template back on the page. Sorry if it caused any confusion. All the actresses' articles on the templates have been correct to reflect this as well. Ejfetters (talk) 07:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining. I obviously got caught up in reverting you due to having thought that an editor I trust reverted you on that article a little before I did. I did look at your edit, but did not know what was going on with your change. I wrongly figured that you were simply playing with the template. I apologize. Flyer22 (talk) 07:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :) Ejfetters (talk) 07:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supercouple article improvement drive

I saw your invisible message on Holden Snyder and Lily Walsh. I'm going to start overhauling all of the plot sections on the articles nominated for deletion. I've removed some leftover AfD messages as well. AniMate^draw 06:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I appreciate it. Flyer22 (talk) 09:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Talk:Serial killer#Racism

My pleasure. GSMR (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Just an FYI: The guideline that you were using in this edit is WP:SURNAME. Dismas|^(talk) 03:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know (LOL). I take it you want me to link to that in my edit summaries when acting on it? Flyer22 (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a note. I have no problem with the way you did it. Just giving you the link, in case you didn't have it. So if it comes up with a less experienced user... That sort of thing. Dismas|^(talk) 03:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. Thank you for clarifying. I have no probelm with you showing me the guideline. There are plenty of editors who have been editing here for two or a few years but still do not know all the guidelines, after all. Flyer22 (talk) 03:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, about Hollyoaks

Well as it says under Template:Infobox soap character that the romance field is not advised. The Hollyoaks Infobox lists family only, including step and adoptive family members. When I created it, I did so because for Hollyoaks, I felt the Infobox was too cluttered with people writing what the romance was to the character and what year, e.g. Sarah Barnes (ex-girlfriend, 2005-2008) The same goes for step and adoptive family, people writing the relationship after the name is not advised again in the soap character template. As for Sarah Barnes, I added the bisexual category because as of yet, it remains unclear what her sexuality is. She had previous relations with men and more recently women, however since it has not been stated on-screen that she is a lesbian, I thought it would be better to put her in the bisexual category. W93 (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at most of the American soap opera infoboxes; we use the Romances field; there is nothing wrong with using it. If people get all elaborate when listing the romances, then you remove that. There is no need to remove the Romances field altogether; it is a quick way to know who the character has been romantically involved with without having to read throughout the article, and it is not as "trivial" as the age of soap opera characters. You mention clutter, but you have created an infobox that could add far more clutter due to all those family fields in it. As for Sarah Barnes, I stated (on your talk page) that if she has stated onscreen that she is a lesbian...she should be categorized as one. I am not sure why someone would put in the lead that she admitted to being a lesbian if she did not actually state such. But I will take your word for it on that. Flyer22 (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to change my mind on the whole romances part actually. The reason I removed them was because I, and other editors to Hollyoaks articles, have been trying to make them as well written as EastEnders articles, which do not have the romances section. I will probably add it to the Hollyoaks infobox. As for Sarah Barnes, well I think editors changed it to the lesbian category because of her current girlfriend, however since she has never stated being a lesbian, I believe their is a strong possibility she could still like males and is therefore bisexual. Obviously it's not all what I want that gets added and removed but basing it on what I've seen, I'd say she is bisexual. W93 (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aundrea Fimbres

The truth of the edited "live" finale for MTB is found in the girl's chats with fans. Immediately after the finale the girls (Aubrey's live chat is the one that I remember off the top of my head) said that the show was live but multiple takes were shot. They said this because in the promos you could figure out who had made the band by looking at the line up and seeing the changes (missing girls). In later interviews though the girls admitted that they were told to say that there were multiple shots to cover up for the bad editing job.

You can see this most obviously by looking over Diddy's shoulder when he said: "The last member of the group...The last member of the group is..." Dawn is standing right behind him.

A member on Aubrey's website posts here: http://aubreyoday.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=17435&hilit=dawn+picked+last that Dawn mentioned the correct order on DRO (Dawn's forum.) I went into her forum to check but the search is only going back to 2008 so I can't find the post again. If you look through the Ask Dawn section you might be able to find the answer. Dawn used to take user submitted questions about the show etc and I think the answer is in there.

This is the problem I've had in general with using the show as source for information. Many insiders and the girls themselves have said that the show is highly edited and that what you see on air is not necessarily always what's going on. Aubrey and Aundrea's friendship was one thing that people said was very edited for ratings. Not that they weren't friends, but that it was edited to make it seem bigger and other friendships (like Aundrea's and Shannon's) were edited down a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allisann (talk • contribs) 22:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I remember being able to tell who made the band from still shots. It was live, but we did not see the live version, correct? Or was it a combination of both? There is still nothing wrong with using the show as a source; whether highly edited or not, using the show as the source is the best thing we could do. It is not as though we have enough other valid sources to use as sources about these women's time on the series, and "highly edited" does not mean that most things that happened on the show were/are fake or misleading. I have not even seen many insiders saying that the show is highly edited...rather mainly just one insider. We know that the majority of what happened on the show is true, with a few things edited to appear a certain way (such as the women all sleeping in the same house during some season of Making the Band 4, at least from what D. Woods has said). We use the show as a source for things that are obviously true, no matter how it may have been edited. Examples include Aubrey being a favorite among judges (though we do also have a Blender magazine source for that), Aundrea's dancing struggles in Season 2, Aubrey and Diddy's verbal fights within the series, Aubrey's firing, among other things.

As for Aubrey and Aundrea's friendship, I believe that I am familiar with your posts from Television Without Pity. I have to say that I do not believe that Aubrey and Aundrea were edited to look like they were best friends; that type of editing could not have happened in the case where they state from their very mouths that they were very close. Examples include Aundrea saying that she and Aubrey had a very strong bond from the beginning, that she could not imagine being in the band without Aubrey, Aubrey saying that Aundrea is her best friend, Aubrey saying that she and Aundrea would get to spend their lives together now that they had made the band together. Furthermore, it is not as though Diddy and his editing crew knew that this friendship would be popular during Season 1. If any editing happened to make them seem closer, then it was Season 2 (where their friendship had become even more popular by then). But it was actually Season 2 where Aubrey and Aundrea spoke deeply about being very close friends. And their Season 2 finale words at the dinner, no matter how edited, spoke volumes about their closeness. Of course...we know they have drifted apart since then, but I have relayed the facts. I thank you for giving me an explanation for your recent IP edit on the Aundrea Fimbres article, though. I was beginning to think that IP would never respond to questions. Flyer22 (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That type of editing can and does happen. I've never said that the two weren't friends, or that they weren't close, but by accounts from people who were there that relationship was edited to make it bigger than it was. Dawn also mentioned on her site that in Season 2 Shannon, Aundrea and she were always together and that they were nicknamed the "Golden Girls" by the film crew because of their tight bond. Yet you never see any hint of this friendship in season 2. They way the show is presented it's almost as though Aundrea doesn't even know who those girls are. And when Aubrey says at the end of Season 2 "we get to live our lives together, live our dream together" it could have been a response to a question: "How do you feel now that you and Aundrea made the band?" and that if the interview question had been: "How do you feel that you and D have made the band" her answer may have made it seem like she was only interested in D being in the band. There's a lot of things you can do to a storyline through the magic of editing. Placing things in a different context and choosing what to show vs. what not to show can change the reality of the situation even by using the existing film.Allisann (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stated that this type of editing where people are declaring other people as their very close friends out of their own mouths cannot be frabricated; we know that, within the series, when Aundrea says that she and Aubrey are very close friends, she is not talking about someone else and then edited to look as though she said Aubrey; the word "Aubrey" was not edited into her mouth. I am familiar with you having stated before at Television Without Pity that they were not very close. What I am saying is that I refuse to believe that they were not very close when they themselves have said that they were. That is my point about that. We got to see in Season 3 just how close Aundrea and Dawn and Shannon, especially Aundrea and Shannon, are. If the editing crew can magically make people look like best friends under any circumstance, then why was this not the case for Aubrey and Aundrea in Season 3? We hardly saw them hanging out in Season 3. Could it be because they barely did? I would "guess" that is a yes (as we know). What does it matter if Season 2 made Aubrey and Aundrea seem even closer? They themselves have said that they were very close. In addition to the singing, dancing, judging...and catfights, the series likely wanted to focus on this friendship between very good friends that the audience loved rather than focus a lot on Aundrea bonding with the lesser known women. But so what?

Either way, Wikipedia is not the place to speculate who were actually close, very close, and those who were not; it is our job to relay the verfiable facts from reliable sources, and to mostly avoid speculation, especially from insiders or supposed insiders. The show is a reliable source for the examples I have given above. For example, did Aubrey and Aundrea have a very strong bond as friends or not? Well, they both say that they did. We relay that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source that I know of says that you can watch Aubrey say to Aundrea that she's her best friend, but you will notice that Aundrea never says it back. (Which is why I edited that from Aundrea's article.) That source also says if you look at photos from Season 2 you never see photos of Aundrea and Aubrey together outside of the show. It's Melissa and Aubrey who hung out together when the show was not filming. And it's in Season 2 that Dawn, Shannon, and Aundrea were close and that is what was cut by the editing team. (Not Season 3) If you follow that the show is telling the truth, then we could post that those 3 girls were not friends in Season 2. But we know from the 3 girls themselves that they already were close at that point. That's why I think that the show is not necessarily a reliable source for facts. It can be--I'm not saying everything is a lie. But based on the fact that we know it's edited I hesitate to make it the primary source of information for real people--not characters in a story. There are a number of things removed or highlighted from the show to tell a story. Allisann (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to prove to me or anyone else? What does it matter that Aundrea never says that Aubrey is her best friend during the Season 2 finale? She said it in many other ways. I do not care about what your source says about Aubrey and Aundrea not hanging out together outside of the show; I care about what Aubrey and Aundrea say about their friendship or past friendship, which I have went over above. As for the editing team not focusing on Aundrea's friendship with Dawn and Shannon in Season 2, I also addressed that above. I doubt that Aundrea even felt as close to them as she did to Aubrey at that point. She was still calling Aubrey her strongest bond in the house. The show is a reliable source for the facts that I have presented, noted above (music performances and things out of their own mouths about each other, some of which are backed up by reliable outside sources); this is what I have said more than once now. The show is the primary source. A lot of the stuff could not be sourced if not for the show, which reliable sources also sometimes back up (though mostly from MTV.com). These are real people, with some editing...but they are not even close to characters in the sense of The Hills. You say "based on the fact that we know it's edited," but I point out that every show is edited...of a real or fake nature. And again, as I stated before, this is not the place to throw around all this insider talk. I have used the show as a source where needed, where things are factual. Sure, the mention of them both declaring each other best friends was a little off, but most people see that Season 2 finale in that light anyway. I have stated most of what I to state about this matter and see no reason to debate it any further, especially since half of this debate has been about insider talk, speculation and other gossip. You have stated your points, I have stated mine, and now I ask that this discussion end. Flyer22 (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I've ever tried to prove with the sources that I know of is that we should be careful in using a highly edited source as a primary source for real people. "I doubt that Aundrea even felt as close to them as she did to Aubrey at that point. She was still calling Aubrey her strongest bond in the house." Doubting that Aundrea felt as close to Shannon and Dawn is also conjecture. Aundrea never called Aubrey her strongest bond in the house. It's only the editing that makes it seem that way. That's my whole point. However it's obvious that we feel differently on this topic. If you want the debate to end that's fine.96.231.158.8 (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I have made clear above that there is no problem at all using this "highly edited" source for these real people -- at least when it comes to the information we are relaying. Call my doubting that Aundrea felt as close to Dawn and Shannon "conjecture" all you like, but I am not putting that "conjecture" into their Wikipedia articles. Aundrea said that she and Aubrey had a really strong bond from the beginning -- this was out of her own mouth. Editing did not put that into her mouth, in the same way that editing did not put "jackass" in Barack Obama's mouth when referring to Kanye West. Yet you, in the past, not here, have insisted that Aubrey and Aundrea "were not that close." You are correct that Aundrea did not call Aubrey her "strongest bond in the house," from what we saw...but we also know that at the point the new girls, which included Dawn and Shannon, got there...Aubrey was her strongest bond in the house (just as she had been in Season 1). Aundrea did not know new girls Dawn and Shannon that well in the beginning. Yet you act as though she magically grew to have a stronger bond with them in Season 2 over Aubrey. I am saying that I doubt that. You can blame it on editing having manipulated me all you want. I blame it on what these women have said. And no amount of editing manipulated their very positive words about each other. I want to end this debate because it does not belong here on Wikipedia, and because you cannot convince me of thinking anything like you do on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I wasn't ever trying to convince you of anything except to be careful of using an edited source as the primary source for a living person. That's why I edited Aundrea's article to more closely match what actually came out of the girl's mouths on the show and leave all the conjecture out of it. Allisann (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am a very careful editor. The thing you edited about Aundrea was no big deal before your edit. There were even reliable sources online the day it happened saying those two declared each other best friends in the Season 2 finale. I suppose those sources did not care to be precise on that matter either since that was the basic feeling of that moment of the episode. You edited the Aundrea Fimbres article the way you did about their friendship partly because you believe they "were not that close," despite what they have said about their friendship. But, yeah, other than that, all of my edits to the Danity Kane-related articles here at Wikipedia have been precise, while using the edited source for these living people. Things such as Aubrey getting fired and what Diddy said while firing her said are accurate. The best source to use for what he said? The show, with additional reliable references (mostly from MTV News). The additional reliable references report what happened on the show in all these cases as well, and yet you want Wikipedia to "be careful" when reporting on what happened on the show because you feel that the show may be tricking/misleading us in some cases? Well, as I have stated over and over again, they are not tricking/misleading us in any of the cases I have relayed here. Flyer22 (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bisexuality Change in lead?

Only an occasional editor so just now saw your note. Have left my reply on the talk pages of the article itself. And I sincerely hope I am not hurting too many people's feelings, or even one person's feelings, by my comment that I think that article is a mashup and not in a good way. It is too big and tries to be all things to all people. Plus it suffers under the burden of culture wars and biphobia, so it is a place best backed away from until something can be done to tame it. BiAndBi (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what biphobia you feel this article suffers from; it is watched by some people who identify as bisexual. But I'll go to the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! Forgive my clumsy way of putting it. I only meant that so many of the editors must spend so much time patrolling and beating back the forces of evil. Not at all that it inherently is biphobic. Didn't mean that at all. It is mainly huge and unwieldy and again IMHO combines far too much that only has a nodding acquaintance under one roof. BiAndBi (talk) 04:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. I commented further on the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As did I. BiAndBi (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I know. We can just reply there now. Flyer22 (talk) 04:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem

No Problem that's what i here for.--Xsonxfanx (talk) 02:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Swift

Yes, that's why I didn't do a full revert, just removed that edit. Vandalism, mistake, whatever. I certainly didn't write on the user's user talk page. Benefit of the doubt, certainly! Goyston talk, contribs, play 03:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I hear ya. Flyer22 (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

70.108.61.231

This ip editor has made personal attacks and has used profane language several times, he/she should be blocked. Check 70.108.61.231 and Talk:Party in the U.S.A.. Also can you please explain your reasoning about the article being neutral, that ip doesn't seem to get it. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see. I saw the very obvious attack of the IP calling you a Stan earlier, but I did not comment; the IP seems persistent in a way that could very well tire me out. I will get there and further comment when I get the best time to. Flyer22 (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No only that, but the user has edited before and told User:Pokerdance rude, profane words... and if you see a his new edits the ip made a personal attack on the article's editors saying that they don't have lives. Also, in his summary edits he has used profane language for the second time after warnings. HE said the following

"‎({NPOV}there is sh*t on the talk page ( a consensus) that says this article is neutral. I am not "non significant"; bc I am not a miley stan like you I dont matter? "

-- Ipodnano05 (talk) 02:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are trying 2 get me blocked so that you may continue to keep the article all positive/superfluous since youre a Miley fan. I made no personal attack. From your actions you do appear to be a Stan (song). Dont bring up pokerdance unless you include his/her attack on me. My edit summary was a typo. Is should be readding {NPOV} tag bc there isnt sh*t on talk page indicating consensus bc the talk page didnt indicate consensus. U lied saying it did & removed the tag. What about your ad hominem attack saying I am "non significant"?70.108.89.47 (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using YouTube as a source

Oops, kind of new, didn't realise, apologies. Just kind of made sense as it was a direct clip from the VMAs. I can see why there's debate going on about it. Thanks for the heads up. Loveable Daveo (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Time of Our Lives (EP)

Please help with The Time of Our Lives (EP). I was adding the allmusic review meanwhile it had said Wikipedia was being maintained and the article has gone completely blank. Please help restore this. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Flyer22 (talk) 01:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, I was panicking. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adolescence

It is just the picture you changed it back to demonstrates someone who has obviously gone through the physical changes. Someone who's physique doesn't exactly resembles an eight grader's, or someone who is going through the changes of adolescence.

why stop? what is your reason for keeping it as it is?

I gave my reason on your talk page. It is your opinion that he has gone through all the physical changes of puberty. Who says that he is done? Some 16-year-old males are still going through puberty and have that body type. That article is not even mostly focusing on eighth graders; I have read most of the sources. My revert is about the best picture. The one of the well-built teenage male who has achieved an adult body, which is what puberty is mainly about, who may still be going through puberty, is obviously the better image. Not some image of an acne-faced teenage boy just to demonstrate that some teenagers get acne and teenage males may or may not have facial hair. The better image shows what the body morphs into, structure-wise, as well as that teenage males may or may not have facial hair. Flyer22 (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drmies (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your help with Kanye West article would be appreciated!

Hey, I notice you seem to be pretty active in this controversy section creation, and now that we are actually able to do it, I would appreciate some help. Changing the article is going to require some pretty large changes, and I would love input on the proposed changes I am discussing now on the talk page. Regards, Debollweevil (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will be there. I saw your new discussion about it earlier, but it was time for me to take a brief break from Wikipedia...which is why I did not comment about the matter then (of course). Flyer22 (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I don't jump on the "I hate so and so" bandwagon, but hearing President Obama call West a "Jackass" filled me with unbelievable joy. I hope having the first Black leader of our nation give him a verbal bitch-slap will give him a much needed dose of reality... but I doubt it. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 12:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I whole-heartedly agree. Still, I was fair when editing his article and other articles about his 2009 MTV Video Music Awards controversy. I don't really hate the guy; it's just that I cannot stand his ego. My dislike for his outrageous ego and sense of entitlement most definitely started before his incident with Taylor Swift. Flyer22 (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

continuing conversation from My talk page

i cleaned up my Jackson And Erica Article and i would appreciate if you would work on it with me man i wanna make a good article and i could establish notability but researching im reading the jr and babe article and getting a sense on what to do but i would love if you would help me with jackson and erica please please? Big Padres Dude 22:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how much, if any, notability can be found for that couple to make an article about them here at Wikipedia conform to Wikipedia's notability standards. Flyer22 (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i went thorugh 8 pages of google search and nothing that catches the eye but ill keep looking if i cant find anything i might give up on my current dream of writing a good article and how am i as a editor? Big Padres Dude 01:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, you need a lot of work as an editor. The most important thing you have got to work on now is your spelling and grammar; I mentioned to you before that your spelling and grammar needs significant work. If it helps, I feel you are improving a tad when it comes to that while editing. Flyer22 (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please update your status with WP:VG

Dear WikiProject Video games member,

You are receiving this message because you have either Category:WikiProject Video games members or {{User WPVG}} somewhere in your userspace and you have edited Wikipedia in the recent months.

The Video games project has created a member list to provide a clearer picture of its active membership.

All members have currently been placed in the "Inactive" section by default. Please remove your username from the "Inactive" listing and place it under the "Active" listing if you plan on regularly:

Editing video game-related pages in the Article namespace
Participating in video game-related discussions in the Project namespace (WT:VG, WP:AfD, WP:GAN, etc.)

Ideally, members are encouraged to do both, but either one meets our criteria of inclusion. Members still listed inactive at the beginning of November 2009 may be removed. You may re-add yourself to the active list at any time. Thank you for your help, and we look forward to working with you.

—WikiProject Video games (delivery by xenobot 03:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fame (2009 film)

Re: this edit, the tag was there because plot summaries of upcoming films do need sources. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then I apologize for the tone in that edit summary. I take it you just had not thought to remove the tag yet? Flyer22 (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note

We may not need to worry about this, but our friends at Wikia have tried to import an article to Wikipedia.Here's the deets. AniMate^draw 01:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated on the above linked talk page, I will help out in stopping the imports any time I see them. Flyer22 (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer's Body

Flyer 22, I think that the Jennifer's Body article shouldn't mention Needy finding and butchering Low Shoulder cuz it doesn't happen in the movie. The movie ends with the line "Tonight's their last show" and it's pretty obvious that's what's gonna happen, but it's not part of the movie. It would be anticlimactic if it was. 98.246.190.129 (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could be argued that the film does not truly end with her saying "tonight is gonna be their last show" since the rest of the story plays out when the credits roll, but I understand your points...and further replied on your talk page about why I included that very short summary as a compromise for the people adding it in with more detail any time the Plot section is without it. Flyer22 (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I just read your new comment. Oh, I see...you had not seen that part. Don't feel stupid, LOL. I watched this film as an online bootleg version (I know, I know, that's wrong of me), and the bootleg version I first saw did not show her kill them. So I was all surprised by people adding in that she kills them and how brutal it was. I was like, "Yeah, it is clear that she kills them, but these people sure do have healthy imaginations," LOL. I felt they were just presuming what happens; I was all ready to revert, but seeing that it kept getting added back, I knew I had missed something. I finally got to see the very end (again, online bootleg), and was like, "Oh, there it is." Flyer22 (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'm avare how bad my English is. Second - the whole plot section is ALWAYS one GIANT spoiler, so I don't think that adding few sentences or not change it's status from review into spoiler. Because it's already one. Myrth from Poland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.19.56.170 (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not state that your English is bad, IP. And, yes, the entire Plot section is a spoiler, but there is no need to spoil the reader with such extended detail. I removed it not only because of that (because it goes into detail about how she kills them) but also because it takes the plot out of its in-universe format and puts it in an out-of-universe format toward the plot's end and because it is extra unneeded plot; too much plot goes against WP:PLOT. As I stated here, I prefer plot summaries to be completely in in-universe format (unless it is not a typical kind of plot summary, but is one that blends creator commentary and all that), but I left your plot summary in for about a week (probably a week in a half or two; I would have to check on that) because I did like it. I basically removed it because I did not want some experienced editor coming along and tagging the Plot section as too long or overly detailed. I did think about putting your version of the Plot section back in; you can see this in this very section in the discussion I had with the IP above you on that IP's talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you've got your point of view and I've got mine. For me film starts with it's first frame till last one. And the last one is most often total blackout after credits. Which make credits part of film. Quite often part even more important than the whole film (eg Dawn of the Dead). Or after-credits, like Max Payne (funny, even such awful film can be useful) or 28 days later (ok, that's the wrong example, but still, it turn over the whole perception over the film). If there is anything in credits and it's not pack of bloopers, it's then part of the film. And that's why it should be treated seriously Myrth from Poland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.19.56.170 (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of where the film starts and ends. That is not what I mean. I have treated the credits as part of the film; the fact that she kills them (which is a credits thing) is still mentioned. We just currently do not go into real-life territory by mentioning "As the film's credits start to roll" and all the detail about how she kills them. Flyer22 (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever you want. I just though that it's information worth detailed description. If it's somehow against some article's rules, then it should be delated. But if not, I thing it should go back. Plus someone should get a medal for mentioning Hendriksen's cameo Myrth from Poland

It is only against the guidelines if it is overly detailed or too much plot. I feel that the paragraph is unneeded for the reasons I have already explained and that it unnecessarily makes the plot section longer and look longer, as well as too detailed in a way that would get it tagged as such. (Have you not yet seen those "too much or overly detailed plot" tags yet here at Wikipedia? They are in plenty of articles here.)

And, yes, that cameo mention was/is a good contribution. Flyer22 (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never seen those. And most probably - seen, but did't pay much attention. I prefer complex explenation, as vivid as possible than some scraps, which most often became short-cuts from author's thoughts, possible to understand only if reader also watch the film or read the book. And sometimes even that is not enough. Which makes plot section completly pointless. I know that it's common in US to treat your reader/auditor as the topic was already something familiar for him, but I simply hate such attitude. Not only in such case author shows disrespect to his/her readers/auditors, but - which is more important - even don't try to explain exactly what he/she mean. Myrth from Poland

The ending of the Plot section for the Jennifer's Body article is clear, though, without the added detail you are in favor of. As for what these plot tags look like, here is what one looks like:

Flyer22 (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible WP:OWNership and WP:BITE issues

My attention has been drawn to your editing of JR Chandler, as exampled by the edit summary in this diff, which appears to be confrontational and dismissive. I would comment that Wikipedia tries to foster a collegiate editing atmosphere, and supports a practice of respect for other contributors. As regards the MoS and linking, I feel it is certainly not the case that one major link suffices for an article - and especially where there are potentially many different references for a reader (who may not be familiar with the subject to follow). In the matter exampled I note that the previous mention of a characters name was 3 subsections previously, and that it was not linked at that time and neither was the relationship explained (as there was such a link and explanation a couple of sections prior to that). My view is that the non familiar reader may not have absorbed the earlier references and have been unaware of who "Tad" was. It should be noted also that not all articles are read "from top to bottom", so a subject appearing later in the content may usefully be both linked and explained.
I note that your editing largely revolves around the character of JR Chandler, and the associated soap opera, and I suggest that you consider whether your enthusiasm for the subject does not provide you with the neutral outlook preferred. I would also suggest that you review your dealing with other contributors editing these articles, per WP:BITE. I would also note, independently, that I do not find the constant references to characters by first or common name particularly encyclopedic. Perhaps there is a different approach to MoS as regards soap opera's (I have never edited the genre), but in fiction generally characters are referred to by their full or surname - where provided - and only in the first name when one or more characers share a surname (as in general bio articles). I am not, however, unduly concerned in this instance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who drew your attention to my editing of that article? I mean, if you did not follow me there, then I can guess who did. My editing does not largely revolve around that article, as my contribution history shows; it is rather that I am the one who has largely cleaned up that article. It certainly is not my best work. My best work on soap opera articles is pointed out clearly on my user page. As for biting the newbies, I am never about that. My recent contribution history also shows my welcoming newbies. The editor I was respondong to needed to know I was correct; and I am. We do not link a character every time that character is mentioned, whether a soap opera character or any other character. If for some weird reason, a person reads a plot summary from the end to the beginning, that is not our concern here at Wikipedia, but even then...the character should not be linked every time they are mentioned. Adam Chandler is introduced in the lead and elaborated on in the Childhood and adolescent years section. Tad Martin is introduced in that section as well. I was basically pointing this out in the edit history; I was not rude or "biting" this person. Yes, I am protective of articles that I have worked significantly on, but so are most editors here. This does not mean that I feel that I own these articles. I have been aware of WP:OWN almost as early as I have been working here. Also, yes, in some cases within Plot sections, we do refer to fictional characters by their first names after mentioning them by their full names. We certainly do not refer to these characters by their full names every time they are mentioned, unless that is how those characters are commonly referred to by. We refer to them by their surname in some cases, yes, such as The Dark Knight (film) and Alien (film) articles (in the film Alien, Ellen Ripley is mostly referred to as Ripley anyway). But in other and most cases, we do not. Examples? Featured article Halloween (film) (which mixes the two, as it refers to Laurie Strode by her first name...but Michael Myers by his last name), good article Titanic (1997 film), featured article Transformers (film), followup article Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, etc. Video games: Formerly featured and current good article Final Fantasy VII, featured article Final Fantasy VIII, formerly featured and current good article Metal Gear Solid (which is a combination of the two), featured article Devil May Cry, etc. (though, admittedly, they are known by their first names in Devil May Cry). Soap opera: Featured article Pauline Fowler, good article Dimitri Marick, etc., etc., etc. There is nothing unencyclopedic by referring to fictional characters by the names they are commonly known by. When we are talking real people, that is when I agree...per WP:SURNAME.

I am not sure why I am being followed, as though I am the problematic editor. I know what I am doing here. The problematic editor is clearly the one I recently reported, a report you happened to be involved in when weighing in on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The diff provided, plus a review of my talkpage, clearly indicates who requested my attention - it is common that where an admin has commented that others will request assistance with similar concerns or contributors. It speaks perhaps more to me than it may occur to you that you begin by wondering if I am following your edits... and the last paragraph, which is in serious error.

I would refer you to Wikipedia:Linking#Repeated links and the first bullet point, and my comments regarding Tad Martin not being mentioned in the previous - character filled - two subsections and the potential of the reader not remembering (or not reading, if they are looking at specific plot developments) the last instance. I should be grateful if you would discuss with the other editor(s) why you feel this does not apply in this instance rather than reverting. Wikipedia's consensual editing model is built around discussion.

I take your point regarding use of "familiar" names rather than full or surnames in some popular culture articles, as I say my mainspace editing is not in these specific areas. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I overlooked that it was Shymian who reported me to you as though I am the "Big Bad," even though Shymian seems to report everyone who challenges his or her edits. How is my previous last paragraph "in serious error"? I do know what I am doing here. The problematic editor is clearly the one I recently reported, as agreed on by several editors in the past. And you happened to be involved in the report when weighing in on that matter. That previous last paragraph is mostly correct in my view. The point where it is not correct, it seems? Suggesting that you were following me. I apologize for that. Though, really, I knew someone was following me for this to have come up. There are people who follow me sometimes here at Wikipedia; it is no big deal. But when the following is more to try and get me criticized or in trouble about something, that is a big deal to me.

Wikipedia:Linking#Repeated links is exactly what I was speaking of in my edit summary when talking to Shymian. What does Repeated links first mention? Well, in general, link only the first occurrence of an item. The exceptions? Maybe I was wrong about Tad Martin, but certainly not about Adam Chandler. Adam Chandler is not only linked in the lead and the Childhood and adolescent years section, but is also mentioned throughout the article. Why would his name suddenly need to be linked again in the most recent section? In addition, I left a message on Shymian's talk page to see my talk page about all this. Flyer22 (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The policy that you keep quoting says "In general" and "rule of thumb that has many exceptions" -- hardly a steadfast "never have more than one link to the same thing", wouldn't you say? Also, wouldn't the first exception condition of "where a later occurrence of an item is a long way from the first" apply here, or do you consider something that is more than 3 sections away to still be close by? I would also submit this definition of underlinking for your consideration, which says, "Underlinking results whenever a reader encounters an odd term in an article (perhaps not even for the first time), and wants to briefly browse more deeply at that point, but he or she cannot without an extensive search of the article for a (possibly non-existent) instance of the linked term." (my italics)

At this point, I don't recall where the closest links were to either Adam or Tad -- all I remember is Colby's, and that I had to resort to a browser search in order to locate where the link was -- something I should never have to do on a Wikipedia page.

Your other misleading statement is addressed elsewhere.

Shymian (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The formatting instance I keep citing does not truly have many exceptions from what I have seen; it has a few. As I stated before, I do not see how your linking was too helpful. Do you feel that every instance of a character mentioned should be linked? "Adam Chandler is not only linked in the lead and the Childhood and adolescent years section, but is also mentioned throughout the article. Why would his name suddenly need to be linked again in the most recent section?" Why does Adam Chandler need to be linked again as if the reader is suddenly unfamiliar with him? Colby should be linked where she is first mentioned in the text and then if needed again. You can introduce her as JR's sister where she is first mentioned in the text. But linking to and specifying who she is again a little bit away from that section makes sense how? Usual viewers of the show know who she is. Do you feel that a general reader is likely going to skip one section that specifies who Colby is to a section that does not? Tad Martin being linked again makes sense, I will give you that. I do point you to WP:OVERLINKING, however. I am not aware of any misleading statement I have made, but I will check out what you point to. Flyer22 (talk) 04:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to wonder if maybe we have two rather different underlying assumptions about who reads these articles, and why a link would be clicked. I've been writing not just for the "casual" reader who has just stumbled across that particular section of that particular article, but also for the reader who is possibly about as familiar with the character as we are (if not more so), and just wanted to see what that particular section, or event, was about. In both cases, you can't assume that the reader has read the entire article from top down. For the section in question, a newcomer may be unaware of Tad's relationship with JR, and may wonder why JR would choose to confide in Tad but not in his family (his father and sister). Having the link readily available enables them to jump directly to Tad's article to find out more, instead of having to scour through umpteen sections in an attempt to locate where/how their relationship is mentioned. For the "oldtimer" who already knows who Tad is, they may possibly want to go to Tad's page to find out how the revelation has affected him (since, after all, Tad's viewpoint would/should not be discussed on JR's page). Having the link right there would enable them to do that, again without having to search through the entire length of the article to locate that one single link. Yes, having the link in the infobox is a "central" location but again, the point of the wiki should be to help make our knowledge readily and easily accessible to the reader, and limiting the availability of the links doesn't really help accomplish that.

Now, I hope you do realize that I am NOT saying that every single name in every single section should be linked. Indeed, I think you'll find that at least one of my edits had removed more than one set of multiple links that were present, from just one paragraph! But there has to be a "happy medium" somewhere between linking every name every time, and having only one single link (two if you count infoboxes) on every page for each name. Especially when the page in question is almost 9 pages long when printed!

That is why I pointed out the first bullet in the "repeated links" section, which clearly states "where a later occurrence of an item is a long way from the first" -- if a distance of 8 or 9 printed pages isn't "a long way", then what is? 20 pages? 100 pages?

For some reason, this line from Pirates of the Caribbean (spoken by the guy who broke "the code" by coming back when he wasn't supposed to) springs to mind:

"And third, the Pirates Code is more of a set of what you’d call ‘guidelines’ than actual rules."

I'm not trying to change all of the links, nor am I trying to state/start/revise a policy/guideline/whatever. I'm just trying to point out that as a reader of this article (which, after all, is why I even arrived on this page to begin with), having readily-available links is actually a GOOD THING since it encourages me to go visit more pages in the Wikipedia world. And isn't that what Wikipedia is here for? Not to show how well we can follow guidelines or policy, but to make knowledge available to everyone? Shymian (talk) 07:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shymian, you have brought up some valid and good points. But you say that we "can't assume that the reader has read the entire article from top down." I point out that we design these articles with that assumption all the time; we do this when we do not link to the same character (or person, if of a real-life biography) every time that character (or person) is mentioned in a different section. It is not our job to make sure that the reader find out who this is when we have already presented that information. Usual viewers know who Tad is; if they really want to see what his article says, then they can easily find his article. New viewers? Again, not our job to make sure that they know who Tad is all because they decided to skip the section that introduces him. If we go on the logic that we should link to an already-linked-to character simply because a reader unfamiliar with that character may have skipped the section where that character is first introduced, then that could go for all sections. And then what do we have? That character linked in every section he or she is mentioned in. Do what you feel you must to the JR Chandler article. I still state, however, that Adam Chandler does not need to be specified or linked to again...as the article currently is. Flyer22 (talk) 09:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]