User talk:Flyer22 Frozen/Archive Jan 2008

The Rape article debate

Hey there. Thanks for the work on this article; there's obviously an odd POV issue going on with the other editor there. Can I suggest that you take it just a bit easier when it comes to your comments? It's not worth getting all charged up at the guy and angry; I'm hoping he'll come to realize the issue with his edits, and work constructively to include any of his concepts that are backed up. If he keeps up, it may be worth a post on WP:AN asking for some extra eyes, tho. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) 05:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Tony, while I usually don't make comments at Wikipedia that are close to losing my calm, I felt my words were justified. I am aware that every editors' editing history is looked at and their editing style, so this will be seen if someone checks my edit history as well, but I did not completely go Mad Max on the guy, and am not the least bit regretful about "coming down hard" on him. Thank you for the concern, however. People usually state how calm I am in matters on Wikipedia, but I suppose this one was a little less calm. Next time, I will try to step away even sooner in a heated discussion, if I feel my anger getting the best of me. I did step away there, as you saw. And, yes, first I am going to get an administrator on this and then I may take it to where you suggested above. Flyer22 05:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thought I would drop by and say much the same thing. Everybody lets somebody get to them once in a while. Don't sweat it. I reverted the last edit and left a note suggesting that everybody step back for a time. Obviously a lot of editors care about the article. I agree, if it keeps up, AN is a good idea. Phyesalis 06:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, Phyesalis. After I just reported him to an administrator, I saw that he has been blocked indefinitely, as he is a sockpuppet. Flyer22 06:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. This is getting out of hand. The discussion, without sources, is just disruptive. I say we just ignore him/them for a while and keep working on the page. Sound good? Phyesalis 04:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should probably ignore him on the talk page, while reverting his edits if he pops back up again (and he will), of course. I'm going to go about doing what Utcursch cited below. Flyer22 04:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Julia Roberts Vandal

Hi. I'm Tech43 and i helped with the undoing of this vandal. I want to know what exactly he said to you about soap operas. Not that I care, but it sounds hilarious. Tech43 07:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Technogreek43. You can see what this vandal said to me in these two links...[1][2]

What I find interesting about this vandal is that he is quite familiar with how Wikipedia works. Flyer22 07:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Likely has an IP range then. Wow. That guy didn't know how to quit. Oh, and if you found my warnings weird, it's because i don't know any of the vandal warning templates. I'm only a weekend editor mainly, so, yeah. Tech43 07:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Supercouple

Well I guess we are both editing at the same time. I was undoing what the IP did at the same time you were. Glad we agree they shouldn't be listed. I could find references but nothing to show they are some strong powerhouse. Ant & Dec routes to their page. CelticGreen 17:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I usually revert if I see an unsourced addition or a badly-sourced addition, of course. Well, okay, when people add an unsourced couple to the Comic book section, I don't revert and will instead (later) find a valid source for that addition. I like guys taking interest in the Supercouple article (and, yep, I'm assuming most people adding to that section are guys). Earlier on, I had planned to have a video game section in the Supercouple article...but I got sidetracked...and will do that later. This article is getting too big, however, and I have to figure out what I'm going to do about that. Anyway, if a couple has a valid source next to their listing in the Supercouple article proving that they are an important couple within popular culture, I don't revert, of course (unless it's comic-book or video-game related...because I'll take care of the sourcing for that). Flyer22 17:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed it opens slower than any other article on here. I generally monitor it and when I see odd unsourced entries I revert them. It's a great article and you've done an awesome job with it. The criteria of platonic needs greater sourcing than Wikipedia, and I know that. I provided the link so you could read up too. I don't feel they're a powercouple, certainly not super. Maybe the editor that added them can find something better than Wikipedia and the fact that they are just hosts of a British television show. Again, you are doing a great job with it.CelticGreen 18:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made the decision that I'm going to remove the Comic section and the Toys, video games, or other section, and instead mention how supercouples exist in those other areas as well, providing some examples for those topics. Flyer22 20:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What about what we do with soaps? Maintain the tables separate from the main article. Or even just maintain those lists on a separate page. CelticGreen 20:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've thought of that, but we have too many deletionists running around. Yes, I feel that if we were to make a separate article about lists of soap opera, primetime and celebrity supercouples, it would be okay, but having those lists in this article is more beneficial and catches a person's eye easier than having a link to the list of the above mentioned supercouples in the See also section. As for the other couples, I'm not sure that a list for them would last long. Flyer22 20:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess you're right. I'm just trying to think of ways we could be inclusive although, to be honest, I don't really think of cartoons and video games having supercouples. When you say supercouple I think Tomkat, Brangelina, Bope, and the likes. I don't think of Mario and the little Princess. People root for supercouple to succeed or fail, you don't do that with Mario. You know?CelticGreen 20:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Laughing out loud. Flyer22 00:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, this problem is now solved (if a deletionist doesn't try to delete it, that is) with List of supercouples. I was about to create a list titled exactly that to contain all of these supercouples lists, but an article titled that already existed. I'm glad that I searched to see if a list such as that existed first before creating one when a list for this issue already exists. Anyway, I'm perfecting and adjusting the Supercouple article now...since its lists have been removed from it. Flyer22 12:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good and both load so much faster now. Definite improvement and they both look great. CelticGreen 19:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, now we must watch it like we watch the Supercouple article. Although, the rate at which people would add couples to one of those lists may be cut in half (or somewhat) now that they're not in the Supercouple article that surely got/gets more visits. Flyer22 01:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've added it to my watch list. I'm going to top 100 articles soon. CelticGreen 02:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

100? Amature. I'm at 1,287.

Oh, and CelticGreen, I haven't brought this up before, but you and IrishLass can email me any time. Our talk does not have to be restricted to Wikipedia only. Flyer22 02:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that could tend to be easier in some cases. And, yes, I'm an amature when it comes to watch list. I hesitated for so long to start a watch list. I still need to just go and add all the Days characters. I like the "contributors" thing you put on the page. That's cool. I hadn't seen that template yet. I was thinking. Since the supercouple article was nominated for deletion but kept, if it becomes necessary we can use that fact and just explain the page loading problem to keep the list. I think it's a valuable list and I'm sure others will too, once they get to know it. CelticGreen 02:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There's only one editor I can think of who would nominate the List of supercouples article for deletion. A list for supercouples was deleted before, but this one is well-sourced and well-maintained. I cannot see a good argument for its deletion. And, yes, if it were to be nominated for deletion, I thought about bringing up the fact about how these lists take up a lot of room in the Supercouple article, as well as make it slower. That, and what I mentioned just now about this article being well-sourced and well-maintained. As for the "this article is actively edited by" tag, yeah, I first saw that on the Jason Voorhees talk page. In fact, I haven't seen it on any other talk pages yet, except the two I added it to thirty or so minutes ago. Flyer22 02:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I added it to the Children of Salem, Days of our Lives page but replaced you with TAnthony. No one's really edited that page yet so the choices were slim. Is the article one on your long list? Just because of vandalism which hasn't happened but Grant was back again the last couple days. He's such a pain. CelticGreen 03:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL, about replacing my name with TAnthony. Yes, it's on my watchlist, but I'm not an active editor there. I haven't even edited that article once yet, so you're completely valid in not adding me as an active editor there. And Grant was back? Jeez. Flyer22 03:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Grant's been back. Any time IP 41.241 pops up, it's a red flag that it's Grant. He's been back twice lately. He messed with the page but returned it to what it was. Odd, odd child. CelticGreen 03:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That got a big laugh out of me. Thanks for that. Flyer22 03:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Mcilhenny

I've blocked User:Mcilhenny as suspected sock. A good idea would be to file a request for checkuser -- that'll result in the account creation being blocked from user's IP address. utcursch | talk 04:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help, Utcursch. Flyer22 04:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Vagina

Obviously a bad-faith user adding it, but what's wrong with the picture? GlassCobra 06:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, GlassCobra. I don't see the need for it, as there are already two pictures that are sufficient enough. That picture has been removed more than once, not just by me. I don't see how it adds to the article. If I felt that it did, I would not remove it. Flyer22 06:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm never one to turn down more pictures in an article. Would you mind bringing it up on Talk:Vagina and trying to get consensus? GlassCobra 06:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You could. I mean, I don't have much to state about it other than what I stated here, though. If that article were bigger and I really felt that that picture was needed, I would not be opposed to it. But it just screams overkill, especially given the small size of that article. Flyer22 06:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Bianca Montgomery

Hi, Flyer. I wanted to let you know, concerning your question on the image used on the Bianca and Maggie page of the two of them in a photo booth. That is actually a picture of Bianca and Frankie. Bianca gave a picture from the strip to Maggie for the twins' birthday Maggie's first year in Pine Valley. I think if you check BAM for Beginners, you can watch the clip labeled "The Champagne Incident", it's clip #3. It was also used in the music montage when Bianca left Pine Valley in February of 2005 and she was given a photo album from Myrtle. The picture strip appears in that clip as well. It's Bianca's Going Away Party, clip #2. I hope this helps. Survivor may05 —Preceding comment was added at 19:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops, edited to correct page in question... Survivor may05

(Edit conflict)

Thanks for the help, Survivor may05. Yeah, that image is actually in the Bianca Montgomery article. I will remove it now. I could not remember it. I searched on YouTube, then saw a video clip of Bianca's going-away party. I wanted confirmation about whether the picture was of Bianca and Maggie or rather more so the actresses who portray those two characters. I saw Myrtle give Bianca a book with that picture in it, and I got my answer that it was more so about fictional characters, but it did not even click in my mind that it could be a picture of Bianca and Frankie. Thanks for all of your help on this matter. Flyer22 19:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

In light of the recent "contributions" to your user page...

...I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I thought you might enjoy these links...

• My favorite take on the origins of "cunt"
• Another history of "the word"
• and of course, our own WP's entry on such lovely language

Personally, it's one of my favorite words. Considering the (typical) sources, I take it as a compliment. Phyesalis (talk) 07:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Laughing my head off. Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 08:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I had to laugh because "guess who"'s after me this morning. At least he's not as vile as what you had to deal with. Glad you got a laugh from another user. IrishLass (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yay! My pleasure. I thought you might find that amusing. It's my favorite contribution to "linguistic activism". Considering the link between "cunt" and "cuneiform" I thought it was too perfectly ironic that he'd use it in reference to your writing skills. Phyesalis (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that he used it in reference to my writing, though. He was just ticked that I would not let him vandalize an article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh! I thought I saw something about grammar amidst all the red. If it was you correcting his grammar, that's even better - or am I just confusing this with something else? Phyesalis (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Confusing it with something else. But you know what? I had no idea how much damage this vandal did to my user page:

[3]

A rape mention:

[4] Apparently...he fancies me a rapist of homeless girls. Ironic, considering our battle with "the rape vandal" recently, as seen in a section above on this talk page.

Other vandalism of his:

[5][6]

Another rape mention:

[7]

Other vandalism of his:

[8]

He also could not seem to make up his mind about whether I am a man or a woman:

[9]

As to do with writing, you probably mean this edit:

[10] But he was basically saying blah, blah, blah. Too much talk.

More vandalism by him

[11]

[12]

Editor SqueakBox reverted his edits:

[13]

Thanks, Squeak.

Extra vandalism by same vandal:

[14]

[15]

Editor SqueakBox reverted his edits Part 2:

[16]

Thanks again, Squeak.

And then of course, I reverted this vandal's final edit:

[17]

All that vandalism. I mean, whoa. I suspect that he was trying to get on my Favorite vandalism moments list. Flyer22 (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Bianca_and_Maggie_(Main).jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Bianca_and_Maggie_(Main).jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Preadolescence

A person that has reached puberty has entered adolescence. That is the definition of adolescence. The age of the person does not matter. Oxford, Merrium-Webster, and American Heritage dictionaries all agree with this. Jecowa (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I explained on the talk page: "I did not misread the adolescence article, and my changing the lead of this article was not mostly based on the adolescence article. I changed the lead of this article because puberty also happens in the preadolescent years, and an 8 or 9-year-old girl who reaches puberty is not defined as an adolescent. She's not put into the same category as a 16-year-old. The Oxford dictionary, as well as the Merrium-Webster...and most dictionaries do not touch on this fact, given their purpose is to give a simple definition. I'd like to hear other editors thoughts on this instead of you reverting my edit again. To simply state that "Oh, a preadolescent is someone who has not reached puberty" is quite off. There is a such thing as precocious puberty. These children are not adolescent." Flyer22 (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Heaviest winner

I noticed on the Top Model page, there's a section for "heaviest winner." I watched Cycle 2 again, and they showed Yoanna's weigh as 138 lbs at the weigh-ins. Right now "heaviest winner" is Naima, at 135. I want to ask your opinion before I change it. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 20:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Go for the change. And what do you think of the change of images to the Eva Marcille and Adrianne Curry articles? Flyer22 21:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Color templates

I'm back with a question and this time its about color on the soap opera infoboxes, especially the Guiding Light ones. Would it be alright if I added a color to their character boxes, considering theirs is by default grey. My choice would be khaki or #F0E68C, I think it works well and looks good. I already added it to Annie Dutton and Reva Shayne, so you can have a look at those two. Is that alright or am I stepping on anyone's toe's here? Glo145 (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine, Glo. Flyer22 22:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, I'll start working on them. Glo145 (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Supercouple Part 2

Mike H suggested I let you know that I nuked a section of this article - the primetime supercouples one. None of the sources actually mentioned the couples in question as supercouples (unsurprising, as the term drops off in usefulness the further you get from soap operas), and the examples given were so appallingly SF/Fantasy-biased that the whole section had a brutal stink of fannish cruft.

I'm sure there's a good section to this effect to be written, but I really didn't think that was it at all. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Phil Sandifer, every couple mentioned in the Primetime supercouples section are supercouples. If you read the article and especially this source...[18]...which mentions Fox Mulder and Dana Scully, you'll see that the word Supercouple is not what mainly defines a supercouple. That entire book cites some of the most notable supercouples in primetime and film (not just soap operas). But as for the Primetime section, you are right that it needs to be improved, and I'll start by adding the reference to Mulder and Scully's name that cites them as a supercouple. Also, the term supercouple doesn't drop off in usefulness the further you get from soap operas, considering that it is used to describe super popular or extremely-wealthy celebrity pairings and has use in the comic book world, as well as the toy world. The words power couple and dynamic duos usually mean the same thing as the word supercouple, which that source I cited above also points out. Flyer22 (talk) 06:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Tagging

My plan is to tag all the TV character pages on Wikipedia that don't have sources. I make no distinctions; I just tagged Edith Bunker (sourceless!). Hopefully, some editors will add some sources to their favorite characters. A bot will come through and timestamp the tag, and in the following months and years, the tag will help people argue for the deletion of the non-notable characters. Also, nobody can claim not to have been aware that reliable third party sources are a requirement for a Wikipedia article. On the other hand, there is no time limit for cleanup, so my tagging effort may not be effective, but if only a few articles are improved, then it will still have been worth it. AnteaterZot (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. And I alluded to that I didn't feel you were making any distinctions. It's just that it was jarring to see all of these All My Children soap opera character articles pop up on my watchlist for needing to provide notability, when Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas is on it (or rather I'm on it when it comes to the All My Children characters). But, anyway, thanks for explaining...and take care. Flyer22 23:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I saw. I'm going to go ask User:Judgesurreal777 to hold off on nominating so many TV-related articles for a bit. AfD is getting backlogged. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I mean, a lot of these articles can provide notability. Flyer22 00:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I know; somebody, perhaps you(?) did a fine job on the "supercouple" articles. This whole process is about education; the deletionists need to be educated that their favorite targets for deletion are notable sometimes, and the creators of articles need to be educated about the need for sourcing. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Mind if I chime in? Rather than tag all the soap character articles, why not just address this on the project page. Most of us are trying to clean things up. Granted, the deletionist don't give a damn (sorry) and willy nilly run around nominated every soap character enough as it is. Giving them a list of articles with no sources is like handing them a bullet point list of nominations. And these deletionists don't care about sources. If the sources don't meet their opinion or criteria, they get all their friends and perfectly good articles that need a little work get deleted. I've seen it before and if you give them a punch list of articles without sources, likely a good portion of that list will get nominated. JMO, of course, but I've had issues with people over AfD's lately. Apparently astrophysicists don't like soap characters. Tagging all the characters from television and soaps (both of which have project pages) is inviting trouble. Things like this are the problem. Check how he google searched to justify his nomination. We just don't need to hand out punch lists to the deletionists. CelticGreen (talk) 00:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw Olivia and Ava White earlier and didn't tag them, so don't blame that one on me. Besides, it'll be kept. AnteaterZot (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi AnteaterZot - I wasn't blaming you, I was just pointing that out. I still maintain the tags are unnecessary and just serve to give a punch list to the deletionists.

This is what I'm talking about. Giving the deletionists a map is like giving kids the key to the candy cabinet. Rather than addressing the article to the project, the nominator proposes deletion because no one's gotten to the article. At this point I'm at that either delete all fictional characters or none. These deletionists are targeting the soap articles. This is one of multiple articles nominated by that editor. CelticGreen (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

They don't need my tags to find the articles, they just need to look at the category. Besides, the Abe Carver article looks like it'll be kept. AnteaterZot (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Got word it's being kept. Still not looking good for Olivia and Ava without more contributes. My big point is why not let the project work on things? Why make the articles look bad by tagging them? CelticGreen (talk) 03:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I just came across Anteater's mass tagging, which continued en masse on Dec. 9. I wish more effort were put into improving articles as placing tags on them. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Anteater feels her job on Wikipedia is to make articles look bad by en masse tagging articles rather than attempting to improve. It's seriously sad. Her list of contributes are tagging for tagging's sake, nothing to improve any of the articles s/he's targetting. CelticGreen (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Over the last few hours the tagging is more like spam than an attempt to improve Wikipedia. Sorry this disgustion is on your page Flyer but it has to, sorrily, exist somewhere. CelticGreen (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As I have tried to explain, the mass tagging is prophylactic. The articles I have tagged have little chance of surviving a deletion nomination, which many of them richly deserve. Take a look at Cryl-Nish Hlar, which has 25 g-hits. But sure as shooting, if somebody just nominated it for deletion, the three fans of the character would come out of the woodwork and argue for keeping it. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Only in your opinion. To me your behaviour constitutes mass spamming and lack of attempted improvement. You come off as having an ax to grind with no regard for improvement just a desire to run around finding perceived fault. I stand by my original opinions, you aren't doing anything to improve Wikipedia only serving your own purpose. What that is, I have yet to figure out. And just an FYI, the phrase is "sure as shootin'" no G at that end. It's a contracted type word, shortened for effect, like y'all, ain't, freakin', or nekkid. CelticGreen (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Many of these pages have been abandoned by their creators. My goal is the consolidation of many weak articles into few strong ones. Another benefit of larger articles is editorial oversight. Take a look at the results of my tagging: I got several editors to add sources to get rid of the tags. A few people got angry at first, but then learned that deletion is worse, and have cooled off, and continued finding sources.

By the way, I'm not a girl. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Spammers justify their actions too. I don't agree with either you or them. CelticGreen (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"The articles I have tagged have little chance of surviving a deletion nomination." Oh come on. But you tagged Ben Cartwright. You tagged Edith Bunker.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Random spamming based on obvious ignorance. Edith Bunker and Ben Cartwright's characters both have items in the Smithsonian. Obviously there's an ignorance and an age issue. I've tagged articles but never ones I'm questionable about because of my lack of knowledge of the subject. Edith Bunker would never fail AfD, not would Ben Cartwright. CelticGreen (talk) 03:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

My idea of improving articles is adding sources to them. Take a look at Wikipedia:Five pillars. AnteaterZot (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Calling me ignorant and claiming there is an age issue is missing the point. The point is that nobody has bothered to add sources to Edith Bunker. I know who the characters are. I want a scholarly treatment of them. AnteaterZot (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that. You are behaving like a spammer. Plain and simple, a spammer. Your tagging is that of a gang banger tagging for the sake of tagging. Be offended all you want but there's no rule that says all articles have to have reference lists, just that they meet notability. You state you tagged articles that would fail AfD yet you tag Edith Bunker. You can't have it both ways. Edith would never pass a deletion nomination. She's an American icon as is Ben Cartwright. Why not try improving articles rather than tagging like a hoodlum? CelticGreen (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Is Nurse Bigelow an icon? AnteaterZot (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

And now HE'S threatening me for removing UNNECESSARY tags. You're the spammer, Anteater. And, damn skippy, Nurse Bigalow is an icon!! She was a staple on M*A*S*H AND was in the movie and television series. Don't threaten me again. You're the spammer, not me.CelticGreen (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I asked you to stop, no threat was made. AnteaterZot (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You LIAR!! You didn't ask me to stop you said I URGE you to stop. That's a threat. Please stop is a request. I URGE you to stop is a threat. CelticGreen (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

But what was I threatening? Take it easy. AnteaterZot (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Urge has an "or else" implication. That's a threat. And telling me to take it easy doesn't help you either. Edith and Ben Cartwright are NOT minor characters. Your threats are noted. CelticGreen (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. AnteaterZot (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

And HE has noted he cannot hold his own. You can spam 500+ articles but can't stand up for yourself in a debate after threatening someone. Nice to know. CelticGreen (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged far more than 500 articles. AnteaterZot (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You must be so proud. You've contributed to none, only tagged articles unnecessarily. That's so sad. So, so sad. CelticGreen (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not true, earlier this evening I added two sources to the sourceless Connor Temple. AnteaterZot (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As this is an obvious issue for many, I thought I would take it to the neutral zone (Village Pump) rather than weigh in here . This will give Flyer the opportunity to clean up her page and others the opportunity to weigh in on neutral ground. You can see my issues with the behavior there. IrishLass (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Bree Van de Kamp

Their is a continious problem inwhich someone keeps switching the Bree Van de Kamp page back to Bree Hodge. The common name consensus entitles that the page be named "Bree Van de Kamp" seeing as how its her common name along with "Susan Mayer", "Gabrielle Solis", and "Edie Britt". Can you please switch the page back to Bree Van de Kamp.

What season did she get married? I'm beginning to wonder, since she's been married and with Orson for a while if a change is coming. She refers to herself as Bree Hodge on the show and there's little to no chance she'll go back to Van de Kamp where as Susan could go back to Mayer and Gabby certainly looks to be heading back to Solis. Not sure of the Edit Britt example, she's never had a different name. It may be time to reopen the "Hodge" discussion. Just a thought. IrishLass (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

TimothyBanks, I had to check the edit history of this page to see who created this section. Make sure to sign your posts. About your question, it seems that someone has already requested that this article be moved back to Bree Van de Kamp. But considering that it may be moved back to Bree Hodge again once that happens, it's time to gain official consensus on her talk page about this matter, as, IrishLass, I point out that that discussion is already open. Flyer22 (talk) 09:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Jesse and Angie/AMC

Well, here's a quote from the article I cited: "Jesse was killed off -- ironically, during the last writer's strike -- but Williams, who made brief returns as Jesse's spirit in 1994 and 2001, in addition to working behind the scenes as a director and acting coach, will again be playing Jesse. (Whether Jesse will appear in the flesh or in ghost form, the show would not say.)"

Although Jesse had an on-screen death with a clearly dead body, I've learned that any character can be brought back if the writers and producers are willing. Look at AMC's sister soap, "One Life to Live". For decades, Victor Lord was dead, dead, dead -- and it was strongly implied that Dorian had murdered him to inherit his money. Then the writers engaged in revisionist history, and one of Viki's alternate personalities (Tori) became the killer. Then about ten years later, Victor Lord pops up in the flesh, letting both Viki and Dorian off the hook!

I suspect that Darnell Williams will be coming back as Jesse. Remember, Jacob appeared on "Loving" and "The City", but never on "All My Children"; he has no history in Pine Valley. However, Jesse was the nephew of Frank Grant (Joe Martin's best friend and next door neighbor). He was best friends with Opal's daughter Jenny Gardner, and good friends with Jenny's brother Tad Martin. He was a bitter enemy of Colby Chandler's mother Liza Colby (who falsely accused him of rape). And he was a mentor to Derek Frye (who dated Angie after Jesse's "death"). Even without Angie, Jesse has loads of storyline possibilities on "AMC".

We'll see what happens. ABCxyz (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, ABCxyz. Yes, I know that these writers can certainly undo history. I mean, look at what they did by bringing on Josh Madden. It's just that I'm so tired of All My Children "bringing back characters from the dead", as I feel that it's played out, at least with this show, and I feel that what Agnes Nixon did with that love story (Jesse's death, which was one of the most touching and talked about storylines in soap opera history) should not be undone. This show has botched just about all of its "return from the dead" storylines in recent years, with how the returns eventually slaughtered those return characters or characters close to them, or both. Not only do I feel that this classic supercouple should not be brought back, but I fear these writers ruining them. I also don't like any show, no matter if it's a soap opera, unless it's a supernatural show, acting as though a person can always be brought back to life, no matter the type of death. I mean, if a character got cut up into tiny pieces before our eyes, would All My Children still try to bring that character back? Jeez, sometimes dead is dead. But, yeah, anyway, we'll see what they do with the return of Darnell Williams to the show, whether he's Jesse or Jacob. If it's a long-term contract that he has signed for this return, and he's Jesse, it will most likely be Jesse in the flesh. Flyer22 (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I had a name change

Didn't want you to wonder who KellyAna was. It's me, the former CelticGreen. Thought you and TAnthony should know. BTW ~ how's it going? Haven't seen you around much this week. KellyAna (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I liked your name being CelticGreen around here. It's going to take some time getting used to seeing you as this different screen name. As for me, I'm taking care of a few matters on Wikipedia before I get much busier in my life outside of Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 10:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Edmund Grey

I deprodded it, but it needs some drastic cutting and maybe a reference from someone who's written about the character somewhere. It will surely show up in AfD & get deleted otherwise. Regret I dont know enough to help further. (And the account is so diffuse I wasn't able to figure out what of the story line was central). DGG (talk) 08:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, DGG. Thanks for the heads up. I'm sure that I can provide some notability to that character. He wasn't on my watchlist, which was a little off, considering that most, if not all, of the other All My Children characters are on my watchlist, but he's on there now. I'll get to his article after I take care of J.R. Chandler's article in a bit. Flyer22 (talk) 08:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet issues

Hey there. I notice you're engaged with the fellow on Rape who's including some questionable material again; do be careful with making accusations of sockpuppetry when dealing with this guy, as there seems to be some question as to whether they're all socks. The one I thought was another sock last week, User:MannaOfTheMessiah, turned out unrelated - surprisingly. I'd recommend, if you feel there's a sock problem, going to checkuser and asking them to investigate, before declaring someone a banned user. I kind of feel the duck test works with these guys, but the checkuser seemed to indicate otherwise. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) 17:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Tony Fox. But I'm sure he's a sockpuppet. He makes minor edits when they are not, says the same favorite words of his, like "focus on the content, not the person", makes the same kinds of edits, all like the banned user we know... He's a sock. And if a checkuser were say that he isn't, I still would not believe it, only that he's accessed a different computer from a different location. Flyer22 (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, like I say, the duck test suggests such. The checkusers usually turn up his hosiery drawers, which is why I was surprised that Manna came back unlikely. Anyhow, I'm going to make a post to WP:AN asking for folks familiar with DavidYork71 to join the fun - I'm not familiar enough with his MO to make a call on that just yet. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

And our latest friend is bagged as a sock, with lots more in the drawer; Manna is still unrelated, however. I think we'll have more admin eyes on the article for the near future, though - seems to be a honey pot drawing his socks in. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent news. Or maybe not so excellent, considering that it is quite evident that this guy will not give up coming back to edit Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

For your gay/lesbian section on Supercouples

[19] Thought you could include them. IrishLass (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

They are included there, IrishLass. Flyer22 (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Am I blind? I don't see them on the list and as you can see, I suck at doing that cool "cite news" reference thing you do (see Eve and Julian). IrishLass (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the main soap opera supercouple list. I wasn't sure what you meant because the title of this section refers to the gay and lesbian section in the Supercouple article. Yes, Luke and Noah are on the soap opera supercouple list, but not the main one. They are listed in the Notable wave section. They haven't even been together romantically for four months yet and they are not thought of as a supercouple wide enough throughout the soap opera medium...yet...to be listed on the main soap opera supercouple list. I mentioned this on the Supercouple article talk page when talking to that person who objected to a gay and lesbian section in the Supercouple article. I also mentioned before to you that some of those couples TV Guide named a supercouple should not have been named one. But then again, it was TV Guide Canada doing the naming, which is probably why they were half off. I mean, calling Nicholas Newman and Phyllis Summers the most successful Young and the Restless supercouple, over Victor Newman and Nikki Reed? Quite off. Flyer22 (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

EJ Wells and Samantha Brady

RadiantButterfly has requested someone other than me comment on why I reverted a formatting edit of hers. I have screen caps of why I did it, her edit made the picture float in the middle of the page on my screen, but don't know how to upload it like I've seen others do. I know you've done a ton of formatting on that article, I think you should weigh in. IrishLass (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind ~ I think I fixed it by moving the photo down a smidge. IrishLass (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)