User talk:Flyer22 Frozen/Archive Nov 2007

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Jake Martin (Main).jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I am so tired of this bot acting up. And, yes, this is an act-up. That fair-use rationale is fine. Nothing invalid about it. Flyer22 03:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Kendall in a coma (Main).JPG

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing invalid about it. Flyer22 11:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

TimothyBanks

Any moves in question you need reversed? It looks like another admin's already been talking to him. Daniel Case 07:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, for some reason, the other day, I (briefly...very briefly) forgot that Mike is an administrator; it was the weirdest thing. But I also understand why -- I sometimes don't see Mike, the administrator, because I'm used to consulting with him as more of a friend or as more of an acquaintance than thinking of him as an administrator. Not that I can't be friends with administrators, of course, but anyway.... I was so frustrated with TimothyBanks that day, and I went straight to Mike's talk page to rant a little about that, not really thinking "Mike's an administrator"...and then I went to your talk page. That was a weird day for me.

Anyway, thank you for replying. TimothyBanks is not listening, however. I'll have to drop by Mike's talk page and inform him of this not long after typing this comment to you. I do have one request from you, though -- that you move the Kimber Henry article back to...well...Kimber Henry. Thanks, Daniel. Flyer22 08:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. I'll take care of this move. Flyer22 20:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Natasha Bedingfield article

Hello. I have looked over the article and tidied up most of the sections as they were cluttered with fan cruft. It looks better now. -- Underneath-it-All 19:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Flyer22 19:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

AMC Question for you

Who is the red head that is always in Zach's office and was kissing Josh in an ep this week? I was in and out of the marathon this afternoon and have no clue who she is. CelticGreen 22:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL. That's Hannah Nichols, biological mother of Ethan Cambias (her son with Zach).

So have you just started watching All My Children or have you watched before, but on and off, or randomly? On and off or randomly is how I am with Days of our Lives. I watched Days of our Lives a lot around the time that the Philip/Chloe/Brady love triangle was going on, but I stopped for a while after that, and...because of editing with you guys on the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article...only recently started watching again, sometimes. And by the way, why are Brady and Chloe listed as single in their Marital status sections, when, from what I read, they left town married? Wait, I assume that they broke up off-screen, that spoilers must state that, but unless that has been mentioned on-screen, they shouldn't be listed as single yet. And if they aren't divorced yet, but just separated, that is what should be listed in their Marital status sections, of course. Flyer22 23:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

On and off randomly. Surprisingly I watched my first full ep the day Ethan died. I had never watched it before that day and took forever to put it together that EJ was Ethan. I followed Janet kidnapping Babe and followed on and off since then. I know all the players but when I miss a couple weeks I get confused. I actually find it funny that Hannah and Zach are supposed to be Ethan's parents, but I guess that's why James was fired in the first place, too old to be TK's son. I saw Spike get kidnapped by Greenlee, I saw why Greenlee thinks Spike should be hers. I can keep up with most of it to the point I'm actually torn by the Dixie/Tad/Adam tri. Put it this way, I know enough to keep up but not enough to mess with the AMC character pages. Oh, and I think Annie is evil, there's something so not right about her, but that's just an opinion.

As to Days, Brady and Chloe were listed as married, someone may have run in and changed the status when the rumour of Chloe/Nadia's return surfaced. I'll definitely check it out. I'm sure it's not just Days that it happens but it seems as soon as a rumour starts, someone runs in and changes pages. Thanks for the info on Hannah. CelticGreen 01:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, yes, some freak ran with the fact that Nadia is coming back and vandalized the page. I fixed it and added notes. I'll keep an eye out.CelticGreen 01:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. And when you mentioned the Adam/Dixie/Tad love triangle, did you mean the Adam/Krystal/Tad love triangle, or were you referring to the Adam/Dixie/Tad love triangle after all, but in the past? I only ask that because Dixie's dead, as you may know.

And as for Annie...ha. Yes, a lot of AMC viewers are suspecting that maybe she's the crazy one...and not Richie. Flyer22 02:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I meant KWAK (Krystal with a K). And I did know Dixie is dead and Babe is leaving one day soon and will be back the next with a different face. The actress is following her hubbie (ex-Jamie) off the show and they didn't want the character to leave. See I'm up on some things. So I'm not the only person Annie bugs? She is a freak and her and Ryan's marriage is way too contrived for me. It's like Sami and Lucas' marriage, too rushed and not believable in regards to the rest of the storyline. I like the slower, makes sense love stories. I would love it if Annie turned out to be nuts. Ryan deserves better. Not sure I like the Ava/Johnathan trist either, but throwing the JR factor makes it a little more interesting. But I think the actor who plays JR needs to spend a little more time in hair and makeup, right now he's got that wet look all the time and he looks terrible.CelticGreen 15:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The Ryan and Annie romance was/is definitely contrived. Ryan has called too many women (too many for it to be true) the love of his life, and that's why I cannot take him seriously in basically having claimed Annie as the love of his life. It's called "One true love" for a reason, because you only get one (romantically, anyway). As for Jacob Young (J.R.), his hair is better-suited how it looks in his character's article. It looked fine when he first grew it out a little longer earlier this year, but now the makeup artists on the show have it often slicked back a little, which I don't believe suits him. Flyer22 19:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and as for Babe, they aren't even waiting a day to recast her — but will rather recast her on the same day that her originating actress will leave the role. And the fact that this show is going to recast Babe had me really upset. And I'm still frustrated about it. The actress' character is a part of a popular couple, because of the actress, as well as Jacob, even though the character (Babe) isn't a fan-favorite herself, and the actress has portrayed Babe for four years (well, what would be four years, if she were to complete the last few months of this year as the character). I just feel that it's a mistake to recast Babe, and I believe that this show could have found a way to write her out of the show in a believable way while she and J.R. share custody of Little Adam. They surely could have waited a while (and I mean two or three years) before recasting Babe, which would have also given the actress a chance to possibly return to the role later (and, of course, she could still return to the role, but it makes more sense to have waited before recasting). Even worse, the writers have started having Babe date Wes, and they have a little chemistry together (which is the good thing about that), but that will all change once recast-Babe shows up. Flyer22 19:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with and understand your frustration over the recast. They've known for a long time that Alexa Havins was leaving. They could have believably written her out, instead she's being recast the next episode after she leaves. It's disrespectful to fans. Even fans like me who aren't everyday viewers but know the Babe/JR romance and issues and think this is wrong in so many ways. Recasts are hard enough but to do it so quickly is tacky. Her story should be winding down, not ramping up with Wes. CelticGreen 22:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, all we can really do now about this matter is watch Amanda Baker as Babe and see how she portrays this character. I can also continue to pout, of course, about it, but I'll watch as well. Flyer22 01:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it okay that I don't like that she just came off working on GH Night Shift? That always has bugged me when they do that. CelticGreen 22:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Flyer22 00:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

10 million men can't walk a mile in these shoes

We seem to have reached consensus on Gaby's page, but what do you think about Bree? Is she a Hodge or a Van de Kamp? Paul730 05:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, Paul. That's a more difficult issue, as you may know. Bree is better known as Bree Van de Kamp, but she's also called Bree Hodge enough on the show that it's more common than Gaby being known as Gabrielle Lang, at least. Flyer22 16:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

From a purely superficial level, and I know this isn't a valid argument, "Bree Van de Kamp" turns up 303,000 Google hits, and "Bree Hodge" turns up 90,000. I think Van de Kamp is probably her common name, I know that's what I think of her as. As Bignole said, it's kind of hard to prove what her common name is, so maybe we should stick with "Van de Kamp"? Paul730 16:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't feel that it's that difficult to judge that her common name is Bree Van de Kamp, but I do agree with you and Bignole that her article should be titled Bree Van de Kamp, if that's what you both feel that her article should be titled. As for google, though it is not the end-all-and-be-all, I did the same thing with Gabrielle Solis Versus Gabrielle Lang, though I already knew/know that Solis is her common name. Flyer22 17:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you judge common names? Isn't that a bit subjective? In Bree's case, VdK is still her common name ATM, but in a few years time, when Hodge has had time to settle in, how will we know what the common name is? Just wondering. :) Paul730 17:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I stated this next paragraph on the Gabrielle talk page. Not sure if you read it yet, but it applies to your question as well: "As for determining, I would say that once a character is often referred to by that name, not only on the show but my the media, as in television critics and such, meaning that that name is the most common for the character or has become the most common for the character, when it's the name that most people think of... And by think of, I mean when it is the name that the character is so referred to, that it is either their only name or has become so much more prominent than any other name they have."

So, no, I don't feel that it's subjective at all, but rather a matter of what the character is most often referred to as. I still see most television critics refer to Bree as Bree Van de Kamp, and other popular culture outlets refer to her as that as well. I do feel that that (besides Google) is a good indicator of what her common name is. If in a couple or few years, Bree is better known as Bree Hodge, I feel that we will know, and, of course, will be further urged to title her article Bree Hodge. Flyer22 17:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I was saying to Bignole that I don't think original names are neccessary the ones to use. Invisible Woman was once known as Invisible Girl (for a good portion of her history), however, "Woman" is the name people refer to her as in the media, and in adaptations such as the film, cartoons, video games, etc. Therefore, it's clearly the common name. Paul730 18:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as in that case, I would definitely say that Invisible Woman is the common name. If Hodge became as common for Bree as Van de Kamp is for her, as in the case of Slater for Kendall Hart Slater, then it would be more fine to have either title (Van de Kamp or Hodge) for Bree's article, though would probably be best to go with Hodge, if she were still going under that name in that scenario. Flyer22 18:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Lol, it's fine. :) Paul730 20:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to throw a wrench in here but I never think of her as Kendall Hart Slater. When I hear that I do a double take because when I first started watching she was separated from Zach. As for Bree ~ Van De Camp. Have to look what you have Gaby under. She'll always be Solis to me.CelticGreen 23:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some people still think of Hendall Hart as mainly Kendall Hart, but that's sort of what I was stating, how it's some now, seeing as the other half easily think of her as Kendall Hart Slater as well. As I stated above, yes, I'm sure that Kendall Hart is still her common name, but what has happened is that Kendall Hart Slater has become a common name for her also. Sort of how a lot of viewers call Babe Carey Babe Chandler, even now, or Babe Carey Chandler. All three names are common for her, which is unique. But then again, Babe was introduced as Babe Carey Chandler. Flyer22 00:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Masta_P

First of all, I have to say that I absolutely love your user page with te favorite vandalism moments. LoL! I have never seen anything quite like that before. I had quite a laugh. But anyway, I saw why you removed one because it came from a forum but the other actually was from a source that was not a forum. So I will at least add that one back. :)Masta P 21:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Understood. And I'm glad that you enjoyed reading the Favorite vandalism moments of my user page. Flyer22 21:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Angelina Jlie

Thought you might be interested to know that I left the following message for Bree113:

You have twice made an edit to Angelina Jolie that violates the Wikipedia Manual of Style, which is why your edits were twice reverted. So that you understand what's going on, I'm providing you with the relevant quotes from the relevant section of the MoS, Manual of Style (biographies) here:

Names

While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known. ...In some cases, subjects have legally changed their names at some point after birth. In these cases the birth name should be given as well:

• (from Bill Clinton): William Jefferson Clinton (born William Jefferson Blythe III on August 19, 1946)

Pseudonyms, stage names and common names

• Louis Bert Lindley, Jr. (June 29, 1929 – December 8, 1983), better known by the stage name Slim Pickens…

For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym...

The name "Angelina Jolie" is a legal name, not a pseudonym. Like the above example for Bill Clinton, Jolie legally changed her name after birth, so that's the format to use. The pseudonym format for performers who retained a legal name that was different from the stage name they were better known for does not apply in this case, because "Angelina Jolie" is not a pseudonym, it's her legal name.

The bottom line: the name in the first sentence is supposed to be the subject's full name, and in this case, that's "Angelina Jolie" -- legally, her name is no longer "Angelina Jolie Voight". So please stop editing the article to start with "Angelina Jolie Voight" and to say that she's better known as "Angelina Jolie".

Cheers, Melty girl 04:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to type that out for that editor and explain it in such the great way that you have. I was going to leave a message to that editor about that if they did such a name-change edit to Angelina Jolie's article again, but you explained it better than I would have. Thanks again. Flyer22 05:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad to be of service! --Melty girl 05:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: TomKat

Thank you. I tried to put in original content that doesn't double=up on what is already in the individual actors' articles, and summarize some that was. Feel free to add anything more if you find it. It's definitely a work in progress. Cheers!  hmwith  talk 14:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I was just trying to make it more encyclopedic. However, that doesn't mean boring, and I'm glad that you corrected me! =) нмŵוτнτ 21:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't think of it as a correction. Just more like an improvement. We both think of it as improved in that way. Flyer22 21:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Tommy McBain

I caught most of OLTL yesterday and the judge is just about to make his decision about who gets custody, so a name change is probably premature. TAnthony 13:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, then my reading edits where editors act as though Todd and Blair have already won custody of this child are either spoilers or assumptions...or both...that Todd and Blair will soon have custody of him. Flyer22 17:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Colaatje5

Yes, s/he got my page too. Just a vile message to stop changing their against consensus and agreed upon formatting. S/he seems to think they own more than a few of the Days' pages. CelticGreen 20:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Morning. Colaatje5 is at it again. They hit JR's page and since I don't know enough about the character I thought I would defer to you to see if you need to revert the changes. As you can see if you look at what I've reverted this morning, they were removing vital information from the Passions pages again. Oh, and there is a report on them you might be interested in too after what they did to your page. Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Grant_Chuggle. CelticGreen 14:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, as I'm sure that you know, I reverted Colaatje5's edit to J.R. Chandler not long after it was edited by Colaatje5. I don't feel too much that Colaatje5 is Grant Chuggle, though. Not that this means without a doubt that Colaatje5 isn't Grant Chuggle, but I saw Colaatje5 around some time before I saw Grant Chuggle. And while Grant Chuggle says that he is male (though he has been known to lie to editors, I cannot see why he would lie about that to us), I feel that Colaatje5 is probably female; won't go into specifics as to why I feel that is. Also, Grant Chuggle didn't click minor for every single one of his edits. Colaatje5 does. Colaatje5 is also one of those types of Wikipedian editors who does not respond back...ever... This aspect of which annoys me to no end, that an editor here at Wikipedia either does not respond, which makes you wonder if they have read their messages...or that they even know to read their messages, and seeing as they should, wondering why the hell aren't they. Anyway, talk with you later. Flyer22 15:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Well, I love watching GH and Y&R. Been watching daytime since the early 1990s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.111.38 (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's good to have your help around Wikipedia. Flyer22 23:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Templates

How's it feel, being the welcome-er as opposed to the welcome-ee?  :) You're doing a great job, keep it up! A couple templates that you may find useful:

• {{welcome}}
• {{welcomeanon}}

They're supposed to be "subst-ed" which expands the template, so the exact syntax, if you were posting one on an anon's talkpage would be: {{subst:welcomeanon}} ~~~~

If you already know about them, please accept my apologies! Personal notes work just fine too. I saw that you were doing those, and figured I'd let you know about the templates in case you wanted to use them. They also have other arguments you can use if you want to praise the new editor for a particular article. Check out the templates themselves for details. :) Best, --Elonka 00:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Elonka. Yeah, I knew about them. Suppose that I just didn't feel the need for them. Thanks for stopping by my talk page and addressing me with this matter, however. I will probably use those templates sometimes. It's good to "hear" from you. As for being the welcome-er as opposed to the welcome-ee, yes, it's different; it's all different (and better, of course), considering that sometimes I cringe in thinking about how much of a newbie I was five months ago at Wikipedia. But, hey, we all have to start somewhere, right? I think of you as my Yoda, except much better-looking, of course. But you get the point. I'll see you around, and will soon drop by the Pauline Fowler article to give my thoughts on its second Featured Article nomination. Flyer22 01:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Snipey

Hi. I really didn't mean to be rude to you. I think that the fact that I only have an intermediate level of English keeps me from sounding kind sometimes. I know fewer words than native speakers, so, sometimes, what I write is not so close to what I would really like to say, but I say it anyway. A.Z. 05:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Understood. I responded on the talk page of that article, of course. Flyer22 05:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Titanic article.

Yes, I did not check that. I was in fact going to revert my edits due to the section with old Rose's bio says her death is unknown in the 1996 characters. Thank you for reminding me. A Raider Like Indiana 01:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Like I stated on your talk page about Rose DeWitt Bukater's date of death being listed as Unknown in the Characters of Titanic (1997) article, James Cameron stated, "It is to remain up to the viewer to decide weather Rose has passed away or is just dreaming"...meaning that we cannot state what year Rose died in, when even James Cameron won't confirm it. I wish he would, though, as I stated before. I definitely feel that she died at the end of that film. As previously mentioned, great foreshadowing was there as well. I still wish he would say, "Yep, she died at the end of this movie, and that was my intention. C'omn, why else did I have Jack say that she would get to live a long life and die warm in her bed, all while showing her (warm) in her bed seemingly peacefully having died in her sleep? Get real, people!" Flyer22 02:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks a lot for your complements. Actually this is a nice place to work, rather are all humans including wikipedians. I thought that the edit would be a bordering one, and just mentioned it. I actually edit articles boldly and never mind a revert, than talking much, which maybe sufficient in most cases. Nice day! Lara_bran 08:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Lara. Flyer22 08:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually just copy-edit for article's style tone and aesthetics. I hardly add any new content. You can use italics rather than bold to address users. Thanks. Lara_bran 08:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Okay, I'll think about doing the italics. Flyer22 08:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, copy-editors are one of the most vital types of editors on Wikipedia. Don't down-play your importance. You're needed and appreciated here. Flyer22 08:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Desperate Solis

You could ask an admin to protect the page name so that it cannot be moved. This way, if consensus arrives that says the last name should be different then they can request that an admin unlock the move option and change the name. Then again, you'd probably only get protection if you could show that the page is getting moved back and forth repeatedly.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a while ago that I found out about the fact that an article's name can be protected, and I mentioned getting this name protected in the discussion about this on its talk page. I'll ask GTBacchus to take care of the matter of the name-change concerning this article, considering that GTBacchus knows how this article has been moved to more than one uncommon name for its title character and was involved in discussion with us about it. Flyer22 06:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think protection is a good idea, because it's likely some editor who's unaware of the concensus will try to be helpful by moving it back. Paul730 12:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If you guys didn't already know, it's now taken care of. Flyer22 23:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Help please

I want to nominate The Gourmet Next Door and Amy Finley for merge since she's a newbie Food Network star and her show has two eps so far. What do you think and how do I do it?? I'm very confused about how this is done. Every time I try to nominate something, I mess up. Any help is appreciated.CelticGreen 00:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You mean placing a merge tag on them, right? I'll do that for you with those two articles. I must state, however, that the merge tag may be up there on them for quite a while before they are merged, and that they may still not be merged...unless you merge them yourself or ask someone to merge them for you.

As for merging them yourself, the page Help:Merging and moving pages can help you on that better than I can. Flyer22 00:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This where I'm confused. I see AfD that say "merge with X" and that's what I want to do, or think should be done. I could just Redirect the Amy Finley page to The Gourmet Next Door but I don't think that's the right way to do it. I just am trying so hard lately to do everything right and I keep screwing up. I nominated two articles for deletion last night because the characters have been on three episodes and are not meaningful and I got "notified" about doing it wrong. So I'm very confused how to delete/merge/redirect pages at this time and you've been so helpful. I do know you're busy (how's the writing going?) but you've been such a teacher to me too. I just want to do it correctly. ~ CelticGreen 01:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that you want to nominate one of those articles for deletion, but instead of saying delete, you want to say merge. Yes, that's what you can do in nominating an article for deletion. In this case, your reason would be to Merge. Exactly what do you want me to explain to you, CelticGreen, on this matter? I don't feel that I can explain how to nominate an article for deletion any better than the page about this does.

Also, now that I've placed the merge tags on those two articles, which you can observe how I did that by looking at these articles from their interior, of course, you should state on the Amy Finley talk page (the article that is suggested The Gourmet Next Door be moved to) why you feel that these two articles should be merged. That is, if you aren't going to go for the alternative and nominate one of these articles for deletion, with the reasoning being merge...plus additional information as to why. Flyer22 20:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Image for Megan Hathaway

I have a question with something and I was hoping you, with all of your image expertise, could help me out with it.

I have recently been looking through the Days of our Lives: 30th Anniversary book, and I saw this incredible picture of Megan Hathaway, and seeing how she has no image on her page, I would love to upload it. However, I'd have to scan it first, and then I don't know if it's allowed to be uploaded on Wikipedia. If it helps, it does list who is the copyright owner in the back of the book for each image.

I'd appreciate your input. Thank you so much! --Miss Burkle 13:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Image:JR & Babe Cover Story Image (Main).JPG is a scanned image from Soaps In Depth magazine, and there is not a problem with it being used on Wikipedia. I don't see why it would be all that different for a book. I feel that it would be fine if you uploaded a scanned image from a book, as long as you provide the needed information for that image, which it seems that you will. Flyer22 16:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! I was just making sure. I appreciate your help. --Miss Burkle 16:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Flyer22 17:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Spears

Hi. The possessive form of Spears is Spears's. It's a common misconception that names ending with s drop this. It is only plurals ending with the letter s which drop the post-apostrophe s. This has been discussed at length on many wiki pages, and is described in the wiki style guide. Also, have a look at [1] Cheers. MrMarmite 17:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, for some reason I'd forgotten about that earlier this morning (though it seemed like late night). I got really caught up with something else while sleepy as all heck, and then all my mind saw was double s. I assure that I knew about this, and was wondering what I did wrong this morning (as something was nagging me, having just woken up) and checked over my contributions, and remembered that I had changed the Britney Spears article, and something was telling me that I did something wrong. Just as it dawned on me what it was, I saw your message in the edit summary. I immediately came to your talk page about this. Really sorry about the hassle. Flyer22 17:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries at all. Thanks for the response. It's an issue dear to my heart, my name ends in s and I am an author :) MrMarmite 17:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Good to see another writer. Though I must admit that I am more of a screenwriter. Screenwriting just impacted me so much more. See you around. Flyer22 17:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you were truly right that the issue of Spears' or Spears's was discussed at length, as seen with this link and especially this link. It's apparent that a lot of editors disagree with Spears being spelled as Spears's and feel that it reflects badly on Wikipedia, and that this was more of a consensus decision. I feel that maybe you should put a hidden note in the Britney Spears article about this. Considering how debated this topic is, and how the article's wording has been changed from Spears's to Spears' as many times as it has, I can only imagine how many more times it will be changed and debated. Flyer22 18:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

As it states on "Eats, Shoots and Leaves", the current practice is that you are required to put the "s" in singular possessive words, which includes names.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts on this, Bignole. So I take it you agree with Lynne Truss and obviously her book Eats, Shoots & Leaves. What I see, as mentioned above, is that given the many times that the wording in the Britney Spears article has been changed from s's to s', I don't see that stopping any time soon, and it's no doubt like that with many other articles on Wikipedia. Flyer22 20:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Another thing... As stated in this link, "both ways of forming the possessive occur in well-written literature" and by well-respected news sources too much to say that one has more precedent over the other. I mean, is spelling Havins' as Havins's or Spears' as Spears's truly the correct version or more so the English? Flyer22 23:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I think people just do it not knowing the current grammatical practices. I read "an homage" a lot, but in English, you generally pronounce the word with a hard "h" and not a silent one--which would put the "an" in front of it. The silent "h" pronounciation comes from France, where the word came from. So, since that has a vowel sound, it gets an "an" in front. But, it should really be an "a". The same thing applies here. People just think of the rule "put only an apostraphe with an "s" ending," but they don't realize that it doesn't apply to singular words that end in "s".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, Bignole. Both forms are so wide-spread that it's difficult a lot of the times to gauge which one to go with. I suppose current practice would be s's, but you wouldn't know that by reading the many instances in which it's not spelled that way by even some prominent news sources. Flyer22 23:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila

Hi, you sent me a message regarding editing A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila... however I've never even visited that page. Maybe it's because I'm not logged into my account right now, but I'm on a home computer with no one else using it and I got a message from you about vandalising the page. Sorry I'm just confused. If you need to contact me my user page is Luet. 99.237.239.193 23:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks as though Bignole (thanks, Bignole) has already informed you that, yes, under that IP that you have at this moment, someone edited that article. IP addresses of the same numbers often belong to various internet users. Someone else edited under that IP address while you didn't. Flyer22 23:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Soap infobox

I'm going to implement the new infobox on as many soap articles as I can using AWB (just a simple switch). But out of courtesy to you, I'm going to leave the "series" parameter out of the AMC ones. — TAnthony^Talk 03:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha. I noticed that.

We need to hurry up and get all of their relationships in this infobox then. I really don't want any newbie or random (or, heck, not-so-newbie) Wikipedian editors thinking that this new soap opera character infobox doesn't matter, and that the lists of relationships at the bottom of these soap opera character articles will remain even with this new soap opera character infobox. Flyer22 03:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This seems rather sneaky and underhanded the way you say it. Not all the editors on the project have weighed in on the new box. Rushing to implement seems rather underhanded and self serving. Sorry, but it has the "I'm right, I'm doing it my way" mentality and having dealt with that carp all weekend in regards to another editor, this move has a very underhanded feel. I really wish you would wait.CelticGreen 03:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

From experience, I know that we probably won't get much more input. Anyway, I'm not going to start getting rid of the lists or anything, so really the switch will not change a thing and basically not be noticable; the basic functions of the two infoboxes are identical. — TAnthony^Talk 03:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if you knew about this new soap opera character infobox, CelticGreen, since I saw IrishLass giving thoughts on the Wikiproject Soap Operas talk page, but not you. I will be getting rid of these lists and will rather place them in the character infobox. I'll leave the Days of our Lives characters for you and IrishLass to decide. The only thing that this soap opera character infobox doesn't allow that the lists at the bottom of these soap opera character articles do is lists about Friends or Enemies, or some other unnecessary list. Flyer22 04:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

TAnthony, you really are applying this soap opera character infobox quite fast. What my watchlist is mostly displaying at this moment is...(Apply new ((Infobox soap character)) using AWB).

I'm not complaining though. Flyer22 05:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that you changed the placement of the mention of the series that a character is from; it's no longer at the top. I like that a lot better than it being at the top where the character's name is. Other character infoboxes have it at the top and like I just noted on, I don't like that too much. Now I don't mind the series aspect to this character infobox. Flyer22 06:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And it doesn't state One Life to Live character, All My Children character, etc. It rather just states whichever show it means, without the character part added on, which is a plus. Flyer22 06:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't change it, that's always been the way I designed it ... let me know if you want me to use AWB to insert the AMC ones for ya. — TAnthony^Talk 06:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that must have been a part of the previous character infobox format used within yours in a few that I saw one editor apply soap opera character infoboxes to, or it wasn't your soap opera character infobox at all. And, yes, apply them to the AMC ones. Go for it. I'm about to get rid of all the relationship lists at the bottom of those articles, and then come back to them to add them in the infobox, of course. Maybe in the meantime, seeing no Family and relationships section at the bottom of these articles will prompt some random soap opera Wikipedian editors to add them in the infobox instead, since this infobox has a drop-down list marked as Relationships, which will no doubt draw on their curiosity to click on it to see how or if any relationships are formatted within it. Flyer22 06:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't know if you should remove the lists before adding the info to the infobox, you may freak people out and have them think you're vandalizing the pages. What I've done is say "Merging relationship data into new infobox" or something in the edit summary to spell out what's happening. I'm also assuming that my noting the template name in my switchover edit summaries will encourage interested people to check out the template directly and see what the deal is. — TAnthony^Talk 14:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Though the thought of being mistaken for a vandal briefly crossed my mind on this front earlier, nah. I don't feel that I'll freak people out, not unless the freaking has to do with the want for those annoying lists. Editors who edit Wikipedia often and are familiar with checking an article's edit history should know what's the deal, considering that my edit summaries explain what I'm doing on that front. I may even mention per talk page of Wikiproject Soap Operas to better clarify. I'm certain that I won't be mistaken for a vandal by the more experienced Wikipedian editors. And newbie or random Wikipedian editors should understand if they check an article's edit history, where they will see my edit summary. What I've actually seen is an IP-address editor be identified as a vandal for having added a friends list and an enemies list to the Family and relationships section of a soap opera character article. So it seems to be more so the other way around as far as vandalism is concerned, though that person didn't use an edit summary, and IP addresses aren't as trusted by Wikipedia over a registered account on Wikipedia (obviously due to most vandalism on Wikipedia occuring from IP address accounts). I feel that these lists should be removed with the addition of the new soap opera character infobox to a soap opera character's article. Otherwise, it will still appear as though these lists are truly accepted and that they should be kept, even though the information should be in the character infobox instead. Flyer22 15:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds fine since you monitor the AMC articles and will be able to note any disruption. By the way, I noticed you implementing the color red (looks good!) but I purposely didn't auto-add that to all the AMC characters because I thought it might help you easily differentiate which articles you've worked on and which you haven't. — TAnthony^Talk 16:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, regarding your preference for bullet points within the infobox: I don't have a stylistic issue with it but it seems to mess up the infobox display (see this version of David Hayward. I've removed them where I've noticed them for only this reason. I don't think this should happen, so I'll look at the template to see if I can figure out what's going on. — TAnthony^Talk 18:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

So far I've only noticed the issue in "Occupation" (obviously located before the Relationships section), the bullets seem to be fine within the Relationships section (see Bianca Montgomery). It's probably a conflict with the collapsing feature itself. — TAnthony^Talk 19:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed with the Krystal Carey article how the bullet points mess up this new character infobox, so I took the bullet points away from her character infobox for now (or maybe for good). If it's easier for me to just add line breaks instead of you trying to once again re-adjust this character infobox for another matter, then I will. Or I just won't use bullet points for the Occupation part. As for your not implementing the color I've chosen for the character infobox for All My Children, you mean to help me differentiate which All My Children character articles I've cut the Family and relationships sections from, right? For a brief second, I thought you meant that you were going to apply the color red because I mentioned on the Wikiproject Soap Operas talk page that if I had to choose a color for AMC, I'd choose red. And that you didn't apply the colors for me because you felt that it (the All My Children character articles remaining grey) would help me differentiate which soap opera character articles I had worked on in general, but then I shook that off as plain silly that my mind even briefly though that. I mean, as for fictional character articles, you know that I work on more than the All My Children ones, though those are the primary fictional character articles that I work on. Flyer22 21:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Flyer22, yes, I was looking around over the weekend and saw the new info box. Sorry my comments were harsh, I had a bad wiki weekend dealing with rude people and what not. I can't say I like the idea or don't like the idea. Haven't given it much thought. Again, just wanted to say sorry if I came off harsh. CelticGreen 22:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You seemed to be responding to TAnthony, which, yes, I felt was harsh. But if you were responding to me, I accept your apology. If it was toward TAnthony, then I cannot answer for him on that matter. If it was for the both of us, well, I've already stated my half. Sorry about your terrible weekend. Flyer22 23:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The apology was to both. I have nothing against what's happening, I was just really having a bad weekend. TAnthony, sorry to you too. CelticGreen 23:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As I noted earlier on your talk page, CelticGreen, I was not offended/insulted by your comment; you made a good point and I hope I was able to reassure you. — TAnthony^Talk 23:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion?

Recently I've been editing the ABC Daytime page to separate the crew into individual pages for each person (if there's enough info and level of importance) and the guide will soon be overhauled, but one thing isn't clear for me yet. The 3/4 of the page goes to ABC Nielsen Ratings. Do those really need to be posted there, or could we just delete it and leave a link to List of US daytime soap opera ratings, where all other ratings are. What do you think? Dmarex 18:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw you editing that article, fixing things up, and I would say that, yes, we can do without the ABC Nielsen Ratings in that article, and could rather leave a link to List of US daytime soap opera ratings, as you suggested. Flyer22 21:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

How does this sound?

It probably goes without saying, but I surely didn't expect to be nominated to become a Wikipedian administrator today, and certainly not until at least a year or two (though I was leaning more toward two or more). Part of me is saying go for it. But the other half of me feels that I need more time; I know how much work it takes being an administrator here at Wikipedia, and I'm busy with specific articles at this time, as well as home-life, and so I'm wondering if I'll have enough time for all.

Hmm...

I thank you for feeling that I am a good candidate for this, and after weighing the factors some more (from the time of your post above to now), I...do...accept. Flyer22 21:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

DRV

[2]. I fully agree. Done. Cheers, SqueakBox 14:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for telling everyone about the deletion review, Flyer. A.Z. 01:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well actually s/he suggested it, I may not have even thought of it on my own but agree that it was worth doing after counting the number of votes. There is clearly a strong argument for merging into CSA and I will propose that we do so in a very short while, SqueakBox 01:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's always good to review things so we can be sure we did the right thing. A.Z. 01:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh indeed, and even though the drv is not going my way I have no regrets about posting it. We can then have a (hopefully) healthy debate on what to do next, SqueakBox 01:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my talk page, Flyer22. I think we should give time to article when it survived an AfD. Lara_bran 03:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Necessary lists?

Hey Flyer22! There's one thing I've been wondering about for some time. Are the lists of directors or writers or producers really necessary on articles of each individual writer/director/producer. For example, the user that submitted all of those credits to our guides has also submitted a bit of info on GH Directors on Danielle Faraldo article. What is your opinion on this lists? Are they really necessary? If you ask me, they don't look so good on the page and when one change happens (a director quits or is fired) then we have to go through all of those articles to remove the person. Is this really necessary? Dmarex 07:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No, not necessary. Flyer22 07:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Saaphyri Windsor

Precedents are not binding on AFD (there is no policy or guideline that states as much), and the arguments for deletion appeared to be strong enough to override precedent. The original article was complete OR, so better to delete it and replace it with a redirect to the show. If there are reliable sources, feel free to write a better article (though I should note that Flavor of Love Girls: Charm School is unsourced itself). --Coredesat 05:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with your decision to delete this article, and I know that precedent may not be binding in every deletion debate, but I understand your stance, of course. Flyer22 16:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, there is another discussion on the topic of this precedent here: deletion review. Gamer83 19:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Gamer, I was going to talk to you about the issue of this article's deletion, and how I talked to the closing administrator about this on his talk page, and how if I was as passionate about this article staying as you are, I'd take it to a deletion review. Well, now I see that you've taken it there. I'll be there in a bit. Flyer22 19:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Nina Tassler

Nina Tassler is an American television executive, a graduate of Boston University-bachelor of fine arts in theater), and holds the position of President, CBS Entertainment since September 2004. Her boss is Nancy Tellem, President, CBS Paramount Network Television Entertainment Group. Tassler oversees CBS' prime time, late night and daytime programming, as well as program development for all genres. - - Other Positions - *Executive Vice President, Drama Series Development, CBS Entertainment (July 2003 -September 2004) - *Senior Vice President, Drama Development, CBS Entertainment (1998- July 2003) - *Vice President, Drama, CBS Productions (August 1997 - 1998) - *Vice President, Drama Development, Warner Bros. Television (199? - 1997) - *Director, Movies and Mini-Series, Lorimar/Warner Bros. Television (1990- ?) - - External Links: Boston U: Tassler & Promo Magazine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.106.240 (talk) 08:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok

Okay, thank you for informing me kindly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.28.111 (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm thankful that you are willing to listen on the matter of not putting the Family and relationships section at the bottom of the soap opera character articles anymore. Other newer or somewhat new editors may have just ignored that note. Flyer22 20:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Colby Chandler (Main).jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, whatever, bot, you're malfunctioning everywhere. I don't know how much more detailed you want a fair-use rationale to be, but your owner needs to fix you. Flyer22 10:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL fair use

I must say I've enjoyed your recent edit summaries against the annoying bot, I've done a few myself lately! I just realized that the template code is referencing item 10c, which is "(c) The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use." So I think it's being triggered by the fact that the articles are not mentioned in the rationale summaries. — TAnthony^Talk 16:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for enjoying my rants against the annoying bot. I cannot help but do so when it messes with perfectly fine fair-use rationales. And, yes, I figured that the article name should be mentioned in the fair-use rationale, which is why I started doing that a while ago. However, it started tagging those as disputed as well not too long after that. So maybe it won't mess with a fair-use rationale that is a little longer and has the article name internal-linked within it, which is what I recently started doing. Flyer22 20:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Childhood

Childhood is the human development from birth to adulthood. Because of that there are 5 stages

• Infancy(0-1)
• Toddler(2-5)
• Middle Childhood(6-9)
• Preteen(10-12)
• Adolescence(13-17)
  You stated that adolescence takes place between childhood and adulthood. That makes apsolutly no sense what so ever. The adolescent article needs much clean-up. I put in between pre-teenhood and adulthood because an adolescent is a child.So I figured that since most teens are adolescent and most preteens are not, it would make sense. Just sayin'. --Mr. Comedian 20:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't state didn't state that adolescence takes place between childhood and adulthood. I may have alluded to that, but didn't mean for it to come out that way. If I did allude to that, I probably meant what is stated in the Adolescence article as its definition, which is "Adolescence is a transitional stage of human development that occurs between childhood and adulthood."

This is what I meant:

Most definitions of Childhood is the early stage in existence or development. I certainly wouldn't call adolescence that, though that is early to much older people.

The definition of adolescence is usually defined as the period of development from onset of puberty to maturity.

And, no, an adolescent is not a child, as both the Child article and the Adolescence article clearly points out. Adolescence may be referred to as childhood at times, but an adolescent is not necessarily a child, especially when we are talking about a 17 to 19-year-old adolescent.

Your edits to those types of articles have been disputed, which is why I reverted your recent edits to two of them. Flyer22 22:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, whatever. But I'm an adolescent and I consider myself a child. You can think whatever you want but I'm a child till I'm 18, then I'm an adult. That's the way I look at it. And, no, I'm not being raised to think that. I just feel that way myself. I mean if you think adolescents are not children, then think that. I have probobly said this in many talk pages "You have your opinions, I have mine". But I think that someone should put the adolescent article instead of using the "between childhood and adulthood" they should replace that part with "an adolescent is a boy or a girl that is going through puberty" since that is the definition of adolescence and that way people don't get into arguments over it. --Mr. Comedian 22:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fine. Think of yourself as a child. I don't see how you can, however, when mentally and physically a 17-year-old is no different than an 18-year-old, and when in different countries a person can be defined as an adult before they are age 18. 18 being an adult is set by law, not by the fact that a person isn't really an adult until they are age 18. When I was age 17, I never thought of myself as a child, because I had long realized that I knew that I wasn't a child at that age and I didn't think all that differently than a 21-year-old. And, no, I don't feel that the Adolescence article should be stated to mention a boy or girl going through puberty, since as the adolescence article mentions, an adolescent can even be a 21-year-old. While a man or woman may be called a boy or a girl at times, they certainly aren't children, and neither is a 17-year-old. But you can feel how you want on this matter, of course. A lot of my feelings on this matter, however, are based on biology and psychology...rather than my opinion on this matter, though you now clearly know my opinion on this. Flyer22 23:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point but physically and mentally a 14 year old is way diffrent then an 18 year old. I could understand a 17 year old not thinking that they are children but a young adolescent like me, I cannot see them thinking they are not children. My definition of childhood: The mental and physical growth in humans that takes place between birth and maturity. My definition of adolescense: the last stage of childhood that takes place when one is going through puberty. But we have to set up a way with the adolescense article so that it is still correct and agree's with all opinions. Because trust me, I may be the only wikipidian with tmis opinion but not the only one in the. many of us adolesecnts consider ourselves as children mainly to make us feel happier. I mean a good majority of kids my age feel that being an adult is boring(No offense, just sayin'). Also, a 14 year old has more similarities to a 5 year old then we do to a 40 year old mainly because we are also immature in ways, the news bores us to death so we watch retarded cartoons and silly sitcoms, we perfer junk food than healthy food, etc. Just trying to point out that a young teen(13-15) is more considered to be a child then an adult. --Mr. Comedian 18:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I still feel that the Adolescence article is fine in its definition of what an adolescent is, since as I stated before, adolescence doesn't just end when a person turns age 18 or age 19. Also, yes, I consider a 13-year-old a child. If you read the Child article, which I added to a week ago, you will see how the definition of Child is defined. And, you did get a grin out of me when you just now stated that "a 14 year old has more similarities to a 5 year old then we do to a 40 year old mainly because we are also immature in ways"...even though I don't necessarily agree, and I don't feel that watching cartoons or any animations necessarily means immaturity. Hey, I watch Death Note. Okay, yeah, Death Note is a mature animation, but you get my point...and I get yours. I'm basically stating that a 17-year-old, for instance, in reality, is not a child...as a 7-year-old is. Yes, older people sometimes call a 17-year-old a child, but a 17-year-old is not a child. Also, when I think of adolescents, I don't usually think of 13-year-olds and 14-year-olds, though I know that they are (usually) adolescents, so...again...I get your point in calling those ages children. All in all, you are what I believe to be a rarity; most 17-year-olds would not want to be called children. I know I didn't. And you are one year (or is it more so months for you?) away from being age 18? I'm 25, but still get mistaken for a late adolescent sometimes, and I'm not sure if it annoys me or makes me feel good that maybe when I'm 30, I can still pass for age 19. Flyer22 18:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm, I'm 14. --Mr. Comedian 19:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha! All this time of talking to you, I thought that you were age 17. I'm sure it was because you said that you're a child until you're 18. For some reason, my mind clicked on that to mean that you are age 17. It was the main reason I stated that I didn't know how you could view yourself as a child when mentally and physically a 17-year-old is no different than an 18-year-old. Anyway, my mistake (about your age). Flyer22 20:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That's OK. Everyone makes mistakes. And I definatly know what you mean by a 17 year old not wanting to feel like a child. Heck, I might feel the same way when I'm 17. But now you know why I say I'm a child. Nice talking to you. You really seemed to have pointed out alot, See ya! --Mr. Comedian 20:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I understand your feelings better now. And it was nice talking with you as well. Your points did not go without real thought from me. I'll see you around. Flyer22 21:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)