User talk:Flyer22 Frozen/Archive 2

Hi Flyer22, I'm hoping you can help

Hi there. I asked Yamla if she could help but she said she can't. There is a user Myolo editing the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady page in such a way as to bias the article towards a view that is not shared by many. Since you took an interest in this early on, I'm hoping you can help.

There is controversy over a certain scene and I have addressed that in the controversy section but user Myolo continues to edit the page to refer to a scene in an absolute view that is not shared by everyone and I believe this is in violation of the neutrality policies of Wikipedia. Myolo is also using fictional dialogue as "proof" of their view and is even stating things that are incorrect. I have explained further my reasons for disagreeing on Myolo's user page. (I'm sorry but I'm not sure how to link directly to a user page)

If you could just pop over and take a look for me and give me your honest feedback, I will respect whatever you think is best for the article. This issue definitely needs another point of view. Thanks! Radiantbutterfly 17:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hey, there, Radiantbutterfly, yeah I saw the back-and-forth going on there. I'm not sure how I can help that situation. It's a matter of both of you coming to an agreement as to what to include within that article on this matter. Flyer22 17:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No

you asked a question. the answer would be no.Antigone28 17:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• All right. I must say I cannot understand your grudge against me at all. My help is wanted with the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article, and even if it wasn't wanted, my interest in that article is making it better, seeing as I know how a soap couple article should be formatted here at Wikipedia, and all I did was follow Wikipedia policy. I didn't attack you.

But, anyway, I'm moving on. Flyer22 17:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Why won't you leave me alone? Why do you keep stalking me??? Get over yourself, leave me alone and quit posting messages on my talk. I don't want to have anything to do with you and don't give a shit what you do to whatever article you feel obsessively compelled to edit. Do what you want but by the GODDESS leave me alone.Antigone28 00:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• And why don't you go by Wikipedia policy? Why don't you stop name-calling?! And, obviously, I'm not the one who feels obsessively compelled to edit the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article. You do! I'm not your stalker, and I'm not even compelled enough to be your enemy. Flyer22 02:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• What policy am I not going by? Is there some rule that says I'm required to suffer stalking and harrasssment by you? If so, please point me to that rule. If there is no such rule, LEAVE ME ALONE!Antigone28 02:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yamla pointed you to two (three actually) Wikipedia policies you were violating. And, there's most definitely a policy that states I shouldn't have to put up with your hostility. Flyer22 02:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

thank you

I completely understand what you are saying about the supercouple page and I think you are right in doing so, I don't by any means want to start a wiki war, or anything so thank you for correcting my error. I was trying to put a picture for the EJ Wells page last night but I couldn't do it so if you could please help me next time I'd be very grateful.once again thank you. User:Perfecttlovee

• Sure, I can help you with putting up an EJ Wells picture. Just point me to the right site to snag it, and I'll upload it for you, if you have any difficulties with uploading an EJ Wells picture yourself. Flyer22 00:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, I took care of the picture problem you mentioned. Flyer22 00:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you very much.Oh I also commentted the supercouple page. Im just trying to fix it so it can remain neutral, but people keep on changing things.

• It really doesn't matter if EJ and Sami are mentioned in supercouples today, as long as we dont have the back and forth, but I think it'd be better if you just to sami and lucas off to so no other fans will be fighting.

• Hey, I'm not sure why you removed Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston from the celebrity supercouple list, but I added them back, because although they are a past couple, they were definitely a supercouple. And these lists also state past supercouples.

As for the Lucas and Sami topic you mention, I explained with this link...[1] Flyer22 01:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• sorry to bother you again but can you help me with this situation, there is this user 74.100.47.13 that keeps changing things on the EJ character seperate page as well as the sami one. Putting things like soulmate and the paternity of the babies which neither are concluded are true I have changed this time and time again but nothing works it keeps getting changed, so can we prevent this without deleting there pages?

• I'll check it out. If this user is reporting things that are untrue, then you can defintely report this user to an administrator here at Wikipedia. And this user most definitely shouldn't state soulmate in their separate articles...unless there is a verifiable source beside it.

Also, don't forget to sign your user-name on talk pages, even though I know that it's you I'm talking to as of now, but such as on the Supercouple talk page, you forgot to sign your user-name. Flyer22 02:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• about the Jennifer and brad pitt page sorry I just thought it was recent supercouples but for the angelina jolie and brad pitt I added a link that explains their supercouple status if you want it I'll be more than happy to give you the URL. whenever I have something to edit I'll check with you first but yes, I dont know if this user is anonymous but I will report when untrue things are put on there thank you. User: Perfecttlovee

• You don't have to check with me first to edit anything, but just make sure that you provide good sources when adding information to the Supercouple article. And I don't feel that any couple on the supercouple lists should be removed, unless they truly aren't supercouples.

And, yes, I know of the link you speak of, if you mean the link from sofeminine.co.uk, but since that site is already referenced to twice within the Supercouple article, it's best that we don't link to them yet again within the Supercouple article. Also, to have most of the celebrity supercouples pointed out as supercouples from different sites, it adds to the fact that the reference to celebrity supercouples isn't just coming from one source. Flyer22 03:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, Okay thank you. Perfecttlovee 8:17 pm, June 30, 2007

Orphaned non-free image (Image:D2 tn.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:D2 tn.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Sam McCall (Main).JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sam McCall (Main).JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Bianca and Babe.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bianca and Babe.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

J. R. etc.

Naming conventions I'm not necessarily personally invested in the spelling of "J. R."s and "J.R."s but the naming conventions say to put in the space. While moving the pages I have seen such variations as "X. Y. Name" (correct) "X.Y. Name" "X.Y.Name" "Name X.Y. Name" "Name.X.Y.Name" "Name X.Y.Name" etc. While that isn't exactly chaotic to the point of unintelligibility, it is 1.) arbitrary and 2.) in contravention of the simple rule. I didn't take your question as snide, but genuine and reasonable. Thanks for asking. If you want to respond, please do so on my talk. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Spelling throughout article I would certainly think that the spelling should be the same as the article's title throughout the text, but I don't know that there is a rule as such. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your thoughts on the matter, Justin (koavf). I'll most likely spell it the way you suggest throughout the entire J. R. Chandler and Babe Carey article...eventually. Flyer22 23:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Round two? So, you're in favor of moving it back, then? I suppose if you have some source that definitively says that the character's name is "JR" and not "J. R." or what have you, then I'd be fine with moving it back. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Were the two links that I gave you earlier, where his name is spelled J.R. and not J. R. good enough? I take it that they are not, since you want me to provide another source, but I ask anyway. Flyer22 00:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure I'll move it back. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks again. Flyer22 01:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Bianca Montgomery and Josh Madden articles

Thanks for the request to look over your expansion of these articles; I've been out of the country and haven't had a chance yet, but I took a quick look and I'm impresed with the work you put into them! Thanks for your contributions and I'll get back to you whan I can. TAnthony 15:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, TAnthony, I'm really trying to figure out how to cut down on the plot summary of the Bianca Montgomery article, or if it's that necessary, gven her status as a long-running character on a soap opera, in which soap operas naturally have more episodes than primetime shows. Josh Madden's plot summary is more than an acceptable length, but I'm sure that it'll eventually get longer, with other editors adding on to it. When that happens, I'll just have to find a way to get his article back to an acceptable smaller length, without taking out important parts of his storyline. Flyer22 15:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Bianca Montgomery

Hi - sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I took a quick look at the article, and I would say the plot summary is a quite long, but if this is a long-running and major character I don't think it's excessive. Cheers, EliminatorJR ^Talk 06:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback, EliminatorJR. I'll probably edit down the plot summary eventually to the Bianca Montgomery character article, even though as I and you have stated...the Bianca Montgomery character is a long-running character of a soap opera. Well, most likely I'll definitely edit the plot summary down of that character article, if she returns for a longer stay, where then other editors will add on to her character history, making the plot summary even longer.

And, of course, don't worry about not having gotten back to me too soon on this matter. I know that editors on Wikipedia are busy with work, some more so than others. See you around, EliminatorJR. Flyer22 06:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Lily Montgomery.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Lily Montgomery.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Bianca Montgomery (Main).jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bianca Montgomery (Main).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

I just wanted to thank you for your kind comments on my talk page. I am also really impressed with the way you debate and am incredibly grateful to you for your interest and help with the EJ and Sami page. You are much more familiar with Wiki policy than I am and so I really appreciate the perspective that you can bring to the debate. I'm pleased to hear that it appears as though the article will not be deleted. I really do think it is of interest to a lot of people (with an interest in this particular soap). Thanks again! Radiantbutterfly 21:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• All neat, Radiantbutterfly.

And, on a totally different topic, as I stated on another editor's talk page, a tip that an experienced Wikipedian editor gave me when I first showed up at Wikipedia, is that it's best that an editor's user name on Wikipedia show up in blue instead of red. It just signals more a "real editor" vibe to experienced Wikipedian editors. You don't have to add on a lot to your user page, of course. You can just say "Hi" on your user page, and your user name will then show up in blue, of course. I've wanted to pass this tip on to you for a while now, so I finally did. Flyer22 23:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Lucille Ball-Desi Arnaz

Flyer22, The site that you are linking is hardly dedicated to the couple of Lucy and Desi. It's mostly about Lucille Ball with a few parahraphs on her relationship with Desi. Lucille Ball is my favorite actress and I am sure that the website I have continuously linked it to after it was removed, deals with their relationship because it is the home website for the Lucille Ball-Desi Arnaz Center in Jamestown, NY which is run by their daughter, Lucie Arnaz. Their legacy is based on lucy-desi.com, so it should remain on this website. Thank you.

• I'll ask at least two other editors here at Wikipedia on what they think on this matter later, because even though lucy-desi.com is based on Lucille and Desi's legacy, it's probably considered more of a fansite, in which Wikipedia usually doesn't want links to fansites, but for now...I won't remove it, if you add it back, at least not until I discuss this issue with two or more editors here. Flyer22 02:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I just really love Lucy and Desi.71.125.193.129 01:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone

Hi Flyer22. You are off to such a great start on the article Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 13:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• I must say that I didn't expect this article to get this kind of attention within the first couple of days of its creation. Thank you for your comments on this article and for even feeling that it can be featured on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Flyer22 20:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 28 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--ST47Talk·Desk 11:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Begging your help

It has become impossible to explain to Esse123 the concept of neutrality. She's posting every opinion article available. Opinions are a wonderful thing, we all have them, but they do not make for fact or neutrality. Please fix the Luke and Laura section of the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady page. I sincerely apologize to you for asking for your involvement but I can't seem to make Esse understand that the EJami page is not "all about the rape" which she seems to think it is.

• The article I printed was already cited, I merely included the full text. There can be nothing more neutral than providing the text of an article or "opinion piece" that has already been referenced. Esse123 22:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'll try to resolve this dispute between you two soon. Right now, I'm editing a few articles and am busy typing a screenplay that I am working on. Flyer22 22:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Good luck on your screenplay. I apologize for you being sucked into a fanbase war. My understanding is you reference articles, not post the entire article but I would be MORE THAN HAPPY to post the entire Santo/Colleen article ~ something that's not OPINION but an actual article. Let me know if that would help. And Esse didn't "print" the article, she retyped it. Also, please be aware she thinks of Wiki as a board according to her talk page. That tells me she does not understand neutrality.75.181.107.214 23:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Flyer. A quick note, I don't have any problem with the entire Santo/Colleen article being included. As a matter of fact, here is the full text right here:

"New Twist in DAY’S Most Controversial Tale

Sami and EJ’s story will take a different turn when portrayers Alison Sweeney and James Scott assume dual roles to play out the love story of Colleen Brady and Santo DiMera.

This week, the letters are finally translated and will be read by various Salemites while Scott and Sweeney bring them to life on-screen. “It’s really romantic story.” declares Sweeney. “I personally think that the idea of these tragic, star-crossed lovers is wonderful and very classic soap. It’s weird to go into this story where you know Colleen’s going to find the love of her life and then it’s going to end tragically and cause this feud.”

While Santo and Colleen will be falling in love, Sami and EJ will not. Nevertheless, this story provides an opportunity for the actors to work together romantically in less controversial tale, “Naturally, we don’t expect anyone to forget about the rape, nor do we expect anyone to take EJ’s rape of Sami lightly,” notes Co-Executive Producer Stephen Wyman. “However, we know life goes on. People can change. At some point, the issue of the rape is going to have to be dealt with in the fundamental way, but meanwhile, there is the audience that wants to see EJ and Sami together. [But] they aren’t forgetting about the rape, either.”

At this point, Sami is unaware that EJ is a dead ringer for Santo, as she is Colleen. “I’m not thinking of her as Sami and him As EJ: I have to play it as a different story.” Explains Sweeney. “She doesn’t see it as any sort of reflection on her relationship with EJ at all.”

The dual roles required that the actors work intensively with a dialect coach; Sweeney to handle an Irish brogue, Scott to learn an Italian accent. “My first reaction was utter, complete fear.” confesses the actress. “It’s all well and good to do a second role, but to have to do an Irish accent and play a character from the ‘50’s? The only thing that preoccupied me from the moment they told me is ‘I don’t want to look like a fool on television and I don’t know how I’m going to have the time, but I have to learn how to do this accent.’ It really scared me but now I’m starting to feel more confident with it.”

As you can see, the part I opted to quote in the wiki article is the only part of the article that speaks directly to Ej & Sami's history/story as a couple. That is why it is the only portion that I included in the wiki article about EJ & Sami's history/story as a couple. It's also the only quote/"statement" that has been made by a Days executive about the incident. I personally don't know where the rest of the article would fit in but I'll leave that up to you to decide. But my reasoning was that since under the "Luke & Laura" section of the "Details on Popularity" portion of the article, it had already been questioned..."Whether the original intent of the the scene between EJ and Sami on December 29, 2006 is ever confirmed by Days of our Lives executives or writers...", I figured a quote from an executive of the show - and whether its an "official statement" or not it is currently the ONLY quote that exists (to my knowledge) from any executive at the show about the incident - it should be included and noted for its contribution to the "debate". Esse123 05:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• The full text of the article is copyrited material and cannot be reproduced without the publisher's permission. That's why your inclusion of the entire opinion piece touting the "Rape is not Romance" campaign violates Wikipedias copyright rules. You do not have permission to include any of this information as it is a direct retype of the SOD article and no written permission has been given for inclusion in this article. It is also why I did not violate Flyers page by typing/copying the SOD Santeen article, it violates Wikipedia:Copyrights. I'm sorry, Flyer, for getting you involved but there has long been this Rape is not Romance campaign and the inclusion on the EJami page is political and not for accuracy sake. The piece is opinion, nothing to do with a press release from the show. If we include all the opinion pieces out there for any couple the servers would crash as everyone has an opinion on just about every soap couple out there.75.181.107.214 13:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• I'm going to look over the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article and do what must be done. Flyer22 15:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What's going on with Esse123 and the EJ and Sami article?

Hi Flyer22! I haven't been here for awhile because it seemed as though things settled down a bit after the deletion debate but I see that a new Lumi fan is trying to take away the neutrality of the EJ and Sami page again for some reason and is trying to turn it into a very negative article. I don't have any interest in getting into an edit war and was going to post something on their talk page but saw that it is filled to the brim with debate about this already so I decided not to add to it. It seems as though user Esse123 is trying to turn the article into a campaign against EJ & Sami being paired romantically by addressing the controversy in as negative a way as possible. Can this person be reported for vandalism or are they acting within Wiki policy in your opinion? I must say, it is tiring to see all these new editors sign up just to edit the EJ and Sami article in a negative way. There is a lot of negative stuff I could add to their Lucas and Sami article that is not there (how about a picture of Lucas hitting Sami as a memorable moment on that page? Or, a picture of Lucas sending Sami to death row?) but if this sort of thing is ok to do to the EJ and Sami article then I guess it sets a precedent and I will have to help them out by editing the Lucas and Sami article. Sorry for my frustration but I just find it hypocritical and childish for these people to vandalize the article like this when I don't believe anyone has even touched the Lucas and Sami article. As you yourself have acknowledged, EJ and Sami is a very popular pairing - if they weren't, the controversy wouldn't exist because the idea of them as a romantic pairing wouldn't exist. No one is calling them a supercouple yet but many viewers (Lumi fans can no more prove the popularity of Lumi than EJami fans can prove the popularity of EJami) think the potential is there. The simple fact that such a large and vocal fan base exists following the controversial scene in December speaks volumes about the popularity of the couple, in my opinion. Anyway, let me know where things stand if you have a minute. Thanks again for all your help with the article! Radiantbutterfly 17:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Flyer. I am also not interested in getting into another edit war so I will leave you to review the edit history and make your decision. While the contributions I made to the EJ & Sami article may be deemed by some to shed a "negative" light on the "couple", imo they are legitimate contributions. The "memorable moments" section, for example, has been repeatedly edited to remove moments that I contributed. There is no reason to remove those moments. It is my impression that the EJ & Sami article is not meant to be an advertisement for this "couple" but a fair discussion of their history. If "good" moments may be highlighted, then "bad" moments should as well; so long as they are "memorable" as the title of the section suggests. I also believe that the series of screenshots I contributed are relevant, much more so than a random screenshot of EJ and Sami talking in his office (though I did not remove that screenshot). If a screenshot of EJ "saving" Sami can be displayed (which I believe are misrepresentative considering his actions are what put her in danger in the first place), then imo the series of screenshots (or at least one screenshot) from "the incident" should be allowed to remain. Esse123 17:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Esse123, thank you for your interest in the article I created but with all due respect to Flyer and I have much respect for her because she has been a huge help to me with the EJ and Sami article, editing Wikipedia is a team effort and if there are concerns over an article's neutrality, there are means to deal with that but trying to pit editors against each other is not the way to go about things. You seem to be editing the EJ and Sami article based on your own personal opinion of the pairing and while I respect your opinion, personal opinions are not something you should be trying to convey in a Wikipedia article because it goes against Wiki policy. The article was created for those interested in the pairing but does remain neutral in that it addresses the controversy surrounding the pairing. Your edits seem to be based on the idea that the article isn't negative enough for you and that's because Wiki policy is to provide neutral articles - not positive or negative. The only section I've never been sure about is the memorable moments section and to be honest, I have been considering removing the section completely and I may still do that and just include the "moments" as character history in the text of the article. As far as the pictures are concerned, I am aware of copyright permission granted for only one of them and that is the first one I added and the copyright is based on the fact that the picture is a publicity shot provided by the network. The picture you added is not and neither are some of the others so perhaps they should be removed as well. Radiantbutterfly 18:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• I understand the issue of neutrality but with all due respect, referencing my "negative" entries, imo, illustrates your bias. While the contributions I have made were largely "negative" events that occured in the history of the characters, they are as equally relevant and necessary to a fair portrayal of that history as any "positive" events that occured. As you can see, I have generally deleted nothing that is already there - the majority of which is a "positive" representation of the characters' history. I have simply made additions of legitimate perspectives, articles/opinion pieces, and events that had been largely ignored but that are as equally relevant to their story, and the public reaction to that story, as anything else. I am glad you have concerns about the "memorable moments" section because as I have suggested, the removal of moments I added shows bias. Again, if "good" moments are to be listed, "bad" moments should be equally welcome, so long as they are "memorable". And the series of screenshots I contributed were added only because of the presence of other screenshots. Therefore, if my contribution is to be removed on the basis of copyright issues, then so should other screenshots. The fact that only the screenshots I contributed were removed on the basis of copyright issues shows bias. I would like to note however, that the photo at the top is not a "publicity shot provided by the network". It is two publicity shots edited together. While this is obvious by looking at it, and I do not believe it to be an attempt to misrepresent what was officially released by the network, referencing the photo as a "publicity shot" is inaccurate. I do not know what the issues are regarding edited photos being represented as photos released by the network but that is an issue I will leave to Flyer to address. Esse123 19:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• • My opinion is that the events listed everywhere but the memorable moments section were neutral in nature and presented in a neutral fashion. The pictures and events and other things that you want to add are negative in nature possibly because you feel the article is not negative enough not because you feel it is too positive. I believe your issue is with presenting things neutrally. I checked the page and I believe all screenshots have been removed except for the first one which I do agree is part of a publicity shot but it is not reasonable nor practical to include the entire publicity shot when only a portion of it is relevant to the article. I have changed the title of the memorable moments section but have left it for now - the intent was to show the reason that some people see the couple as a feasible romantic pairing which is the purpose of having an article for a couple. It simply lends support to the pairing as a romantic one that's all. Please take a look at other couples pages to see the general way in which these pages are written. They focus on the couple's romantic history and I think that is generally acceptable for this type of page. I have tried to reword the moments to simply state what happened without embellishment but feel free to remove any embellishments you think have been made. To ensure the neutrality of an article, you do not need to ADD negativity to the article, you can simply re-word existing sections you feel are not neutral. That does not mean that all editors will agree with you but that is a better approach than trying to make the article negative enough for your taste. In my assessment, the article was not presented in a positive or negative way but your contributions were negative. This does not show bias on my part at all and I'm not sure why you feel the need to insult me. Flyer and I have been working on this article together so I hope that she and I will address the concerns together. If you are really interested in EJ and Sami and want to help us improve the article, by all means do so but it is not a contest to see if every comment you feel is positive has an equal and opposite negative one. Creating a neutral article is about making the tone of the article neutral and I do not feel you are helping us towards that end at the moment. What you are doing is akin to someone editing the Lucas and Sami page by adding all of the negative things Lucas has done to Sami over the years. I don't believe that helps improve that article any more than what you are trying to do helps improve this article.

Flyer22 - if you would like to delete this conversation from your talk page and put it on mine, I am perfectly ok with that. I don't think above couple of paragraphs belong here but I didn't want to edit anything out of your talk page myself. Incidentally, is it possible to have a talk page for a specific article because I'm beginning to think this article needs it! :) Radiantbutterfly 21:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for removing all screenshots. My observation about the first picture was not that it was a part of a publicity shot that was cropped, it is that it was two seperate publicity shots that have been released by NBC and placed together by someone else. If this is the case, identifying it as A "publicity shot" is inaccurate. I am not aware of NBC issuing an official image wherein any portion of that image shows EJ and Sami placed together in that way. That is why it was and still is my assumption that the images have been placed together by someone else, someone not from NBC, Days Of Our Lives, etc. Since the website cited as the source of the picture is no longer there, it is impossible for me to tell, unless someone is able to provide the full, original, single image released by NBC/Days where EJ and Sami are placed together in that way. I'm sorry if you feel I have offended you but as I said, I made those observations about both you and the editing done by others with all due respect.

BUT, I will concede that I may be grossly mistaken about the intent of wikipedia. If your explanation of what the couple page is intended to do - "to show the reason that some people see the couple as a feasible romantic pairing" - is accurate to the purpose of a couple page on wikipedia, then I will grant you that some of my contributions have been inappropriate. However, my belief that the intention of wikipedia.org is to present articles of an "encyclopedic" nature prompted me to make contributions that showed a balanced representation of the events that occured between the characters, whether they showed "the reason that some people see the couple as a feasible romantic pairing" or not. In short, it was my belief the page was intended to show an unbiased, purely neutral account of the events that have occured between the two characters, NOT a page aimed towards outlining the views of those who see them as a feasible romantic pairing. I would offer that the latter sort of representation of a couple's story is NOT what the general public would consider to be "neutral".

Perhaps Flyer22 can clarify for me if it is indeed the purpose of a couple page on wikipedia to so heavily favor the views of those who see them as a viable couple versus those who may not. Esse123 22:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I appreciate you acknowledging that there is "embellishment" in certain areas of the article. Esse123 23:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to point out something else that you might want to consider - the more you and other new Wiki editors edit and show interest in this article and only this article, the more credibility you provide to the argument that EJ and Sami are a very popular pairing and possibly more so than their rival pairing since to this point, I don't think anyone has even been interested enough in the rival pairing's article to bother editing it to make it more neutral. I'd just like you to consider, with respect, the intention of the article - to provide information about the pairing for those who are interested in them not to campaign for or against the pairing. If you wish to continue discussing things with me further, you can use my talk page. Thank you. Radiantbutterfly 18:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• Whoa, I'm putting those two screenshots that were originally in the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article back. They are allowed to be there. I haven't read all of what you guys have stated on my talk page. I will go and return those two screenshots to that article and I'll come back here, visit both of your talk pages, read was stated there by you two, and come back here to reply to you both. Flyer22 23:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay

Radiantbutterfly, it's good to see you back. I was wondering where you were and I was wondering how you'd feel about the new additions to the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article, although I had an inkling about how you'd mostly feel about them.

On to business:

You two haven't stated anything on each others' talk page about this specific conversation that has played out on my talk page...yet, I see.

As for the image subject and copyright laws as to images on Wikipedia, as I stated on 65.13.237.254's talk page, screenshots are allowed under a Fair-Use rationale on Wikipedia. You don't need NBC's permission to use those screenshots. All you need is a good Fair-Use rationale, along with proper licensing of those (or any screenshot or promotional) images. And the screenshots should be relevant to what's being addressed and or relevant to the plot summary of its article if it's within the plot summary. The screenshot of EJ and Sami in the Cultural impact section of the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article doesn't necessarily go with what's being addressed, but it is explained in the Fair-Use rationale of that image as to why it is being used in that section.

Fair-Use screenshots cannot be used as the main image for an actor or actress in an actor or actress' article, however.

Next topic:

Couple articles should remain neutral, of course. When a couple article is created, it should provide information as to why they are notable...more so in the form of real-world context, which the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article does have. If either of you are asking me if a couple article on Wikipedia is supposed to be for the fans of that couple, no, it's not...even though fans and non-fans who are familiar with that couple are more likely to visit that couple's article than a random internet surfer would. A couple article, any article on Wikipedia, for that matter, should be written from a perspective that a casual reader will want to read an article on Wikipedia that is valid, clear, and bits that may be important to fans of that article's subject may not matter all that much to that casual reader, thus too much of fan-cruft and or insignificant moments should stay out of an article on Wikipedia. The articles on Wikipedia should be able to pull in, interest, invite all readers...not just fans of that article's subject matter.

The other issue brought up -- Yes, Radiantbutterfly, there is a specific talk page in which we can discuss all that was discussed on my talk page in relation to the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article. The Talk:EJ Wells and Samantha Brady page is where we should further discuss this. Additional comments from you guys on the matter that the three of us have discussed here should be made on that talk page. Flyer22 00:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

It wasn't until I spent countless hours trying to keep one page clean that I realized what a full time job being an editor can be if you make it. Thanks for all your help with the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady page. Those of us who are fans knew it would be an undertaking, thanks for helping us with it.CelticGreen 00:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• You're welcome. That article is one of the interesting articles to edit. Flyer22 00:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:6-1-07-3 1 0003.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:6-1-07-3 1 0003.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:086297.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:086297.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for the support! I am flattered by your comments.  :) Also, just as a procedural note: The way that RfAs are structured is different from AfDs. Instead of people adding their comments to the bottom of the current list, there are three sections for "Support" "Oppose" and "Neutral". So I'd recommend moving your comment into the appropriate section. Also, there's a "total tally" number at the top of the page which should be updated to reflect the current totals. Though even experienced Wikipedians often forget to update that number, so it's usually a good idea to do not just a "plus 1", but to actually double-check totals and see if it needs to be brought into line with some earlier comments. Another etiquette thing is that it's usually a good idea to put a note in your edit summary indicating what you just did. But all of this is really just FYI... I'm sure that even if you don't do anything, the page will get cleaned up (it's getting watched pretty closely). But I did want to let you know! Thanks again, Elonka 21:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, Elonka, yeah, I had figured out that my Support vote shouldn't be at the bottom of the page in the Oppose section. Flyer22 21:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't have much to say at this moment about this, but I am very disappointed that your second nomination for becoming an administrator didn't succeed with the keys to the administrative power of Wikipedia. And the sockpuppetry that went on during this second nomination process of yours is wrong on so many levels. Just wrong! Not to mention the canvassing that I'm certain went on in this process. You deserve to be an administrator here at Wikipedia as much as any other Wikipedian administrator due to the fact that you have proven yourself as one of the top ten best editors we have here at Wikipedia, regardless of what happened in this second nomination of yours. I will see you around, Elonka. I know that you won't let what happened in this second nomination bring you down. Take care. Flyer22 12:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Yup, I too was very disappointed with the behavior of some of the participants. It's one thing to oppose my nomination for good faith reasons, but I definitely saw multiple names who were just opposing out of a desire for revenge from long ago disagreements. It was also distressing to me, because of how badly it reflects on Wikipedia. Many of my professional peers knew about my attempt to become an admin, and they were kind of shaking their heads sadly -- they're convinced that Wikipedia is corrupt to the core, and they think I'm nuts for spending so much time here. They see Wikipedia as being run by children, and badly-behaved children at that.  :/ I argue with them and point out all the good that is in Wikipedia, but the discussion that went on at my RfA unfortunately just reinforced the convictions of some of my more cynical peers. I'm still trying to stay optimistic though -- I'm confident that in the long run, good does triumph, and that with enough well-meaning folks, we can get things turned around. I see you as one of the shining stars in Wikipedia's future, btw. Keep up the great work, and I'm confident you'll make admin too! Maybe even before I will! :) Best, --Elonka 23:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't feel comfortable becoming an administrator before you, Elonka. The fact is...you're a far more skilled Wikipedian editor than me and than a lot of Wikipedian editors, administrators or otherwise, but thank you for the kind words. After seeing this RfA, my first time seeing and or participating in a RfA, as you know, but after that and what is explained above, I can definitely see why many of your professional peers feel the way that they do about Wikipedia. But maybe, in time, if plenty more Wikipedian editors like you, active in great style and absent of corrupt actions, join Wikipedia, it will help change their minds and will help further prove Wikipedia as a project worth fighting for. Best wishes to you too, Elonka. Flyer22 16:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Image assistance please

Image:Colleen Brady.jpg and Image:SantoDiMeraPic.jpg have been flagged in a manner I don't understand. Could you help before they are deleted? Thank you. These are on the Colleen Brady and Santo DiMera pages.IrishLass0128 19:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• I already took care of the Colleen Brady.jpg image, as noted on your talk page. Both images look fine, IrishLass0128. I see no sort of violation tag on them. Flyer22 19:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• The Santo DiMera has one on the talk page of the image. I'm just trying to do things correctly. I saw the notation on my talk page after I requested help with the images. My aplogies. Thank you for all your helpIrishLass0128 20:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oh, you mean that a tag concerning a violation of that image was placed on the talk page of the article that image is within, which is the Santo DiMera article. Yes, even though the fair-use rationale for that image has been provided, that message from that bot about its fair-use rationale will stay on that talk page...unless removed from that talk page. But, yeah, you should have no worries about that image anymore concerning its fair-use rationale; that image is fine. Just a few moments ago, I even left a note under that warning from that bot. Flyer22 20:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Cliff and Nina

I noticed the article has gotten a nice makeover. However, you've left out key plot points, like aborted relationships to other people. I know it's an article about that couple, but to cut out the context leaves gaping holes in understanding what they went through and why they went back together in the first place. I can understand maybe not mentioning Devon, but the death of Amy Stone and Nina's husband Matt Connolly do need to be mentioned, as they are very important to the plot. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 02:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hey, Mike, it's good to see you. Yeah, as can obviously be observed, I don't know much about the Cliff Warner and Nina Cortlandt romance, except from what I've read of their article here at Wikipedia and a few other sources. Sorry to have cut out important detail that you note should be mentioned. I'll add that back, if you don't add it back. If you can help me at all with that article, it will be much appreciated by me. I was going to ask you if you have any small or significant details in some type of book or books at your home about some of the classic soap opera supercouples of the Supercouple article, so that I can better provide notability to their articles here at Wikipedia that isn't so easily acquired on the internet for some of them. Anyway, get back to me when you can on this. Flyer22 02:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Frankie_Stone.jpg

I have tagged Image:Frankie_Stone.jpg as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• The image Frankie_Stone.jpg is going to be used in the Frankie Stone article. I just haven't added it to the Frankie Stone article yet, but I was and am going to soon. Flyer22 16:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:EJami.jpg

Is that an actual image, or did you past two separate photos together?

Are there any promotional photos out there of the two posing while in-character? --Silvestris 22:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, I didn't paste that picture together. Go to the talk page of the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article and you'll see that that image was discussed. And you'll get a better idea of what the main editors of that article agreed upon when it comes to that article. Flyer22 22:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

For the photoshoot; are you referring to Image:Alisonsweeneyjamesscottyp0.jpg? I'd rather keep the current one, though I think the image should be made a little smaller as the current size leaves the details fuzzy. --Silvestris 23:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• I wasn't referring to that image. I was referring to this image: Image:Sami and EJ.png.

And, yeah, the main image that's there now is fuzzy in its appearance as being increased in size. It was displayed in a smaller size within that article. It will soon be replaced anyway, so I brought up the notion of the Image:Sami and EJ.png as the main image for the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article, though I feel that we should find a slightly bigger copy of that image. Flyer22 23:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• The image is an actual image with dead space cropped out. It is being used by NBC for the DiMera/Brady vendetta story. We can get a clearer image if necessary. Just let me know.CelticGreen 02:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Which image? The Dimera/Brady reveal one? What all do you mean in this newest message to me, CelticGreen. Flyer22 02:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oh, you mean the main image of that article. Flyer22 02:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Flyer22 sorry for any confusion. There's been vandalism all over and I don't seem to be answering the question I think I am sometimes (must be those 106 degree temps here the last two days. I'm honestly not sure which image we are talking about. My understanding was the main image. Yes, it's a little blurry but it is an actual image with dead space removed. I'm sure I can get it cleaned up if need be. Please just let me know.CelticGreen 19:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

IP 41.241.46.104

Although I sincerely doubt it will help if you do, is there any way you could post a message to this user? They repeated edit the Santo DiMera page adding their opinion and assumptions. If you look at the history you will see numerous changes to the Santo date of birth based on assumptions of other characters' assumed dates of birth. As you and I know SORASs is always a factor in soaps but this person is not "getting it" and repeated changing a page to their assumptions. There are interviews and numerous other factors indicating that the Santo DiMera/Colleen Brady story is set in the 1950s but this person refuses to abide by the verifiable content rule. Any help would be appreciated. (ps ~ my apologies for putting this on your front page. I did not mean to, I've been beating my head over this user and one other vandal.CelticGreen 18:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have done what I can on this matter, as seen with this internal link.

If you feel that what this editor keeps doing to those two articles you mention is being done, you may seek to get the thoughts of one of the Wikipedian administrators, of course. I'm not a Wikipedian administrator yet, though you all sure do make me feel like one when I'm approached on matters such as these by you all. I'm not complaining about that though. I like helping editors out on Wikipedia. Flyer22 21:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

EJ Wells Samantha Brady Page

Esse123 refuses to leave the article neutral and keeps changing the neurtal page with the correct article and puts in place her opinions. The article she is choosing to refer to is NOT about the rape but is a two page article about Santo DiMera and Colleen Brady. While I believe she has every right to have the portion of the article, her version makes it sound like the article was an official statement when it was merely a quote within an article, not any kind of official statement. Additionally, the bolding of the word rape and the word count contribute nothing. I hope I did this right. I'm sorry if I didn't.75.181.107.214 23:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• I will talk with Esse on this, and see what I can resolve for you all on this matter. Flyer22 23:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Thank you for changing the title. I removed her comments of "despite the debate" and returned the paragraph to the neutral "in an article about Santo and Colleen" as she has no proof of debates other than message boards which are opinion, not fact. Starting with "despite the debate" only serves as inflamatory and starts the fight to make the article neutral all over again. The article is about Santo and Colleen, and the fact that producers recognize the Sweeney/Scott pairing as a popular one, not about the debate. I made it a neutral statement. Thank you for your help.75.181.107.214 13:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Sorry to bother you again. I included the "four times" and the bold despite my disagreement with the use of bold, but removed "despite the debate" and did what I could for neutrality.:

In an article about the Santo DiMera/Colleen Brady storyline in the July 17 2007 edition of Soap Opera Digest, Days of our Lives Co-Executive Producer Stephen Wyman refers to the December 29 2006 incident between EJ and Sami as rape four times. He is quoted as saying:

"Naturally, we don’t expect anyone to forget about the rape, nor do we expect anyone to take EJ’s rape of Sami lightly,” notes Co-Executive Producer Stephen Wyman. “However, we know life goes on. People can change. At some point, the issue of the rape is going to have to be dealt with in the fundamental way, but meanwhile, there is the audience that wants to see EJ and Sami together. [But] they aren’t forgetting about the rape, either.”

The article which is about the Santo/Colleen storyline in which the actors Alison Sweeney and James Scott portray two characters from the past falling in love. Soap Opera Digest notes, "this story provides an opportunity for the actors to work together romantically in a less controversial tale."

I hope this stays in line with Wiki's policy and again, sorry if I did this wrong. Talk pages confuse me. Here is a link to the full article, typed by someone, http://boards.sonypictures.com/soaps/showthread.php?t=93931 if you want to decide. Thank you again75.181.107.214 14:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Flyer. I'm sorry to put you in the middle of all this. I don't know what Wiki's policies are on personal, verbal attacks but I'd like you to make note of some of what was said between myself and the other editor. It is all on my discussion board. I apologize for my part in this petty back-and-forth editing, but there was no call for some of what was said to me.

Also, regarding the "despite the debate" issue, the word "debate" was chosen specifically because it has been used multiple times in the article already. It was not my word, I took it from the wiki article itself. In fact the exact wording of "Despite the heated debate" begins the "Rival Couple" entry under "Details on Popularity". I would like for it to be added back to the Co-Exec Quote entry but will wait for your decision. Esse123 15:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• The article is not about the debate. The article is about Santo and Colleen. You cannot reference a debate as there is no reference to it in the article. "Referencing" debate indicates it is part of the article and it is not, it is the personal feelings of one editor that he made the comments because of the debate. Your not understanding that you are referencing an article, not embellishing it. You do not know Wyman knows anything of the debate. You only know what you know, that there is an online debate. As to "personal attacks" I am not putting my personal feelings into the article. I am making a sincere and concerted effort to keep the article neutral, which you do seem intent not to do. The SOD article did NOT address the debate, it addressed the storyline of Santo and Colleen and had a notation about the rape. That is all. That's what the SOD article is about and that's what the paragraph is to reference to remain neutral. Also your statement said "- Despite debate by some fans about the show's position on the December 29 2006 events between EJ and Sami" the debate is not about the "shows position" the debate is about whether or not it was rape. The "show" has used the word deal, obliged, and Wyman used rape. It is obvious even the show doesn't take a hard and fast position on the subject. I have no objection to the reference from the SOD article being included. My objection is the embellishment and personal feelings. User:75.181.107.214|75.181.107.214]] 15:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • • • Another editor with just an IP is having issues with the page and deleting mass quantities of content. She left a message on the talk page and I replied. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks so much CelticGreen 19:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I'll see what I can do about that. Flyer22 20:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting article

I wrote an article a month ago you might find interesting. I'm surprised I didn't share it with you, since we are from the same town. Tell me what you think. Escambia High School riots. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Interesting article indeed. It is a good read. And I see that it made Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on July 11 2007. Definitely well-deserved of that feature. If you ever want me to help edit this article, or help expand it, if you feel that it needs expansion, of course, don't hesitate to ask me. Flyer22 05:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

IP User 24.6.65.83

Are they allowed insult other editors by calling them ignorant?CelticGreen 00:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia surely discourages calling editors insulting names here at Wikipedia. If you feel that this instance you mention was a personal attack against you, here is Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks, titled, of course, as Wikipedia: No personal attacks.

Flyer22 01:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Sonny and Carly

The reason I nominated the article for deletion was not because the content was "junk," as that is not a sufficient reason to delete. I nominated it because I feel that articles on soap opera couples should not exist if articles exist for each one individually. I stand by this regardless of how many such articles exist currently. That being said, there is no change that you could have made to the article that would have made it keep-worthy, since the whole concept of the article doesn't belong in Wikipedia.

As for notifying you, I don't see how you can be upset about that, considering that I responded directly to your comment on the talk page, saying that I would nominate the article for deletion. What's more, if you had taken even one glance at the article itself during the time in which its deletion was being discussed, you would have seen the AfD tag on top. If you had actually made any attempt to improve the article during that time, you might have been able to contribute to the deletion discussion.--DLand^TALK 13:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Articles on soap opera couples shouldn't be deleted just because you (or any editors) feel that they don't belong on Wikipedia when they have their own individual articles. Wikipedia is about notability more than anything, and if a soap opera couple is notable, then they can be included on Wikipedia. The article Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone, which was cited as more than a notable enough couple and good article by well-respected Wikipedians before I even updated it to what it is now, is more than enough proof of that. The Bianca Montgomery article is supposed to detail her life, which it does, and with the impact that her relationship with Maggie Stone had on many viewers, it deserved/deserves its own article to approach that couple's creation, history, and impact, which is what articles on soap opera couples are supposed to be about, and is why notable soap opera couples have their own articles here at Wikipedia. The whole concept of those articles do belong on Wikipedia, when they are notable and are formatted right. A couple's notable relationship shouldn't be squeezed into both characters' individual articles, which is redundant enough in that form.

As for your saying that you responded to me on that article's talk page, clearly I didn't see it and I didn't re-visit that article in the time of its deletion debate, or else I would have responded. I have responded and saved every soap opera couple article that I have given an overhaul to during a deletion debate, and that's not to sound as if I have an ego either, but rather that, of course, I would have participated in this deletion debate as well. Anyway, I'm not upset with you over this. I do, however, stand by not only feeling but knowing that Wikipedia is a place for the soap opera couple articles...when they are notable, that is. Flyer22 13:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You wrote that "just because you (or any editors) feel that they don't belong on Wikipedia" is not a good enough reason to delete an article. But isn't that the very definition of consensus? Anyway, I looked over the Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article, and then I browsed through Category:Supercouples, and I want to revise what I said earlier. I would submit that a supercouple has the potential to be notable, but only if the couple has some real significance outside of just the fact that they are a "supercouple". So while Bianca and Maggie might survive that standard because of the attention they got from GLAAD, I don't think that any other supercouples would survive an AfD. It appears that most of your "Cultural impact" sections are just snippets from reviews saying how great the couple is. If you want to attempt to salvage any or all of the articles, let me know - I'm considering nominating all or most of them for deletion. No hard feelings, I hope, DLand^TALK 16:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• That's not what the Cultural impact sections of the other soap opera couple articles that I've improved are truly about; it's about notability from non-soap opera press, which is difficult for soap opera couples to come by. So the ones that are mentioned or talked about in non-soap opera (outside) press is what separates them from the other couples. And Bianca and Maggie certainly got more attention than from just GLAAD. As for the other soap opera supercouples, again, Wikipedia is more so about notability and the standard for a notable fictional couple on Wikipedia by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Soap_Operas#Notable_couples is that the couple must be notable, as in having been mentioned in outside press. Yes, I would have hard feelings if you were to nominate all of the other articles of notable soap opera couples and or supercouples for deletion, especially since I have to get to them one by one to fix them up. And three (five if you count two couples that are more so notable than a supercouple) of those soap opera supercouples already did survive an AfD (deletion debate) and were later expressed to me by even some Wikipedians who didn't feel that soap opera couple articles could meet Wikipedia standards, that I proved them wrong in my soap opera supercouple article overhauls. There are a few soap opera couple articles that may not be able to provide notability by Wikipedia standards, and those I will point out to you once I fix up the ones that actually can provide notability by Wikipedia standards. We should strike up a deal: Perhaps that you won't nominate anymore soap opera supercouple articles until I have a chance to improve them. And the ones that simply cannot provide notability by Wikipedia standards, I will alert you to, as you feel that they should be deleted. Flyer22 19:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• A lot of these articles only need fixing up, such as the Luke Spencer and Laura Webber article. They are a (well, most would say THE) very highly notable couple and can provide a great deal of real-world impact within their article, but at this moment, their article here on Wikipedia is a mess. It doesn't mean that they are not a notable couple by Wikipedia standards, of course, but rather means that someone (which will most likely be me) has to fix up their article. It's going to take time, of course, for me to whip these articles that are badly-shaped according to Wikipedia's standards, well, into decent, good...or great shape. Flyer22 19:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in any rush to delete the articles, but I do still think they should be deleted. The guidelines at WP:SOAPS do not have the acceptance of the general Wikipedia community, and I believe them to be on the liberal side. A passing mention in Soap Opera Digest or some newspaper from Lynchburg just doesn't cut it for me as cultural impact - obviously you disagree, but that's why we have an AfD procedure. As for giving you some time to work on the articles - that's fine with me. I'll give you a week or so to do your thing.--DLand^TALK 22:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• I need more than a week to fix up all these soap opera supercouple articles. I can't have some time limit as strict as a week, as in trying to break my fingers on my keyboard in hurrying up and fixing all these soap opera couple articles, even though you state that you are not in a rush to delete any of them. If I could fix all of these soap opera couple articles up in a week to where they need to be, then they would have all been fixed up by now. Furthermore, I have a life outside of Wikipedia, of course, which calls attention from me as well, no matter how often I visit Wikipedia. Also, a "passing" mention of a soap opera supercouple in Lynchburg's daily newspaper, The News & Advance, where it states that couple as a supercouple, especially when it is specifically addressing soap opera supercouples, proves notability of that couple. Though I wouldn't state that such a mention is more so passing, but is rather pointing more so to notability, in the same way that a person making People magazine's top ten most beautiful list is providing notability of that person's beauty. What other way is a soap opera couple named a supercouple than by outside non-soap press itself, unless it's being named a notable couple or supercouple by an established soap opera magazine? Victor Newman and Nikki Reed were cited as a notable supercouple by more than just Lynchburg's daily newspaper (The News & Advance), and when a soap opera couple is cited as a supercouple or notable couple by multiple outside press, then, yes, that is notable and they are definitely a supercouple.

Once I fixed up that article, User:EliminatorJR, who certainly isn't too keen on soap opera supercouple articles existing on Wikipedia and nominated that article for deletion before I fixed that article up, even felt that that article provided notability by Wikipedia standards after I gave it an overhaul, not just by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Soap_Operas#Notable_couples standards. My fixing up those articles were also by Wikipedia's general notability standards, in while one mention by outside press is not substantial coverage of a soap opera couple, multiple outside press mentions of a soap opera couple as notable is enough to provide notability by Wikipedia standards. And I'm also not done expanding those first four soap opera couple articles that I saved from deletion. If the soap opera couple articles on Wikipedia provide creation/history/cultural impact, which the others will when I get through fixing them up, then they are not violating Wikipedia policy and have every right to stay on Wikipedia. I mean, as I mentioned before, some of these articles have already survived a deletion debate, and not many people showed up to debate their deletion either, but the ones that did show up to debate their possible deletion mostly voted Keep, so if you'e telling me that you're going to keep nominating these notable soap opera couple articles and soap opera supercouple articles for deletion until they are deleted from Wikipedia, because you don't want them on Wikipedia, even after they pass a deletion debate, I feel that that is a waste of time, even if a soap opera couple article that you want deleted from Wikipedia is eventually deleted from Wikipedia.

I tend to think like User:Ground Zero, who has what is mentioned below about notability on his user page --

Notability:

WP:NOTABLE, an essay on notability, states clearly (in bold text): "There is no official policy on notability."

Further, there is no consensus that "notability" should be a criterion for inclusion. See the grounds for deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and, for interest, Jimbo Wales' view on notability, as expressed in the poll where notability failed to become an accepted reason for deletion.

-- That is what is on experienced Wikipedian editor Ground Zero's user page, as I mentioned previously, and, of course, I'm not stating that it should really factor into what we are discussing at this moment, but I felt like posting it here. However, I also lean more toward what other (if not most) experienced Wikipedian editors define as notable and when it comes to soap opera couples, if their article is encyclopedic, which, yes, it certainly can be, and it shows that they are cited as a notable couple or a supercouple by outside press, then, I definitely feel that their article belongs on Wikipedia. All of the true supercouples had a huge impact on the television audience and Luke Spencer and Laura Webber's romance defined what a supercouple is, although more so by television standards in that case, though the term Supercouple was basically created due to the Luke Spencer and Laura Webber coupling, and it sent that term into pop culture, and this knowledge should be presented on Wikipedia in an encyclopedic way, which it can be. I would advise you not to expect me to fix up all or even half of these soap opera couple articles in a week and rather agree to what I suggested above. But, regardless, I have much work to do here at Wikipedia...and I will enjoy tackling that work. Flyer22 02:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A week was just a suggestion - I didn't mean it as a hard deadline. But this can't be pushed off indefinitely. Articles (with the exception of new articles or stubs) are generally judged in AfD by their current content "as is", not their potential to become worthy of inclusion. Anyway, feel free to take more time, but not too much.

On the issue of notability, you wrote that "there is no consensus that 'notability' should be a criterion for inclusion." That was true until September 6, 2006, when WP:N became official policy - please look it over, it's very clear on this point. The grounds for deletion at WP:DP include "subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline" - it's right there on the page. And the quote from Jimbo was specifically about "fame" and "importance", not notability, and that quote is pretty old anyway. I know you were quoting from User:Ground Zero, but that doesn't make it right - maybe he hasn't updated his user page in a while. --DLand^TALK 04:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, yes, I know all about that quote being out-dated by Wikipedia policy. I found that out within the first few weeks I showed up here at Wikipedia. But I quoted it anyway, because I truly believe what is stated there, even though I'm also for notability by Wikipedia standards being the policy for Wikipedia article inclusion.

When it comes to these couple articles, I'm all about them being notable in having been mentioned as a notable couple by outside (non-soap opera) press multiple times or having had decent, good...or great coverage from outside (non-soap opera) press, which separates them from other soap opera couples and therefore proves their notability...notability, which I feel should be included on Wikipedia. Not every soap opera couple can have an article on Wikipedia, of course, only the notable ones by Wikipedia standards can, and what I mentioned above for soap opera couples in what being notable is about for soap opera couples is definitely the case. On the topic of improving these soap opera couple articles, I'm not, at this moment, interested in expanding the soap opera couple articles that have already been spared from deletion and deemed notable enough to be on Wikipedia. They can be expanded later. I'm more interested in improving the soap opera couple articles that are in bad shape right now, and are in clear violation of Wikipedia standards, so if you keep checking on my work here at Wikipedia, which I'm sure that you will, those are the main soap opera couple articles that you will see me working on. And, again, it is quite work-induced cleaning up these soap opera couple articles, so I'm asking you not to expect some improvements to all of them too soon. The ones that I cannot provide cultural impact on, outside of the soap opera press, I will relay to you. Flyer22 04:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles seeking input

Hello, I was hoping if you could go over a couple of articles for me, Lulu Spencer and Kate Howard. I've been trimming Lulu's article down quite a bit and later will be looking to add references and make it better. Kate Howard's article, I think it is pretty ok. I have added references to popular culture, as well as some research to tie it in to the "real world". I appreciate any suggestions you may have. I have also tried to trim down and fix Alexis Davis and fix Amelia Joffe and a bunch other in dire need of editing. But, these are the four I am focusing on right now.--Charleenmerced ^Talk 19:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hello, Charleenmerced. Yes, I will look those articles over. I mean, I'm busy at this moment with typing up better versions of several soap opera supercouple articles in order to make sure that they are in accordance with Wikipedia policy and I'm in the middle of a deletion (AfD) debate, as well as fixing up a screenplay that I'm writing at the moment, but I will look over the articles that you have asked me to look over, and I will give you my thoughts about them. The reason I mentioned the other matters that I'm busy with at the moment is so that if I don't respond to you too soon on all of the articles you want me to look over, you will know that it's because I'm busy with work on some other matters, no more to it than that. Anyway, talk with you later. Flyer22 19:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: BAM

I'll see what I can do. Soaps are not my forte, but that may be a benefit. I'm slightly familiar with Bianca, my mother is big into soaps, so I won't be flying completely blind. I'll try and give it a good read over tonight before I go to bed, and look at the peer review so as not to repeat anything else that is said.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Awesome, Bignole, thank you. I knew that I could count on you on this as to my request for your assessment of this article. Flyer22 01:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I've only given a partial review, I'm still in the "Writing" section of the article, and it's getting late so I'll have to pick it up after work tomorrow. But, asking me to review an article also means you get my credence on IU information, and I'm a stickler for severe summarization of such stuff. I've always felt that if it was important, then it would have OOU information attached to it. You may want to contact User:Paul730 and User:Zythe also for help in trimming it. Paul has been working on Buffy Summers in his sandbox, and taken 7 seasons worth of information for a main character and summarized it into concise paragraphs. I'd also suggest using the semicolon trick instead of subheadings for the various stages in the character's fictional life. It makes the table of contents more attractive. Also, on a bigger note, there are far too many images in that area as well. The first kiss is probably the most "impacting" moment for the characters, after and before that, it's pure eye candy. I'll pick up reading the article when I get off work tomorrow. Even though it's heavy criticism, you have done an excellent job with it. Even though it still needs some major work, I'd put this article over Andrew Van De Kamp in a heart beat. ;)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay, Bignole. I'll try my best to tackle your concerns, in a way that we can come to agreements that what we remove from this article is not taking away from this article, of course, but is rather improving it, and I know that you have a good sense of direction on those matters. I'll get right to contacting User:Paul730 and User:Zythe as to ask for their possible assistance on this article. I saw User:Paul730's mention of the Buffy Summers article on User:Elonka's talk page and then on your talk page also. And, yes, he is doing a good job on summarizing that article's plot. I've thought about cutting down on some of the plot of this article as well, of course, but then I wasn't sure on if it really needs to be cut down. I mean, most of it seems so significant to the relationship of these two characters, but the fact that I see it that way could also be that I'm too attached to this article and that I've been working on it constantly, without too much of a break from it and without other editors thoughts on it as well, unless one counts the "Article looks good" statement that I got from two editors when this article was featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did you know? section. Talk with you later. Flyer22 02:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Noticed your reply before I hit the hay...I'll read that section as well and see if I can summarize it also. It's things like - "People, even then-enemy and sister Kendall Hart, crowd around Bianca to make sure that Bianca is okay. - that can go. It's all written in detail, when it could be easier to summarize the events in a more general tone. You could summarize that first bit to say: "Mary Stone comes to Pine Valley to investigate the murder of her twin sister, Frankie, whom Bianca immediately mistakens her for at first sight." -- All the quotes and details about Bianca falling down when she sees her, they aren't necessary. People can watch SoapNet and find out what happens, or read it on a Wikia page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
• Laughing out loud, Bignole. I like the mention of Bianca falling down at first sight of Maggie though. I mean...the drama. Oh, well. I want to keep the two youtube links there that are within this article's plot though. Flyer22 03:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Flyer, yeah I remember you. I have never even heard of these characters before (I'm Scottish, and American soaps don't get a whole load of coverage over here), but I found the article very interesting and was impressed with the amount of out-of-universe info that is so rare in fictional character pages. I have left advice for summarising plot sections and character histories at the Andrew Van De Kamp featured article review, if you want to take a look. Other advice/criticism of the article include:

• The links to youtube - I'm no expert on policies, but I think those are a no-no.
• The sentence "rattle on cluelessly" in the "writing" section seems a little informal to me - maybe reword.
• The dates of these character's first appearances should be included in the lead. Maybe it's mentioned later, but you shouldn't have to dig through an article for crucial info like that.
• Too many subheading in the "chemistry" section.

Those are my only major concerns after a quick skim through the article. I'll read it over more thoroughly later, and if you have any specific questions or need help summarising the plot, just ask. :) Paul730 04:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Thank you, Paul. I'm going to get right to tackling the parts of the article that you and Bignole have pointed out as needing to be improved. I'm working on this article, all of the other soap opera couple articles here at Wikipedia that need fixing up to at least meet Wikipedia policy, and I'm perfecting a screenplay that I'm working on, so all of this is a little hectic for me at this time. As for youtube, I read Wikipedia's policy on that, that a few links are okay to include within an article on Wikipedia, as long as they are not excessive. But as for including youtube links within an article's plot, yeah, that may not be too common here on Wikipedia. Still, I feel that that issue may be okay, when it's only one, two...or three youtube links. This article only has two youtube links within its plot, of course. Talk with you later. And thanks to both of you guys' compliments on this article, even as it is now (before its further fixing up). Flyer22 05:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've never heard of the character, but summarisation shouldn't be impossible... you'll find most of plot summary can just go.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 09:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Hey, Zythe, good to see you. Flyer22 09:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You tube links have to go. It's copyrighted content, that even YouTube shouldn't be posting. If the studio wants, they can have them removed, as there is no fair use justification for their usage. As for the "drama", that has to go out of the wording. Wiki is supposed to have a neutral eye, and if we are adding dramaticized wording to text then it comes off like we are promoting the material. Also, the part in the first sentence, "popular Maggie and Bianca couple..." that has to go. You shouldn't open the lead with a sentence that has subjective material in it. It should only state the basic info, which is "who they are" and not "what is their impact". Bianca's birthday, not important. It has no relevance in the real world. Also, what is "earlier development since 1988.."? Is that when Agnes created the character? If so, it should say that. If not, then it's unclear as to what it means. I'll try and finish up the review today, and reply to your comments on the PR. I'll have to start the review over since you've made changes to the top.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Hey, Bignole. I'll get back to you in the peer review soon. Right now, I'm about to give the Jesse Hubbard and Angie Baxter supercouple article an overhaul. As for on the topic of youtube, but Wikipedia states that it's okay to use youtube clips...as long as it's not excessive use. Also, my leaving in the Bianca-faints part in the Storyline section was not so much about adding drama, but stating the gravity of the situation, the immediate effect it had on Bianca, which is a notable moment in their history. As for Bianca's birth date, I left that in because Paul mentioned that I should list in the lead when these two characters were created, and, well, even though Bianca was created in 1988, that doesn't reflect her age, although, sure, that can be said about several soap opera characters. I know that you don't feel that her age should be relevant, but it seems noting to point out that she isn't actually that age and that her birth date was revised to 1984. Flyer22 22:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Where does it say that? Those are copyrighted pieces of material though, not original creations, and they definitely shouldn't be external linked in the middle of the article. At best, they should be in the "External links" section, with the other stuff. She's notable for fainting? Was the viewer aware of who Maggie was from the beginning, or were they lead to believe that it was Frankie returning from the grave? Her creation has nothing to do with her age. Jason Voorhees was created in 1979, but his "fictional" birthdate is far older. Readers should know the difference between saying "the character was created on ..." and "the character was born.." One implies the thought process of a writer, and the other obviously means she was wet, bloody, and blind. lol. Have faith the reader understands. Her age is only important if there was some controversy over it. You can simply specify something to the effect of: "So-n-so created Bianca ____, as a 4 year old girl, in 1988". Her birth date is irrelevant, as they were simply trying to adjust for the fact that she was noticeable not a newborn, I assume.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Here's the Wikipedia policy on linking to youtube, Bignole. And, yeah, the audience (well some, at least) were aware that Maggie was not Frankie when Maggie debuted on the show, considering that All My Children ran promos of Bianca bumping into her before it happened on the show (something like that anyway) and Maggie visited her family in Pine Valley before meeting Bianca. But I meant that when Bianca faints at first sight of Maggie, that was a notable moment between them, not that Bianca is notable for that, of course. Mentioning her faint at that moment shows the impact that moment had on her and that it was not as simple as it seems without that mention. And on the topic of mentioning Bianca's age, yeah, I get what you mean on that matter, of course, I'll either remove that or do what you've suggested in how to mention that. I'm off to look at what else you've stated in the peer review. Flyer22 02:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • The page explicitely makes mention of not violating copyrights, and youtube is violating the show's copyrights by broadcasting unauthorized clips. They're unauthorized, unless YouTube can show that they received permission to use them. Her faint is not important as it was a moments reaction, and not something that carried on for longer than it happened. It's an extraneous detail that, if not mentioned, doesn't detract from the main plot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• What about the infrequent mention of when it comes to using YouTube on Wikipedia? Flyer22 02:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It says it's fine to use infrequently, but not at all when it pertains to copyright issues. I'm not sure how one would be able to use YouTube at all, since they don't worry about violating copyrights until someone contacts them to remove the videos, which is the reason why it's usually not a good idea to link to them, because there's no way to verify that what they are broadcasting has been cleared for use (since anyone can upload a video). Like I said, at best, they should go in an "External links" section, and not linking throughout the article. Also, I noticed some more text that is broaching the plagarism tightrope.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
    • I'll remove the YouTube links from this article's plot. And, of course, point me to the new problem you've discovered regarding this article. I still haven't read your new comments within the peer review, so I'm definitely about to go read over that now and see what needs to be done. Flyer22 02:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

and that she was screaming and yelling at the television. It was a huge shock to her - This is a little too close to exactly what she said. The only differences I see is that it says "television" instead of "tv" and "her" instead of "I". I would simply go ahead and put the quotes on that stuff, and suppliment the two words that she actually used. It's not enough of a change to really qualify as a paraphrase.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

• • Taken care of. Flyer22 06:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• I dont' have time tonight to do any detailed reviewing, but I was looking at your recent changes and this doesn't make sense: Hendrickson, having originally been brought on as the character Frankie Stone, the initial storyline revolved around the close relationship between Bianca and Frankie and the aftermath of Frankie's death. --- You start off naming the person playing Frankie, but then jump to a completely different aspect. The "the initial storyline..." is a completely sentence that has nothing to do with the preceding one. I don't know if you started typing and you thought of something but didn't put it in (I do that), but the first part isn't coherent when the second part.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll take care of that. And in the Writing section, can you see the rest of the detail on Richard Culliton? I can't see it anymore when I view the article on the exterior, but I can see it when I view the article's interior. Do you know what's causing that?, Something with the references? Flyer22 03:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • Does it look different now?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Yeah, but it's still missing the part that states "Eventually, Culliton came up with the idea to bring the popular actress, who had portrayed Frankie, Elizabeth Hendrickson, back as the character's identical twin sister. He continued to write for the show until 2002."

But wait, if you can see it, does that mean, it's just my computer? Something similar like this happened with the Criticism section as well, when I was editing and viewing this article in preview mode, and I couldn't see the Criticism section on this article's exterior. It seemed as though it might have had something to do with the way that the references were formatted. Flyer22 04:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• How is it now? It isn't how the references are formatted so much that it's the fact that the references were missing the "/" to tell the code to stop. Instead, the code was continuing until it found the closest stop ("/"). That is why the text was hidden.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I see it now, Bignole, of course. Thanks. I went ahead and changed the part of the lead you mentioned. How do you like it now? Flyer22 04:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • Better. I changed the period to a semicolon, as it makes the preceding sentence stronger. Anyway, I'm off to bed now. Have you contacted League of Copyeditors to come clean up the article? If not, go to this page--Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors#How to request a copy-edit--and follow the instructions to request some assistance with copyediting. The article really needs it, as it makes it harder to work on critiquing information and structure.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
      • All right. I'll definitely make sure to do that. I'm going to edit a few articles first, just slight edits, and take care of a few other matters, but I'll certainly bring in a copyeditor from the destination you mention above. Flyer22 04:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If they are not called that in the show, then it isn't relevant in the opening sentence. BAM seems to be some fanmade name, unless I'm wrong and the characters of the show call them "BAM".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the tip, Bignole. I've missed talking with you and it's only been a day since we last talked. I was pondering on if I should put that in the lead because they are widely known by that name as well, even though I don't personally call them that. I'll remove it, but it just seems fitting. Also, (I think) the character Reggie Montgomery once pointed out that their initials spell BAM. I know that some Wikipedian editor or more so an IP address editor at Wikipedia will most likely add the name BAM back in, but I'll remove it when they do, if that's what's best for this article. Flyer22 03:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying that it couldn't go in the lead, if it's mentioned later in the article, but it's a cultural impact thing and the first paragraph should be simply the basic information about the characters. Cultural impact stuff comes in later paragraphs. Sorry I haven't been reviewing the article lately, I'm just taking a break from that to work on some of my other pet projects. Have you put in a request at the League of Copyeditors yet? I'll see if I can look over the article some tomorrow after work. What I'll try to do is point out structural things. I noticed some of the cultural impact information is really information that should go in the "Actresses' approach.." section. A lot of the cultural impact section needs reorganizing, there are far too many minor subheadings than are necessary. I'll see what can be done tomorrow, though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I completely understand what you mean about the mention of BAM in the lead. I thought the same thing, considering that, as you point out as well, it's mentioned in their Cultural impact section. And, Bignole, there's no need to apologize for taking a break from this article and focusing on other articles here at Wikipedia. I need to focus on some other articles here at Wikipedia as well, most definitely. I was simply stating that I missed you. I got a little attached to working with you, in the same way that I got a little attached to working with User:Elonka my first few weeks here at Wikipedia. Don't worry, I'm not psycho (smiles). I mean, I'm not the most clingy person outside of Wikipedia, but within it, I suppose a few special editors can cause me to grow attached to them. And, yeah, I requested a copy-editor from the place you mentioned. How long do you figure it will take for a copy-editor to copy-edit this article? Flyer22 03:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not worried. I'm glad when people like working with me. I mean, you've seen my "satisfied customer" section on my user page. I'm not sure when they will get to it. I'm sure they get a lot of requests. It could take awhile. I'd give it a couple weeks, and if they haven't gotten to it by then, I'd go back and ask to find out if they are really backed up and that is why it is taking so long.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay. Flyer22 21:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are a couple of things I came across.

• "Influence on the actresses themselves" - This section is not really so much about the characters but more about the actresses themselves in general. These two comments are probably better placed on the actresses' page, instead of on their character page.

• "Feminist Media Studies" - If you aren't going to talk about what the feminist say, and use multiple studies, then I suggest dumping the section and placing the source in a "Further reading" section at the bottom of the article. Sometimes there are not ways to implement information without it being a sole concept by the once source. So, it may be best to just say "Hey, we couldn't use this the way we wanted, but you'll probably find it informative, take a look". The same goes for the New York Daily News article. Unless you are going to use the source for a specific section, you shouldn't create a subsection merely to reflect one event in a newspaper.

Hope this helps.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Hmm, the Influence on the actresses themselves section -- I included that, of course, because even though it's not mainly about those two characters, it's about the effect those two characters had on these two actresses. I'm not too sure about splitting that section, as putting that section into their individual character articles, since it's a double-interview addressing the Bianca and Maggie storyline. Maybe I should re-title that section to Commentary or Actresses commentary, you know, something that signals that it's about the effect this storyline has had on these two actresses. It wouldn't fit as well in the Actresses approach to the couple section, of course, since that section is more about how these two actresses tackled these roles. As for the Feminist Media Studies section, yeah, that would be better to put into a Further reading section, as you suggest. And on the topic of New York Daily News, I'll just strip that of its heading, and instead incorporate it within the section that it's close to, and maybe re-word it later. Flyer22 22:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • The influence on the actresses' section is just too vague in their responses, and far too much detail that could easily be summarized into a more concise description and placed in the other section, about how they approach the characters. It's one question, with a single answer from the actress, which isn't enough to warrant an entire subsection devoted to it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • So you feel that it would be best to, somehow, put that section into the Actresses approach to the couple section, correct? I mean, if we made a new section titled something about their commentary, and that wasn't a subheading, you would feel that that is a little much also? Well, if it's best to incorporate that section into the Actresses approach to the couple section, I would like to see you edit that in, if you don't mind. Flyer22 22:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

First, the "Actresses approach" should probably just be titled "Casting", with included information on how they got their job. Hendrickson's comment about not wanting to be in a soap, and then later taking the job is a good starting point. If you could find out how she landed the job in the end, that would be even better. Same for the other. Then you can talk about how they approached their respective roles, and end with how those roles eventually affected them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• I like that lay-out. Not sure on including information about them specifically being cast as those two characters though, since that has more to do with their individual characters, like what I included within the Bianca Montgomery article about the casting of that character, it's sort of redundant to include within this article as well. However, there is a little information I left out in that article about Eden Riegel being cast as Bianca. Flyer22 23:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Yeah, that was a pit-fall a lot of people expressed. I've gotten messages and seen others from editors who wished they would have been able to support it when it came through. Oh well. Hope everything is going well with the Soaps. Have you put up BAM for GA yet? If not, I'd go ahead and do that so that another editor can come and take a peak at the article and give suggestions--if they have any that is.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I've been pondering the issue of whether to nominate it for GA or FA. I read on an editor's talk page, that it's best to just nominate a good article (that may very well be a great article, or will be with just a bit more tweaking) for FA, that you get a faster response in the FA candidate process, the same suggestions as you would in GA, of course, and that a lot of the times...an article that is good enough for GA is also good enough for FA. So I want your take on this. Wouldn't it be better that I go to a specific copy-editor, request that that copy-editor copy-edit this article, and then nominate this article for FA? Flyer22 22:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
      • You could do it that way, but I'd suggest the GAC first. An FAC takes a lot longer to actually go through and you aren't guaranteed to pass. With a GAC you can quickly find out if copyediting is the only thing you need done (and just because it's copy edited doesn't mean to cannot be c/ed more, depends on what the GA reviewer finds). I'd personally recommend GAC first, but there is no rule that says you have to go step by step up the ladder. As for those sources, they are primary sources and if the websites in question are the ones that conducted the interviews then they are fine to use.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Thanks for your insight, Bignole. I'll think on that matter for a while, but your thoughts are definitely always taken into consideration by me. And thank you for your help with my Todd Manning article query about those two sources I thought may be looked at as questionable. Flyer22 22:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• It was no problem.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Bianca and Frankie often talked and relaxed in Frankie's room.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bianca and Frankie often talked and relaxed in Frankie's room.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Bianca leans in to kiss Maggie after admitting that Maggie is so much more than a friend to her..jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bianca leans in to kiss Maggie after admitting that Maggie is so much more than a friend to her..jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Dirty Den and Angie

Hiya Flyer22, I had noticed that this article was up for deletion, but to be honest I'm not convinced that it should be saved. I think a good article could be written about the couple, but I dont think that very much in the current article should remain. It would have to be rewritten in my opinion. Most of the information in the article is already in the individual character articles and 'Dirty Den and Angie' just seems like a badly done rehash, with no references to back up anything. Also, to my knowledge, "supercouple" is an American term and not one that I have heard used to describe Den and Angie. I'm not sure what the other members of the EE wikiproject think about the article either, from what I remember it was mostly negative.

On the other hand, they were a hugely popular soap couple. The Christmas 1986 episode is currently the fourth highest viewed UK programme of all time. Stuff about their cultural impact in the UK and the effect they had on soap and television in general could definitely be included to bring it up to standard. I've also seen the great work you've done on the American articles, and it would be nice to see this one brought up to the same standard. So basically, i'm undecided :)

There is a lot of real world analysis I have written in the character development sections of the Den Watts and Angie Watts articles. Some of it could be tweaked and put into this one for the time being, if you think it would be beneficial for the AFD? Gungadin♦ 23:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, that would be great, Gungadin. And even though the term Supercouple originated in America, Den and Angie definitely fall in line with what a supercouple is. You're better-suited to fix up this article than I am. Thank you for your compliment about some of the soap opera couple articles that I've fixed up. Those articles can still be further improved though. I've seen your work here at Wikipedia as well, of course, and I love it. If you are willing to fix up this article, then, yeah, that would surely be great for this supercouple. If you're not really that interested in fixing up this article for the reasons that you've mentioned above, then that is your choice, and I respect that. You know better on this subject than I. Flyer22 00:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks Flyer, that's very nice of you to say :) I've thought about it and I've decided that a good article can be made. I've added a bit on character creation, and I will continue to edit bit by bit when I can. I'll have a good read of Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone and pay close attention to the way you have written it. I'm not very experienced at writing character articles specifically for a couple, so if you have any tips or notcie a way I can improve on what i've written then feel free to let me know :) Gungadin♦ 17:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I have to state that I really like that you've decided to better this article. I'm flattered that you will use Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone as an example for this article. I mean, sure, I am aiming to get the Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article to Featured Article (FA) status, and it getting to Featured Article (FA) status would mean that it's an example for other fictional couple articles, but I suppose that you caught me off-guard with your statement as to using it as a paradigm of sorts. Anyway, I know that you will do a great job on the Dirty Den and Angie article. Also, I'm wondering if maybe that article's title should be changed to include the last names of that couple, but using Angie's maiden name, of course, since all the other soap opera notable couple articles and soap opera supercouple articles use the characters' full names for the title of their article. I'm not stating that this article has to follow the American soap opera couples' lead on that front; I was only making an observation there. There was also some reasoning given for using the woman's maiden name, though I don't know exactly what that reasoning was, considering that I only saw a statement somewhere here at Wikipedia about it being best to use the woman's maiden name, but...I have a clue. See you around, Gungadin. Flyer22 21:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
      • You should definitely be proud of the work you have done on the supercouple articles. They are well written, well referenced and contain minimal plot sections. i'm sure it took you a lot of time to do, and it shows. I just wish that you were an EastEnders viewer. We need someone with your enthusiasm on our project :) Regarding the name change - I think that it could be changed to Den and Angie Watts if you prefer, but Angie was never known by her maiden name on the programme - she was married when it started - so i dont think it would be appropriate to use that. 'Dirty Den' was a tabloid nickname given to him, and he became quite well known for it. I really dont mind either way, but I will bring it up at the project and see what everyone there wants to do :) Gungadin♦ 20:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
        • I figured that she wasn't that well-known by her maiden name. In this case (and a lot of other cases), it's best to go with the names they are better-known by. I do feel that the name Watts should be included within the title of their article. Instead of re-naming it Den and Angie Watts, it would be best to re-name it Dirty Den and Angie Watts. Flyer22 21:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer article

Thanks. :) --Silvestris 00:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for creating this intriguing article. Flyer22 12:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Montgomery and Maggie Stone

Thanks for your invitation to edit the Montgomery and Maggie Stone article, and for the very kind words about my copyediting. I took a quick look at the article, and it appeared to be in pretty good shape already. I'm going on an indefinite wikibreak, so I am afraid that I won't be able to look at it. Keep up your excellent. I'm sorry I can't help out. Ground Zero | t 01:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• • I understand, Ground Zero. Thank you for the kind words about this article. I do hope that you decide to return to editing Wikipedia one day. Your editing skills are needed here. Flyer22 03:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: EJ Wells

Oh my, I'm dreadfully sorry about that. It was a genuine mistake. I was attempting to correct (read: redirect) 3 duplicates of that page and I guess I accidentally moved it after checking out the wrong page (normally I check before moving, of course). Thanks for making me aware of it. No malice or anything was intended. Zelse81 22:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Oh, I don't/didn't feel that malice was intended with that action after reading your comment to the editor whose mistakes you were trying to fix. I understand that it was a mistake. No worries on that matter. Take care. And see you around. Flyer22 22:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Maggie helps Bianca during the aftermath of Bianca's rape..jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Maggie helps Bianca during the aftermath of Bianca's rape..jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

CBS Mandate

I see you actually read other editor's talk pages ;) You may want to take a look at the further response I left at User_talk:Jgera5#CBS_Mandate. Perhaps you have some ideas about what to do with this one... Oh, and if you haven't seen it yet, there's a reply to you on my talk page. Pairadox 04:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Ha. I don't really read much of an editor's talk page, unless something there about it grabs my interest. It's just that I really do have a photographic memory, and once I look at someone's talk page (or anything), it's like the entire talk page is still there before my eyes whenever I want to look at it again, even if I'm not at that editor's talk page anymore. I suppose I do read their talk pages in that way. I've only used this ability of recalling a talk page a few times here at Wikipedia, though I use it to recall articles more often than that, more recently for the ConFusion (All My Children) article that once existed (and was an article about a fictional nightclub), but when I saw that that article was going to be deleted, I wanted to incorporate it into the Kendall Hart Slater article, and after the ConFusion (All My Children) article was indeed deleted, well, I then looked at this entire article in my head, considering that it was my only copy of it, since I hadn't copy and pasted it anywhere, and I saved it by incorporating it within the Kendall Hart Slater article.

As for the CBS Mandate article, what do you want me to do concerning that, give some insight on what needs to be done to improve that article? Flyer22 20:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources, or lack thereof, are the biggest problem with it now. Any ideas on how to deal with that issue? As I said on the creator's talk page, I have no doubt that branding is a part of the overall CBS strategy, but sourcing that and tying in most of the stations would probably depend on internal CBS documents. Pairadox 19:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Well, sources like you stated. It basically needs (decent, good, or great) sources to back up its claims. Flyer22 19:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Santo DiMera

Hi Flyer22. I have only recently signed up on wikipedia and I have heard that you are the person to come to with any problems. You see there has been a bit of a disagreement between IrishLass0128 and myself. You see originally the show stated that Stefano was the seventh son of the seventh son, but with the recent flashbacks it has been stated that Stefano is Santo's only son. I understant that this is the current stroyline and we must go with it, but I also believe that Stefano must have had at least one brother, since Andre is Stefano nephew by blood. Since Stefano is Santo's only child, then this sibling/ siblings must have only been half-siblings from Stefano's mothers side. Unfortanatly Irishlass refuses to see my point that it is entirely possible that Stefano had other half siblings, but yet he is Santo's only child. Therefore Stefano would refer to himself as the seventh son of the seventh son, even though his six older brothers were not Santo's biological children, but his step children. I would really appreciate if you could possibly post a comment to Irishlass, as she refuses to understand my motives for constantly editing the Santo DiMera page. —Preceding comment added by Grant Chuggle 17:36, 4 September 2007

• A retcon section has been added to the page but the above editor continues to change and add assumptions to even the retcon section. A retcon section addressing the change was suggested by two other editors and was put in. Both an IP user using a proxy IP address and the above have put in assumptions of "step" children which are not verified. The retcon section addresses the at one time the writing did indicate that Stefano had siblings but that the current storyline has changed that fact. There is obviously a disconnect between the above editor and the understanding of what a retcon section is. Motives must be to have a verifiable page. As I have every Santo DiMera episode on my hard drive, I have strived to make sure the page is accurate and not based on assumptions. Hence, the addition of the retcon section addressing the past storylines. IrishLass0128 18:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• I am only adding logical infomation that has been stated on the shown. I know what a retcon is but I don't believe that a retcon has taken place. It was never stated before that Stefano's sibling were his father's biological children. It is very possible that Stefano had half-siblings that are only from his mother's side. Unless the show states that Santo's wife had no other children, then we must go with the infomation stated on the show.

—Preceding comment added by Grant Chuggle 17:36, 4 September 2007

• Logical information is not verifiable fact. It has not been shown that Santo has any step children. For Stefano to be the 7th of the 7th, all children would be blood DiMeras. Please allow Flyer22 to review this issue before making "logic dictate" changes.IrishLass0128 18:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hello, Grant Chuggle. I have thoroughly looked over the arguments on both sides concerning this matter, but would you mind explaining to me why, if the retcon section addresses that, at one time, the writing did indicate that Stefano had siblings, but that the current storyline has changed that fact, that this acknowledgment is not enough for you in concerns to this article? Is it mainly because you don't believe that a retcon took place in this case at all? Flyer22 01:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Todd Manning

On 1 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Todd Manning, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 13:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Awesome. Thanks. Flyer22 19:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a very well written article. I wish the rest of the soap opera articles reflected that much professionalism. Pairadox 19:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the compliment, Pairadox. Sorry that I didn't get back to you again on the CBS Mandate topic sooner. I was busy with other matters, of course. I just answered above, though it's not that much of an answer. Basically, your feeling on what needs to be done concerning it is what, well, mainly needs to be done concerning it. Flyer22 19:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Bignole, I've been meaning to ask you something about the Todd Manning article. Right now, this article has two sources that may not be considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. Those two sources include the source for Michael Malone stating how Todd Manning was created...which you can see with this link...[2]...and the source for David Nichtern stating how he created the Todd Manning theme music...which is seen with this link...[3] The main thing about those two sources, though, is that those are the only two places those interviews can be found. Well, the David Nichtern interview may be found somewhere else considered more reliable, though I have not located any other source for it, but the Michael Malone source interview, where he talks about creating Todd Manning, is the place (that website) that he gave that interview to, so that specific interview is not located anywhere else. So what I'm asking you is...those sources can be deemed as valid in this case, right? I'm certainly not going to get rid of the Character creation section and the Music section of the Todd Manning article just because Wikipedia may deem those two sources as not reliable. Those two sources are the sources for those two specific interviews. I want to nominate the Todd Manning article for Good Article status, but those two sources (and the Brief details on character section) bother be about nominating this article for Good Article status. Flyer22 22:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • As stated above, thanks for your help, Bignole. Flyer22 22:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:For the first time, Maggie admits to being in love with Bianca (C).jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:For the first time, Maggie admits to being in love with Bianca (C).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• I wondered when Wikipedia would find this image. I was beginning to think that it may never be found, because Wikipedia just loves it too much to acknowledge that it must be deleted, since it is not used any articles at this time. Flyer22 19:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Reporting a user for personal attack

Flyer22 I could use your help. The user IP also known as Grant Chuggle has left a vile message regarding his penis and what I should do to it. I need direction or your help in blocking him from editing for this vile personal attack. Any help would be appreciated. CelticGreen 16:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Grant Chuggle, do not change other people's messages; that is considered vandalism on Wikipedia, unless you are correcting a typo, or are a copy-editor having been asked to copy-edit a message by a user concerning a message on that user's user page. CelticGreen put the wording "man parts", and it should have remained that way, since that was her message, not altered to your revision of "penis"... As for this matter that you have presented me with, CelticGreen, look over the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy and see what you feel is the best course to take concerning this matter. Grant Chuggle, if you continue in a matter of leaving offensive and abusive messages to Wikipedian editors, no matter who they are or your dispute with them, you may suffer the consequences for that kind of behavior. CelticGreen, if you feel that this matter you have reported to me is more serious than just ignoring, you may want to report this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but don't just mention Grant Chuggle's personal attack on you, mention his constant edit-warring as well, and provide proof of the matters you claim. And I noticed that you sometimes forget to sign your user name. Try to remember to sign your user name all the time when leaving a message on a talk page.

Grant Chuggle, if you would still like to give your side on why you so strongly feel that your edits to the Santo DiMera article on the subject that you cited above are necessary, then, of course, I am still willing to "hear" you out regarding your feelings on that matter. Flyer22 19:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks Flyer22 as it is obvious that his personal attacks went further in his edit to my message to you, I shall report it. Unfortunately since he is constantly changing his IP address, it will likely be impossible to do anything about his behaviour. CelticGreen 20:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Be aware, CelticGreen, that he is most likely not changing his IP address, but rather has a dynamic IP address. And, even though he has an ever-changing IP address, it does not mean that it is hopeless to block him at all for any offensive or abusive edits and it does not mean that it is hopeless just because blocks can be evaded. Flyer22 21:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• I reported it. I don't know if I did it right but I was very concise in regards to the vandalism and personal attacks. I even referenced his change to my comments on your page. Thank you for your direction on this and for pointing out that he had changed my original comment to you. CelticGreen 00:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

I stumbled across the Jill Farren Phelps article today, and it has grown to such an enormous cesspool of crap from disgruntled fans. I know a lot of people hate her but at the same time, we need a good solid article. Considering you're so good with soap articles, will you put this as a high priority? I can help if needed. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 16:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Sure, Mike, I'll do what I can to fix up that article as soon as I get a good chance to. Flyer22 17:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Bianca and Maggie (D).jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bianca and Maggie (D).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Jack Twist and Ennis Del Mar

Thank you, I've replied in depth on both Talk:Ennis Del Mar and Talk:Jack Twist. Again thank you for updating my talk page to notify me. Best regards. Conrad T. Pino 07:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You're entirely welcome. I'm grateful you're contibuting to documenting this touching story and complex characters. I encourange more and will support however I can. Conrad T. Pino 08:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Image Help

Can you make sure I put the right tags on these images Tony DiMera (I got a message it would be deleted) and Tyler (no message yet but I don't want it deleted). I'm trying hard to get this image thing right and I appreciate your help. CelticGreen 23:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will help you, CelticGreen. Flyer22 00:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, for the Tony DiMera image, you did that right. But concerning the Tyler Palko image, we are not allowed to use fair-use rationales to depict real-life people. Though it may be a while before the Tyler Palko image that you uploaded is removed. Flyer22 00:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• So if Tyler's picture is the one the NFL and the New Orleans Saints use, is there a way to reference that? I could ask my aunt to ask his dad for a picture or maybe I could ask for a yearbook to scan it from, but I thought it was okay to use a promotional photo from a team. I'm wrong, I guess, and could use your help. And, yes, my family has connections to Mr. Palko so I want his page to be as accurate as possible with no flags and warnings. CelticGreen 01:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• If you can get a picture of him as you describe above, then, yes, you can use that, and tag it with a license that indicates that it is your work. Also, I have seen fair-use images used in articles of real-life people in what seems like an accepted way, as long as it's not the main image at the lead (introduction) of the article. Flyer22 01:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, please see my talk page. The image is flagged in a way I don't understand. You've been so helpful and I hate being a burdon, but I still have to ask. Thank you for your help.CelticGreen 01:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You're not a burden. I'll visit your talk page and see what you mean. Flyer22 01:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Married names

Warned. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 00:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Mike. Flyer22 00:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Brooke Davis

Thanks! Just putting my grammar-police tendancies to good use. :) Vintagevixen 00:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Todd Manning

So sorry, my last edit just undid your reference, can you add it again? The edit looks confusing and I don't want to muck it up. TAnthony 02:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I took another look and added it back. Thanks! TAnthony 02:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Flyer22 02:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, I don't think I ever told you what an awesome job you did expanding and referencing this article. Bravo. TAnthony 02:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, T (hope that you don't mind if I call you T sometimes). I'm thinking about nominating that article for Good Article status soon. I felt that it needed a little copy-editing, but you're taking care of that, brilliantly I might add. I'm unsure of the Brief details on character section, though. I know that that section benefits in staying, so I'm not opting to remove it, but I'm leaning towards placing it in a Wiki-table format list. Flyer22 02:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A quick question: in the "Steps to early redemption" section I can't tell if Todd met CJ and Sarah first or saved Jessica first (and can't remember). I can fix the pgh if you let me know. As far as the relationship list, I'm working on a new infobox type thing I hope to implement for soap articles which can hopefully replace the ugly lists at the bottom. TAnthony 02:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

He saved Jessica first, I think. At least that's how that page of the book I read seemed to state it. I can post the direct link to that page, if you like. Also, I cannot remember if Nora was married to Bo when he showed up before Todd could physically attack Nora. So I need your help on that, so that I'll know that the part that states Nora was spared from Todd's attack due to her husband showing up is true in the sense that Bo was her husband at that time. I'm a little confused on that part, because her last name was still Gannon then, wasn't it? Flyer22 02:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, at this time online, that book isn't showing the page where it states Todd rescuing Jessica and bonding with C.J. and Sarah, etc. of what is on that page, but it is showing the page where it talks about Todd trying to physically attack Nora for having ensured his stay behind bars. What I want to know, though, is if Bo was Nora's husband at the time or was Nora's boyfriend. I mean, she was still referred to as Gannon then. Anyway, if you can answer that question for me, please do, of course. Talk with you later. Flyer22 03:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You can search through the book on Amazon and using "rapist" I found the right pages (515-520). It isn't exactly clear, so I'll ultimately look thru some of the historical plot recaps on ABC.com. I think we can probably find the answer to the Nora question there as well. TAnthony 03:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, for the help. I truly appreciate it. Flyer22 03:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Adam Chandler, Jr

I put this on the discussion board for the article as well.

Although his legal name is Adam Chandler, Jr, the character goes by "JR". However, as it's referred to on Wikipedia, "J.R.". By using periods after each letter, it implies both the "J" and "R" stand for something, such as John Ross "J.R." Ewing (on Dallas). Therefore, shouldn't the title of this entry simply be "JR Chandler"? Additionally, the official All My Children site list the spelling as "JR" and not "J.R."

I'm not trying to cause trouble, I see you've done quite a bit of work on the soap pages so I thought I'd consult you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowsSoaps (talk • contribs) 22:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As I stated on the J.R. Chandler talk page, on most sites, the periods are present within his nickname. And it's how most editors spell his name here at Wikipedia. I feel that changing it to JR instead of J.R. would be too uncommon for how his name is usually spelled. Some people have periods in their nickname of initials when the initials don't really stand for anything. The periods of his nickname are just another variation of Junior.

Also, KnowsSoaps, remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~), when talking on talk pages here at Wikipedia, without the parentheses, of course. Flyer22 22:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

One Tree Hill Characters

Sorry about that rv. I'll take more care in the future. Julesn84 03:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• It's fine. Flyer22 05:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

BAM

I rated their article and gave it a B. With more work and sourcing and possibly trimming down fair use pictures, it can make it to GA easily. Good job! Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. I already cut down on the fair-use images in that article though. I feel that the images that are there now significantly add to that article. I could lose one more though, the one Bignole originally edited out in his example edit of that article -- the first one showing Bianca and Maggie meeting.

I also requested a copy-editor at League of Copyeditors for that article, but, yep, no copy-editor from there has gotten around to copy-editing it yet...which is why I'll soon either ask can one of them get to it at this time, or I'll specifically ask a copy-editor to copy-edit it. I'm not certain how much more sourcing can be done on that article, except for the storyline part. And does your feeling that it's only a little away from Good Article (GA) status mean that you agree with Bignole's assessment that I should nominate this article for GA before I nominate it for Featured Article (FA) status? Flyer22 05:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, go for GA before FA. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 06:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Baby switch

I'm confused as to why every mention of this storyline is linked to JR's profile. Since the story doesn't have it's own page, then the info should be put into where it belongs. JR was a big part, but it's more relevant to Bianca and Babe. I was wondering if you could help. I'd probably just copy and paste that whole section into their profiles. I also didn't actually watch the show during that year so I don't know all the facts. --Maestro25 09:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's all linked to J.R.'s article because it doesn't have its own article, as you've guessed. Though it once did have its own article here at Wikipedia, but was deleted from Wikipedia due to only being a plot summary (I assume), plus a plot summary that was just a stub, and probably for not providing notability. I thought about re-creating that article and making it more than just plot summary and providing it with notability, but ultimately decided to just let it stay in J.R.'s article, at least for now. J.R.'s article had/has that storyline detailed more than its own article did. And during the time that it doesn't have its own article, it's better fit in J.R.'s article, considering that to have it in both Bianca's article and Babe's article is overkill, and their plot summaries are long enough, as well as J.R.'s plot summary (which I'll cut down in the near future). Wikipedia really frowns on lengthy plot summaries, as I'm sure that you know, and I really don't see it being in J.R.'s article as any different than if it had its own article and was linked in Bianca's article and Babe's article that way. Oh, and I actually wasn't watching the show that much that year either; that's kind of funny (well just a little) how we both weren't really following that storyline. I was watching that storyline a lot during its near end and final end though. Flyer22 10:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		For your dramatic improvements to the article Greg and Jenny Nelson, I thank you and award you this Barnstar. I have cherished Jenny and Greg for almost 30 years, and your improvement to this article means there is at last a fitting monument to their everlasting love. Thank you, Jeffpw 13:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

How do I?

Nominate an article for deletion? It's been nominated before, been deleted, and then added back. Essentially it's an article full of self promotion, badly constructed, and even includes a "how to buy" stuff link.CelticGreen 00:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Go here, and it'll explain it just as good or probably better than I would explain it. Flyer22 02:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User question from AugustAugust

So just like Kendall Hart Slater, the same applies for Theresa. Theresa refers to herself and is referred to commonly as Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AugustAugust (talk • contribs) 05:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather you have either replied to me on this in the Married names section or a new section here on my talk page, but...about your comment...you should talk this over with CelticGreen either on CelticGreen's talk page, yours, or Theresa's talk page. CelticGreen had the Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane article moved to Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald, though it's been moved to either name several times. You two should really talk this out. Flyer22 06:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

A little irksome...

Not you, let me get that out right now. It is quite possible I am OCD, because I am about to change all your times referring to yourself in the third person to one thing, Flyer22. This is not insulting you, and if you desire to delete my edit for any reason, or if you wished to have it that way, be my guest to do so. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *^{Get to the bunker}* 01:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Laughing out loud. I'm a little obsessive-compulsive as well. Actually, I'm certain that I suffer from obsessive-compulsive disorder, but I was never officially diagnosed as having it. Instead, I was given zoloft when I was age 18 or 19 (somewhere around those earlier ages). Zoloft didn't seem to work, and I don't take it anymore...although my obsessive-compulsive tendencies aren't as bad as they were before. As for my user page, CelticGreen reverted that edit of yours. I prefer it to be Flyer all the way through, and it's already mostly that way. I will tweak the instances where it states Flyer22 to instead state Flyer, except for the first mention. Flyer22 02:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi!! I just think a user's userpage should be theirs to edit when it comes to things like that. You never know if someone is just being a pill or if they want just want to help. Anyway, I was just trying to keep your page your page. If that makes sense. CelticGreen 02:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I know, Celtic. And I appreciate that. As I stated above, I prefer it as Flyer instead of as Flyer22 all the way through as S.T. did it. Flyer22 02:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, S.T., as I stated that I would, I changed all the mentions of my user name on my user page to Flyer...except for the first mention (or technical instances such as the email). Hopefully, this will help with your OCD concerning my user page. I'll see you around. Flyer22 02:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Like i said, its yours, and i wont change it again, but, it was a little...experiment. Im not a vandal, btw. Also, it didnt obther me which way it got changed, but...i wanted to try it without getting banned. Your input was helpful as well, CelticGreen/Celtic --Gen. S.T. Shrink *^{Get to the bunker}* 02:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I know you areN'T a vandal, that's why I said "pill" (showing my age a little) rather than scathing about the "vandalism to Flyer's page." I just know Flyer had my back with a user one day, and I talk to her a bit so I have her user talk page "watched" because I know if I ask her something, she replies here (assuming she ~ correct me if I'm wrong). What you did brought to the attention, but didn't ruin the page. It's all cool as far as I'm concerned. But then again, it's Flyer's page. :) CelticGreen 02:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, thanks, CelticGreen. And, S.T., I never thought you were a vandal either. I mean vandals don't usually inform the person that they are going to change that person's user page a little before they do it. Anyway, I'll see you on the editing side. Flyer22 03:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

TAnthony

Hey, have you left him a message lately? I left one on his talk page this morning, a general question I thought he could answer, and instead of replying, he "archived" (aka deleted) the message. Any idea what might be going on?IrishLass0128 15:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No to both questions. Flyer22 19:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

He came, gave a brief answer and was gone again. He's completely blanking his talk page lately. Thought you might know something. Oh well, I hope everything is alright with him. IrishLass0128 19:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have his talk page on my watchlist, and I think he has mine on his watchlist. He has been attacked lately by an IP-address editor who wants editors to create certain writer/producer articles. He's probably annoyed right now with messages, as with that and that annoying fair-use rationale bot tagging his talk page. Not to mention...TAnthony doesn't let his talk page stay too cluttered for long anyway. Flyer22 21:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Updated images

I am trying to find better infobox pics to use on AMC characters. I see you have used willowfriend.com as a source so, to avoid orphaned images, I will upload new pics on a few of your images. Only those with the same source though. --Maestro25 03:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

At the time that you came to my talk page about this, I was just coming to explain to you why I reverted your edit to the image you uploaded of Kendall Hart Slater and a factor of the fair-use image policy that you violated, though I know that wasn't a malicious violation. I, just a few moments ago, explained on your talk page, of course. As for updating the images of the All My Children characters, I really don't feel that any of them need updating. I ask you not to change the Kendall Hart Slater, Babe Carey, J.R. Chandler, Krystal Carey...and Alexander Cambias, Sr. infobox images at this time. All the other All My Children characters, I don't mind as much you changing their images. Though I usually try to find an image that doesn't have any type of logo on it; the images look better without a logo, of course. I don't mind when it's a clear-looking (as in invisible-feel) logo, however. Flyer22 04:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Kendall's image is zoomed in too much on her head. I feel that a little more of her upper body should be shown, like at least her neck. There are plenty to choose from here. I don't know a site with good screencaps that doesn't have logos, though. I like the rest of your pics, except Babe's image is more representative of the new actress instead of the character. --Maestro25 04:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I really don't want the Bianca Montgomery infobox image changed any time soon either. As for Kendall and Babe, yes, it's too much about the actress for Babe's image, but there aren't too many images of Amanda Baker as Babe out there yet, certainly not without a logo. And with Kendall, okay, I'm open to a change. We can surely come to an agreement about a different picture to select for her. I'll look at the ones at Willowfriend.com, as shown in the link you provided above, and we can toss back notions at each other on which one is best. Flyer22 04:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I would never change Bianca's picture, it's perfect. We could use more images like it. Really, it's only Kendall's image that should change. Let me know when you find some pics. --Maestro25 05:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Kendall's new photo is great. :) --Maestro25 03:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad that you like it. Flyer22 03:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

MaryPoppins878

Okay, I'm seriously suspicious that "she" is GrantChuggle. They have gone around adding ages and making up SORAS ages (as he did); already rewritten the retcon of Santo DiMera, to exactly what Chuggle did. Added spoilers after repeated warnings. All while playing innocent in their edit summary. Take a look and see if you agree before I ask Daniel to file a report. I noticed once Cajo (however you spell it) was accused of being a sockpuppet, they stopped editing. Let me know what you think.IrishLass0128 12:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, in an interesting development. Just as soon as I wrote this to you and commented to MaryPoppins, Grant showed up begging to be unblocked. Coincidence? IrishLass0128 16:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Coincidence? Ha! No, no coincidence.

I still don't believe that User:Colaatje5 was/is Grant Chuggle; the editing style between the two was too different. And Colaatje5 had actually slowed down editing during the latest warnings. Not to mention, as I stated in the case against Colaatje5, Colaatje5 was around some time before Grant Chuggle. But MaryPoppins878? I didn't even check over this user's edits (though I'm about to). From what you described to me, I would not be hesitant to bet that this user is Grant Chuggle. Flyer22 19:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess I agree with you on Colaatje5. They haven't been around anyway, but MaryPoppins878 has been editing nearly exactly the same articles Grant did. Sorry I forgot the link to contributes, I can get them if you like or just go to Santo DiMera page. They even insist on the whole Andre issue which was Grant's bugaboo before. Thanks for looking into this with me. IrishLass0128 19:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar. And, yes, Colaatje5 was different in quite a few ways, such as not replying. Grant is outspoken. And it seems that MaryPoppins878 is outspoken in edit summaries as well, and does not use the minor button for all edits, like Colaatje5 did. As alluded to above, I definitely see your suspicions as highly valid concerning MaryPoppins878. What sealed the deal for me on this matter is how Grant Chuggle suddenly popped up again after you left messages on MaryPoppins878's talk page advising against these types of edits. Flyer22 20:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Your efforts are tireless. I gave Daniel a heads up, now I'll let him know we agree and ask if he could start a formal procedure as only an administrator can. I'm sure he'll agree once he sees the edits. Thanks for the help!IrishLass0128 20:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

And the saga continues. Grant claimed to be from South Africa and so does MaryPoppins. But it gets better. On the day I started warning Mary, M-townboy showed up and started making edits to the Days and B&B articles. And now they back each other up on edits showing up minutes apart. Makes me wonder. What about you? And Daniel left a message on my page about MaryP.IrishLass0128 17:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, just from what you've told me, and without going to check M-townboy out (though I will), it is evident that Grant either has another sockpuppet named M-town or it's one the siblings he claimed to have... In other words...a meatpuppet. I mean, I'm certain that he is MaryPoppins (Ah, that's funny to write: He is MarryPoppins. I cannot help but think of the fictional character Mary Poppins. Most people would, I assume.) And, yes, I saw Daniel leave a message on your talk page. Your talk page is on my watchlist as well. Flyer22 19:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to thank you for taking the time out to explain your reasons on my talk page. I felt it was honestly polite of you and I would like to say I really appreciated the gesture. Sakura rin24 13:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It was no problem. Flyer22 17:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Characters that need updated images

I noticed there are several articles that shoud be updated with images.

Marian Chandler (AMC) Kathy Mershon Opal Cortlandt Gabriel Devane Edmund Grey Maria Santos Grey Ruth Martin (AMC) Jeff Martin (AMC) Livia Frye

Yes, I know. I'll take care of those soon, as well as other matters concerning the soap opera character articles. Flyer22 19:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for reverting all those bad edits on the Supermodel page. Number1spygirl 02:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop threatening....Supermodel

ME: I'm all for rvting vandals but threats arent allowed. Be careful & pls stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.220.141 (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't a threat. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Fly- As Squeak just pointed out, what I stated above in that link is perfectly allowed. Vandals are not to be tolerated; I don't tolerate them (whether some of them make me laugh or not). And telling them that I will get an article protected from their repeated destructive edits is most definitely warranted. Just in case you don't check back at this talk page, I'll state this same comment on your talk page as well. Flyer22 22:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Fly-As I stated on my talk page to your comment about my threatening vandals in concern to their edits, what I stated in that link that you provided is perfectly allowed. Vandals are not to be tolerated; I don't tolerate them (whether some of them make me laugh or not). And telling them that I will get an article protected from their repeated destructive edits is most definitely warranted. Flyer22 22:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

ME: Who cares about laughing? You were threatening to continually rvt. That'll be a rvt war. If U violate 3rr u'll b in the wrong. Seems u wanna give threats (calling them advice) but not heed it. Ah well.

Who cares about defending vandals on Wikipedia? And I wasn't truly stating that laughing is a matter of whether I combat vandals or not. Reverting vandalism is not a revert war; that's not violating the 3RR. Read up more on Wikipedia policy. Flyer22 23:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Fly-Wrong. Flyer22 23:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

ME: Right. Saying you'll keep reverting will lead to a rvt war, which is what I was alluding to.

And I'm saying you're wrong. 3RR states that an exception to reverting an "editor's" edits more than three times "applies only to the most simple and obvious vandalism, the kind that is immediately apparent to anyone reviewing the last edit. It is not sufficient if the vandalism is simply apparent to those contributing to the article, those familiar with the subject matter, or those removing the vandalism itself." And, well, it was more than just me who saw that that vandal's edit (by edit, I mean the one that vandal kept implementing over and over again) was obvious vandalism, seeing as that vandal has been reverted plenty of times, both immediately and later. Thus, there would have been no violation on my part in reverting that vandal more than three times. Second, there is no need to title our statements as Fly, and ME. Just sign your posts. Flyer22 23:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

138.88.220.141, I responded on my talk page to your latest comment to me, as you may know. Hopefully, this matter is cleared up now. Flyer22 23:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. We are clear. Thank you. My whole reason for posting was that I felt you were being rude. After reading your above post I didn chk and see that that Ip was adding the stuff repeatedly. I just think wish wikipedias were nicer. That's is really what I wanted 2 emphasise.

We are clear. I am clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.220.141 (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. And I want to let you know that Wikipedians are often nice. I'm not a rude person. I have no tolerance for vandalism (especially repeated vandalism), however...as I stated above. I'll see you around. Flyer22 00:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Bennifer and related topics

Bennifer was speedy deleted as it was based on a neologism derived from popular culture media. This doesn't satisfy criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. I'll go ahead and leave a Prod template on Posh and Becks for a time (as it's title is a slightly less-obvious neologism) but after the requisite number of days, it may be deleted. Bumm13 12:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the prod template has been removed, so a new AFD entry has been started for the article. Feel free to voice your opinion there. Bumm13 12:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I figured that Bennifer might have been deleted due to being a neologism, but it does satisfy Wikipedia criteria for inclusion when it is notable. These are terms, neologisms or not, that have had a lot of exposure and impact. That article will be recreated by me later. As for Posh and Pecks, I am a little taken aback that you nominated that for deletion. If the term is worthy enough to be entered into dictionaries, then it is worthy enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Yes, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but it is all about notability, and these two terms are both very notable. Yes, I'll voice my thoughts on this matter (a good chunk these same thoughts first). Flyer22 18:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)