User talk:Rm994

User talk: Rm994/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Rm994, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

HELP!!!!!!

Soap Opera Digest over-rides a soap opera's TV credits, yes?? Because surprise surprise, TVFAN says otherwise and is trying to get me reported and banned for putting someone on recurring instead of contract, and he's threatening to report me. Which is unfair because unlike him, I may better edits that are accurate. Please help me RM!! I know you're on my side!! Musicfreak7676 (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Anything in a printed reliable third party source will trump heresay on TV credits yes. You can always take this to admins if you wish. User:Daniel Case is definitely familiar with this sort of thing. Perhaps you can ask him for help? Rm994 (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

But he's taking TVFAN's side on this. And TVFAN is trying to get be "banned" or "reported" because I'm reporting him for silly stuff and that he's sticking to the show over the SOD article. Check Daniel Case's page, it's all there!!!! Musicfreak7676 (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have no admin authority to block TVFAN for his/her edits. All I can say is to discuss potential changes on the talk pages of the articles in question. Like when I asked for everyone's opinion on Melanie Jonas. Just request other editors' input on whether the actress should be on recurring based on the reliability of the source. Once a consensus is reached, no one can come back and change it. Hope this helps. Rm994 (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, could you chime in on his page in my defense, then? Because DC is siding when TVFAN, when he's wrong. And at least with you, there's two sides verses the other. I need someone in my corner. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I read Daniel's page. In my opinion, he's not taking sides. He's just commenting on the facts. What really is going on here is a content dispute between you and TVFAN24. I will certainly offer my opinion on what sources should be allowed. But be advised...taking "sides" is not the point of this encyclopedia. It's about verifiablity. All you should do is edit the best you can, and let people who are being disruptive do themselves in. It will happen. Rm994 (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

But if I revert it back to MY edit, he's going to end up going and reporting me, knowing exactly why I've put it that way. He's showing ownership of articles. And he believes DC is on "his side" with "his opinion". Musicfreak7676 (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to put it up for consensus. Once the community has spoken, you won't have to worry about who "reports" you. They'll be the one in the wrong. Rm994 (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you help me out with that?? I'd really appreciate that, or even recommend that? Musicfreak7676 (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Just go to the talk page of whatever article you are having the issue with, and comment there that you think "whoever" should be listed as recurring. Then, go to the talk pages of other editors and say "Your input is requested at the talk page of (whatever the article is). Then, after a consensus is reached, you can make the changes. Then, if they are reverted continuously but any user, they can be reported for vandalism. Rm994 (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks RM, you're really great! I dunno how you put up with me sometimes, I wouldn't be able to! ahaha Musicfreak7676 (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem. We're all here to help each other! Rm994 (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, do you have an e-mail or something we could talk with off of Wikipedia? I wanna talk some things over with you! Musicfreak7676 (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, just go to the toolbox on the left side of my user page, and click on "E-mail this user". Any information you send during that email will be seen only by me. For more info, see WP:EMAIL. Rm994 (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the option to E-Mail this User at all. =/ Cause I really need to talk to you!! Musicfreak7676 (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You may need to set up your email with wikipedia. WP:EMAIL will show you exactly how to do it :) Rm994 (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I do? But what if I don't want everyone knowing my e-mail???? LOL. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It won't be public. It's just a way to contact others. When you send an email through it, it comes up "Wikipedia email". It doesn't show your address. Rm994 (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. Sent one! Musicfreak7676 (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The format for soap pages has already been established on the project page. All you have to do is click "undo" by the edits. If that doesn't work, you can report the user. I have no admin power to block anyone, so you'd have to go to someone else. If it's really hard core vandalism, you can post at WP:AIV. Hope this helps. Rm994 (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

But how we make the text smaller, that's what we do, yes? Musicfreak7676 (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You'd have to look at the soap project page, and I'm not sure of the link to it. I don't think the small text is really an issue, but I could be wrong. I'm sure if you contact User:TAnthony or User:Daniel Case, they can point you to right direction. Rm994 (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. The small text doesn't bother me, I just see it being done on a lot of different pages, aha. Looks weird with non-small text, aha. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you requested that someone be blocked via email for following Wikipedia's guidelines? There is no consensus on small text, as you will notice at WP:SOAPS they use a mixture of small and big text when it comes to info box dates used in the example. From Rm's reply above, it also appears that you have accused myself or this new editor of vandalism. He added sources and I applied a clean up. You reverted - and when asked you clearly stated that while you know Wikipedia should not resemble a fansite, because soap opera characters have gained fans - we should maintain every non-notable detail to satisfy fans needs. You also said that you were not blocking changes to any article, however here you are obviously doing so. If you think all articles in the field of WP:SOAPS should follow the same format, you can attempt to build a consensus on the matter at the Wikiproject. I'm not sure what you told Rm exactly, having spoken to this user previously, I doubt they would advice you to undo sourced content and go against MOS:FICTION and MOS:DATE by included masses of in universe infromation in an infobox. If a wikiproject has a small consensus - and a wider one exists like at the manual of style regarding fiction, then that should be followed. As we found out recently, when their was a consensus regarding storyline sections needing sources. We decided that the TV series acts as the source, however, the wider comminity decided that sources are required. I'm sorry for the essay on your talk page Rm994.RaintheOne ^BAM 19:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I was not requesting a block on anyone, nor had I mentioned any names. What I discussed in my e-mail with Rm is of a private matter, and I only asked on here about the small text.

Inviting You into Discussions

I'm inviting you into these discussions: [1] [2]. Figured you'd like to be included, as a big contributor to the soaps. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Adoptive Colour Scheme?

Does such a thing exist because someone is changing all of the Y&R characters to "lavender" because B&B is Y&R's soap sister. Is this right? Musicfreak7676 (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Um, nevermind. I'm leaving Wikipedia for good. I can't deal with people claiming to make articles better when they aren't. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Boss Mileena

Mortal Kombat: Shaolin Monks (twice normal and once a secret boss). --194.145.185.229 (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Then provide a source to that instead of just assuming that everyone knows it's true. Rm994 (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

If you don't know the games, and also don't believe Wikipedia, why won't you at least use Google before editing? You could et a confirmation of this information with an extreme ease, from MK Wikia and from various other websites too, and you could even watch the recorded Mileena boss fights on YouTube and other such services, or anything really, if you just checked instead of wildly guessing like that. But why do you even try to write about the subjects that you know nothing about? Anyway be careful next time, because just an ignorance is not really a valid excuse. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Insults like that could get you blocked from editing. See WP:CIVIL. MK wikia is not a reliable source. You need to familiarize yourself with the rules of this site before accusing others of ignorance. Rm994 (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey man!

Hey RM, how's it going?? Hope you had safe and happy holidays!! Musicfreak7676 (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Good, visiting my family :) Hope you are well too! Rm994 (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm doing okay, battling a bug right now. But did a visit with the family Christmas Eve. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

That DaBrat keeps trying to change the images to a lesser quality, all because they aren't so-called "full photographs". Care to help out? Musicfreak7676 (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see the harm in either way. I see DrBrat's point with using the full size image, but I see the point about less quality photos as well. What you should do is go on the talk page for Will and suggest it your way, then let DrBrat know your intention and where he/she can comment. Don't edit war about it though, it can get you blocked. Someone was trying to edit war with me over the speculation they kept trying to introduce and they got blocked. Hope this helps. Rm994 (talk)

I'll try. Doesn't seem like they even wanna discuss it. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I added a discussion on talk page-- if they continue to change it, what should I do? The image they're uploading is too big height-wise. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Too big according to who? If it's an image use violation, the community will back you up. Refer the editor to the guidelines on image use. My advice is also to contact editors to let them weigh in on what should be done. That way, if a consensus is reached, then that's the way it stays. If the editor continues to edit the pic after a consensus has been reached, he/she can be blocked. It's how we get "Rafe Hernandez 2" to stay on the Days cast member page. Consenus was reach a while ago to call him that. Hope this helps :) Rm994 (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

They complained I added black bars (which I did not) and cropped off the top of the head, which I simply did during my cropping, which can EASILY be fixed in a moment's notice. I feel like my sizes help the article be smaller and created less of a mass of images for the character(s). Maybe you could chime in on the discussion? I'm simply making such edits to bring a better quality to the pages. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, can ya revert the image now? They don't care anymore. I would but I don't wanna be banned. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Help with "Wingard"

This person keeps removing commas, saying they're never seen them in dates. And it's turning into a war. I've reported them but they aren't stopping. Their English is HORRIFIC. Please help! Musicfreak7676 (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Kate Roberts (a. k. a. Kate Winograd)

I understand the Jason47 isn't the most reliable source, but the source that confirmed that Kate Roberts was once known as Kate Winograd was actually straight from NBC; here is the link, though you have to use an archive to access it; it clearly states that Kate Roberts and Kate Winograd are the same person; if it's okay, can I add the information back to the article? http://web.archive.org/web/20080717104109/http://www.nbc.com/Days_of_our_Lives/family_tree/horton/bill_horton.shtml --Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 22:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It's an archived source, not a current one. I'd be careful with adding that back. Sometimes the reliability of the NBC site can be called into question as well as it is NOT a published 3rd party source. It deals directly with the subject, and is not objective. I have found several factual errors in the nbc site as well. Rm994 (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

According to IMDb, Elaine Princi protrayed Kate Winograd, who is classified under Kate Roberts... what would that mean? Would that make Winograd and Roberts are the same? Or that IMDb made a mistake? _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 02:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I think sometimes WP:V has issues with imdb, and I myself have seen several errors in it. I think that Kate Winograd is supposed to be a retconned Kate Roberts, but I am not sure. The only sources supporting it are unreliable. Rm994 (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Because I was checking IMDb for some stuff, and it said one of her alias were "Kate Winograd". So I didn't know if that meant it was the same thing. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 02:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced?

It was clearly stated that Hope and John are still LEGALLY man and wife so it should be referenced. Hope and Bo are not married and niether are John and Marlena. It was also clearly stated that John and Marlena's 2009 union is invalid as well as Hope and Bo's 2000 union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.87.213 (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Didn't they just SAY that John and Hope had gotten married during her time as Princess Gina? Arjoccolenty (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That makes no difference. That is not a source. Please see WP:CITE for more information. Yes, they did say it. However, they did NOT say it was in 1999. It could have been in 1990-1994. This is why we must add reliable sources to any controversial information. Thanks. Rm994 (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Where do we get information that is sourced? Arjoccolenty (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:V, we should use reliable 3rd party sources to confirm facts, especially potentially controversial ones. In the past, the nbc.com and soapoperadigest.com sites have been used, although since they are affiliated with the topic directly, they aren't considered 100% reliable. Hope this helps. Rm994 (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What about Daytime Confidential? Arjoccolenty (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Fan sites affilitated with the show are not considered reliable per WP:V. This includes soapcentral.com, soapoperfan.com, soaps.com, daytimeconfidential, etc. Rm994 (talk) 04:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Would About.com be a fansite? Its written by the New York Times so I wouldn't know. Because the New York Times Company owns it. Arjoccolenty (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That would not be considered reliable per WP:V. Rm994 (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Which source should I use then? I need some help so I know where to get information. Arjoccolenty (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

See WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:RELIABLE for more information. Rm994 (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Arjoccolenty is right about the show being the source in this case. This how it is for plot summaries or plot information that has already happened on the show. Why do you think hardly any Wikipedia plot summaries (whether plays, film or television) are sourced with third-party references or any references other than the text? This was already made clear in the Storylines sections lack references discussion (which is now archived, so you can't comment there) and as recently as the Requests for comment discussion (this section is not yet archived). In fact, as shown in the section on your talk page below this, it's in the WP:SOAPS guideline as a result of that first discussion.

You are also wrong that "[f]an sites affilitated with the show are not considered reliable per WP:V. This includes soapcentral.com, soapoperfan.com, soaps.com, daytimeconfidential, etc." No, these are WP:PRIMARY sources, and can therefore be perfectly acceptable for plot material...depending on reliability...and are often perfectly acceptable for soap opera news material. Sometimes, actors/actresses give exclusive interviews to these sites, for example, meaning that the interviews don't exist elsewhere and that therefore these sources can be used for those exclusive interviews. If these sources were never allowed, most American soap opera articles on Wikipedia would be suffering even more than they already are. And while About.com may not be a reliable source for some information, such as a list of soap opera supercouples, it usually passes as a WP:Reliable source; it's been brought to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard countless times and passed each time I witnessed it listed there. 67.55.104.203 (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

SoapCentral has been deemed unreliable per a consensus on the WikiSoapOpera Project. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 22:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Not entirely true. You need to check the archives, and the times it was taken to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. It was only deemed unreliable for plot information because fan volunteers write those. But it was deemed reliable for news information, which is not reported by the fans (other than the creator of the site or an assistant of his who may be a fan). And it can be used for exclusive interviews like I just said because those interviews are exclusive to that site. SoapCentral is the biggest WP:Primary source American soap operas have, and it often reports on news that cannot be found anywhere else. So it's obvious why the WP:SOAPS project hasn't gotten rid of it completely. 67.55.104.203 (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Plot summaries

According to Storyline sourcing, sources are not needed for plotline summaries, as the show acts as a source. Just thought I'd hint you in on this so we could discuss this out, as pertaining to those characters as such on DAYS. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 21:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah well, they should be. Because when you don't require sources, anyone can write whatever they want, and then it becomes a big argument. I just reverted the married to Hope change on John Black because it said "Married while brainwashed". Stefano clearly said on Thursday's show that he had NOTHING to do with John and Hope falling in love. So who do we trust? That's why THIRD PARTY RELIABLE sources are needed, and not fans who add their own speculation. Also, several people have been adding (1999-) to the date John and Hope got married. Who said it was in 1999? That's speculation. Just like it's speculation that Nicole is carrying EJ's child. We don't REALLY know who the father is. This is why sourcing is so important. And it doesn't matter anyway, the rules of wiki say that controversial unsourced material can be challenged and removed. So, in the future, when unsourced material of a controversial nature arises, I will let the community decide on the talk page, instead of just insulting people on their talk page by calling them "wrong", when in reality those fan sites are COMPLETELY unreliable. Rm994 (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

That pertains to plot summaries, regarding the show. I'm not talking about the John/Hope situation, I'm saying in general. I tried bringing something to your attention, that was a consensus on the project and is stated on the project page. I'm not talking about the side-bar, I'm talking about the main paragraph(s) of the plot summaries. I tried bringing it to your attention so you know they have some validity to their claims pertaining the storyline. If the rules state, clearly, that we don't need sourcing for the plot summaries, then we don't. And it's up to those of us, who do watch the series, to make sure it's as accurate as possible. But we can't stop people from furthering article pages from plot summaries because there are no sources. I brought it to your attention so you knew, not to get you pissed or anything. I'm just trying to bring something to your attention is all. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 19:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh I know, and I appreciate your bringing it to my attention. I also thank you for your valuable input. And you're absolutely right, those of us who do watch the series should make info as accurate as possible. Which is what we all are trying to do. My point here is, and people may disagree, that without requiring a source, people can write whatever they want, even if it's wrong. Then we have to go behind and clean it up. With a reliable third party source, it's more valid. But like I said, if I see anymore controversial speculation, I'll remove it, then ask the community to decide on the talk page until consensus is reached. That's the right way to do it. It's the reason I asked about 2012- being added to the column under Princess Gina. This encyclopedia is a collaborative effort, not one person's sandbox. Thanks for always being so helpful :) Rm994 (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I think bringing it up in the Talk page is good. Of course for plot summaries, they are going to be less intelligent or attentive people who bring up things. And of course, it is up to those of us who do watch the show to either remove it or correct it to the right information. But, as well, it's incredibly hard to source plot summaries, especially dating back int the earlier decades, you know? As for the InfoBox concerning "Jope", I think sourcin is needed because we don't know when their marriage took place, etc. And if Stefano paid out all of Alamania. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 21:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Couldn't agree more. That's all I'm saying. Hey, if it's true and we see it on the show, so be it, but unsourced speculation has no place in an encyclopedia. Thanks for your help! Rm994 (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Anytime! Thought I'd let you in on the research I had found on the Project page. =) _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 23:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you please link me to where it says that we don't list the years for recurring cast? If that's the case, I'd love to know so I can go through soap pages and remove them. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 23:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

When List of Days of our Lives cast members was first created, the format was decided upon. Now, that doesn't mean that ALL the soap pages don't list their recurring stars' dates, it just means that this one does. Per the project's individual pages, they can be listed. Rm994 (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a discussion where this was decided upon? I'd like to read it for my own knowledge? _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 01:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The best person to contact regarding that info is User:TAnthony or User:Daniel Case. I didn't actually see the discussion. but the format was decided from the get-go. If you want to change it, suggest it on the talk page. That's how we make formatting changes. Hope this helps. Rm994 (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Argh, okay then. Thanks anyway! _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 03:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Your Opinion is Needed

Your opinion is needed on the talk page for List of Days of our Lives cast members. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 18:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You've told me

You've specifically told me tv credits don't count as they aren't third-party, plus as I said, SOD confirmed they're off. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 00:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't add credits as a source. And your source does not provide dates. So technically, it shouldn't even be allowed. We can use end credits to remove someone, it's been done repeatedly under the recurring section. Rm994 (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

SOD Magazine, the physical magazine did. You specifically told me TV credits could not be used since they're not third-party, yet you go against what you speak. I stand by SOD Magazine, the physical publication, which confirmed both exits. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 16:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

But gave no dates. Hence that source is completely unreliable. Rm994 (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It's the newest issue, not the one that originally stated them leaving. It's the newest issue RM. The physical new issue, not the website. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 18:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, where is the date? I won't argue with Renee Jones leaving because her name is off the credits, but Mascolo isn't. He only departed temporarily and his name is on the credits. Rm994 (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It's in the magazine RM! That's what I'm saying. I'll return Mascolo if you want, but Jones is definitely 110% gone for good. But if you want me to return Mascolo I will. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 18:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Not arguing with Jones. Mascolo is temporary though. Thanks. Rm994 (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a note, there's been no core evidence in publications that Mascolo's exit is temporary. While I'm sure it is, there has been no confirmation, only speculation that his exit is temporary. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 19:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I've seen it several times. And his name is still on the credits. Nbc.com can be used as a source this way. Rm994 (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Chad DiMera

I rebuilt the article to establish the character's notability and have since removed the section from the minor character list.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 18:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Your article lacks notability. The sources are all fan sites and not independent third party sources. Wikipedia is a comprehensive encylcopedia, not a fansite devoted to everyone's favorite soap opera characters. The point of having an article here is to establish real world notability. Who cares who Chad DiMera is? Same can be said for most of the character pages on here, and as you can see, some of them have been deleted. The character is more than covered at the minor characters page. I won't continue to redirect, but I assure you, someone will come along and propose it's deletion. Rm994 (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Kristen DiMera

Incorrect information? Clutter? I don't quite get it. The birthdate of the character is listed as July 11, 1960 in two separate Days of our Lives books, and I think that should be listed. Also, listing (adoptive) next to every single name is quite ridiculous. People don't walk around going "oh, that's my adoptive brother" - they simply are brothers and sisters. Another issue with this article is that the title, Kristen Blake, is wrong. Her legal name is Kristen DiMera.

Yeah, incorrect information. Peter DiMera? That is not and has never been his name. And Kristen Blake is not wrong. That's how she came to the show in 1993 and per WP:COMMONNAMES, the most common name associated with the character is what is supposed to be used. And as far as the ages of characters, per soap opera guidelines, characters do not have ages, as they change frequently. You should familiarize yourself with the rules before making contributions. Please feel free to ask if you have questions :) Thank you. Rm994 (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't give a damn that she came in as Kristen Blake in 1993 (20 years ago?), but it is obvious her legal name right now is Kristen DiMera. This is obvious if you have been watching her since her recent return to the show. It's possible that Peter is still "Peter Blake", but since both of them are legally adopted by Stefano, I would guess that his legal name is likely "Peter DiMera". Characters don't have birthdates? Chad's article lists one, so does Lexie Carver's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.97.5 (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Another thing - didn't EJ come in as "EJ Wells", so why is his article titled "EJ DiMera"? The inconsistencies are ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.97.5 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I do have a Wiki account. Though I don't have the time right now, I will be taking a look at many of these character articles and I am going to be pointing out problems and inconsistencies. I am going to change things around, and I'm going to use the Wiki guidelines to get them the way they should be. Get ready for a huge debate (if you are up to it), because I'm going to make an issue out of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.97.5 (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

If you go against the consensus and community, we will block you for disruptive editing. Friendly discussion about formatting changes is welcome, but comments like "I don't give a damn" and "Get ready for a huge debate" are violations of WP:CIVIL, and will not be tolerated. Rm994 (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion needed

Your opinion is needed here. 71.233.227.127 (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

That Soapfan person removed their other characters. They seem to have a serious WP:OWNING issue that they've displayed in the past and have serious violent tendencies. The other character should still be on that page. Can you revert the edits? 71.233.227.127 (talk) 05:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

If the talk page consensus is that the characters should not be added, then I can't revert. I also can't revert because users aren't allow to edit on behalf of other users. I say check and see if a consensus has been reached. If it has not, put it up for discussion. If it has, we can't revert it. Hope this helps. Rm994 (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Your discussion is required

Your discussion is required here for discussion. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Help!

I know you're still well involved with Days of our Lives articles, and there's an editor going against the consensus we had concerning Rafe 2, and defying Wiki policies. Any way to potentially help, as a third-party editor? Thanks! livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I will continue to revert unsourced speculation, and will point out policies to anyone who is going against consensus. Thanks. Rm994 (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Days of Our Lives cast members may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | [Wally Kurth]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Recurring Dates & Date Break Consensus Talks

Can you tell where these consensus talks happened because @5 albert square: has shown others that contradict what you're saying? Thank you in advance!Cebr1979 (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Cebr1979: I have no idea what this is about but the only consensus talks I have directed you to before were about breaks under 1 year not being counted. There have been discussions about this here and here that we do not count breaks under a year. This is to prevent the ibox from becoming too overcrowded--5 albert square (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

That was one of them, I was just scrolling through the Taylor Hayes page to find it. Thank you.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It's been two months and you haven't responded even though you have been online. I have requested assistance here and will be editing accordingly based on responses.Cebr1979 (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Based on the comments there, it's pretty clear that WP:V will override any consensus. The reason that recurring dates were never added was because they do not pass WP:V. Recurring is actually a misnomer anyway. How do you verify someone is recurring? In reality, they are just guest spots, with no verifiable dates attached. Anything you add that cannot be verified will be subjected to the rules of WP:V, in which unsourced material can be removed. Rm994 (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia does allow the show to be a source. The fact that they were there (on the TV screen) is fine. I will be putting the dates back later today. You are free to start a consensus talk if you like but, as per every other related page, there is nothing "clear" about the personal preference you've had for years now.Cebr1979 (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah well, what's beginning to be more "clear" is that you're starting to show violations of WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL. I haven't insulted your "preferences" or anything about you. I'm not the one who removed the recurring dates in the first place. All I'm saying is how do you verify that? And WP:V IS clear. Unsourced controversial material can be challenged and removed. The best thing to do is to again, put it up for consensus. But be careful, as it will be hard to disruptively edit the page (which obviously plan to do) when you're blocked for violations. Rm994 (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I won't get blocked for doing something that wikipedia supports on every other show and that I've requested information about before doing. Have a wonderful day.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Days of our Lives is not every other show. Again, the very best way to do it is to offer it up for consensus BEFORE editing. If the community agrees with the change, I will support it as well. I will even help you add the dates. But we must follow the rules. Controversial edits need to be put up for consensus on the talk page. If you want to do it, cool. If not, I'll do it. Have a nice day. Rm994 (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Since there is no verifiable proof that such a consensus talk exists that would prevent dates being added to the recurring years section, I've gone ahead and added them here. I know you threatened me with being blocked for doing so but, that's not something an editor can be blocked for and I don't feel like being bullied today. Have a good day as well.Cebr1979 (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is bullying you. And to get the consensus talk, offer it up on the discussion page. It is common practice on Wikipedia to offer those up before controversial edits are made. I will remove the dates until consensus is reached. That is the rule. If consensus is reached, you can add them back, no problem. Since you obviously have no intention of following the rules by offering up a consensus, I will offer it up on the talk page so you can comment there. Rm994 (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't start reverting. There's a talk started (I've linked to it) and you're the only roadblock. The only reason you've had (for over three years now) to not have them there is a consensus only you know existed (and even you don't know where). I've taken other steps as well and have been very thorough in checking to make sure this edit can be done. There's absolutely no reason (none) that a consensus talk is needed to allow dates to be there for recurring roles. You claim they can't be verified. Well, they can. As I've pointed out, the show is allowed to be a source. If you don't like that, that's fine. Can you provide me with a third-party source that each one of the main cast members are currently on contract? We both know you can't. You use the show's end credits for that.Cebr1979 (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

See. You use the show as a source.Cebr1979 (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Then how do you use the show as a source for recurring when the supposed "recurring" characters aren't even listed on there everyday? You miss the point completely with my objection. Sure, the contract cast can be verified using the credits, but recurring can NOT. Your tone and insults are really starting to become frustrating, and if you keep it up, you will be reported for violations of WP:CIVIL. You obviously do NOT understand the rules here, nor do you understand why you can't have your own way. Rules are simple. Controversial edits must be first discussed on the talk page before they are made. I'm not a roadblock. That's name calling and a blatant violation of WP:CIVIL, as if I'm somehow in your way on purpose. I am just trying to follow the rules. And as for ordering me to "don't start reverting", again, another violation of WP:CIVIL. My friendly advice to you, quit while you're ahead. Rm994 (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You are the one wanting it "your own way" and you've been doing everything you can to keep it that way for years even though I'm not the only editor who has stated the info should be there. You've claimed a consensus talk took place and used said talk to keep the page the way you want it for years, although (as per there being no proof) this talk never happened. Wikipedia's own definition of a recurring character is someone who has made at least 5 appearances per season and, for American daytime soap operas, it has been stated that a season runs from sweeps period to sweeps period. As of now, you've been going against consensus (based off edit history rather than a talk) and reverting for your own personal preference (that noone has ever agreed with you on) for far too long. I asked you where this talk of yours happened and you ignored me for weeks and weeks. I searched out other assistance and got it. You then tried to threaten me with a block if I even started a discussion on the matter and now you're reverting valid edits with valid info that bring the page in line with every other American soap article wikipedia has to offer.

Lastly, humans don't live forever. Every cast member (recurring or not) is human. Even if the show lasts forever, every cast member will eventually become a "previous cast member" and, when previous cast members are added to the previous cast members table, dates are included... for contract and non-contract appearances. When a recurring cast member is upped to contract status, the years they recurred are also included in the "main cast members" table. There is no justifiable reason to not include the dates of appearances in the recurring table but, to include them every single place else.Cebr1979 (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I love how you completely ignore your rudeness and name calling and put it all on me, and make up wild accusations like "no one has ever agreed with you on" Wrong. Jason47 has and will agree with me again on it. As for my own "personal preference". Again, check your facts again, you are wrong, yet again. I don't have a "personal preference". Personally, I see nothing wrong with adding the dates. And you are wrong again, in asserting that I want to block you for starting a discussion about it. There is nothing wrong with starting a discussion. There IS something wrong with ordering me around, calling me a "bully" and a "roadblock". Blatant violations of WP:CIVIL. And thanks for ignoring my question to suit your own needs. How can you use the show credits as a source when they change daily? What are you doing to do? Add members names everyday and delete them when they're not there? And yes, a consensus on adding them DID take place at some point on the project page, back in 2006. But even that consensus can be re-done. Why can't we just offer it up for consensus again? If everyone agrees, then what is the problem? I have no problem adding the dates if the contributors FOR THIS PAGE say to add it. It doesn't matter what Y&R does, etc. Nothing is ever going to get accomplished with name calling, and frustration. Please be patient and allow the consensus talk. If no one agrees, you can have your way. Rm994 (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Something I just thought of regarding what you want "verified..." You do realise the dates next to the actors names are not there to say that the actors have been on recurring status for all of those dates, right? The dates are simply listing the years the actors have been on the show... in any capacity. That's it. Take Wally Kurth, for example. He's about to be added to the main cast members section soon and the dates he's been on the show will be there next to his name. That won't mean he was on contract for all those years, it just means he's reported to work at Days for all of those years (whether on contract or not). Cebr1979 (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Well at least those are easier to verify. Like I said, I have no problem with adding the dates. I do fear, however, that someone will come and challenge them as unsourced speculation, and would be well within their rights to do so. It would be so much better if we had a very clear consensus, that way it wouldn't be up for discussion, it would be how it's done. Currently, no such consensus exists for this page. Rm994 (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, they've been there before and many other editors have put them back over the years and noone (except you) has ever challenged them. Also, noone has ever challenged it on any other show's pages so, I think we'll be fine! In fact, now that you don't even have a problem with dates being there, I think we'll be perfectly fine! So glad that's 100% completely settled and this is finally over. Good working with you! Bye for now!Cebr1979 (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I haven't logged in for awhile, so I just noticed I was asked to comment here. Cebr1979 does bring up a good point in regards to Wally Kurth's dates. In regards to debating this section, supposedly the recurring years are not verifiable, yet suddenly they become verifiable when someone joins the contract cast. I think I brought something like this up once in the past in debating this. I asked editors something like "How are the contract dates verifiable for the more recent cast members, since no official books have been published with cast lists in many years." The response was along the lines of "Well, no one has ever challenged it before." So, I just always found it funny the whims of certain pages. Technically, all the dates could be challenged if one thinks about it that way. I see that the dates have been added to the recurring years, and I have no problem with that. I've always thought the Wiki page should be as complete as possible! I don't post much on Wiki anymore, but just wanted to post here to say I think it's fine to include the dates, especially since they get added when someone gets upped to contract status like Wally Kurth soon will be. Jason47a (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine. Just be ready to back things up if it's challenged. If anything I have said or done here has been offensive to you, I apologize, it was not my intent. Rm994 (talk)

Days

So many things happening with the show lately, especially with the recurring cast! Have you been watching?Cebr1979 (talk) 05:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Not like I'd want to. I've been out of town and have only caught up through youtube. What's new? Rm994 (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Days of Our Lives cast members, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Telfer. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Rm994. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Rm994. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Rm994. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)