Yes, and as I have stated in the report and the deletion debate, there is nothing wrong with pointing out a biased "vote" whatsoever, and it has been done in deletion debates here before. This is not the first deletion debate I have pointed out a biased "vote" in. And as for my comments about keeping the article in general, you can call it proof by assertion all you want, but writing paragraphs and paragraphs of reasons why the article should not be deleted, simply reiterating my viewpoint over and over again every time an editor makes an argument for deleting the article is exactly what goes on in deletion debates. I have not stated the same exact thing over and over again, anyway. My comments are helpful and justified, and do not stop a fair or truthful deletion procedure. Flyer22 (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer22 if you continue to make personal attacks on me, accusing me of bias and implying I deliberately set about to destroy your articles, I will take this matter further. Disagreeing with your opinion does NOT mean I am biased. If that was the case I would have clashed with you with over every single soap opera article you have ever been in involved in. As memory serves me correct, we have only ever clashed over two articles Supercouples and List of supercouples. You know the rules of Wikipedia - assume good faith, please stop these persistent attacks on me, and please, as I know you will, do not counter with a response that I persistently attack you. Stop seeing criticism or suggestions on some soap related articles as some kind of unspeakable crime. Paul75 (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "if you continue to make personal attacks on me, accusing me of bias and implying I deliberately set about to destroy your articles, I will take this matter further" is a threat. Do not threaten me.
That said, I cannot help it that I feel you are biased when it comes to these articles. Yes, we clashed on the Supercouple and List of fictional supercouples articles, and I know what you said during those clashes. I also know that the deletion of an article here at Wikipedia should not be about opinion; it should be about whether the article has merit to stand on its own. The Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery article clearly did/does and yet you still "voted" Delete. In fact, you did not change your Delete "vote" even after the article was fixed up by Rocksey. I mean, what am I supposed to think of your involvement in that deletion debate? Even the editor who nominated that article for deletion saw that he was wrong after it provided notability and was fixed up by Rocksey. I later fixed it up even more after that. Saying "disagreeing with your opinion does NOT mean I am biased. If that was the case I would have clashed with you with over every single soap opera article you have ever been in involved in." also does not make me think that differently about you on this matter. I mean, we would have likely agreed on a lot regarding the soap opera articles I have been involved in here, considering that most of these soap opera articles are a mess. It is not like I have fixed up every soap opera article I have ever been involved in here.
I do not see criticism or suggestions on some soap opera-related articles as some kind of unspeakable crime. You remember, don't you, that I was open to the changes you wanted to make to the List of fictional supercouples article? It was one of the two fellow editors maintaining that article with me that acted like you were doing an unspeakable crime. In fact, I thank you for stumbling across that article and doing what you did to help it, even the way you started out there by nominating it for deletion when it was simply List of supercouples. I even later thanked you and AniMate then.
I do apologize, Paul, for making you feel like public enemy #1. I do not want to continue to have you as an enemy here, and I sometimes like your strict attitude regarding some of these articles. Flyer22 (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for making what appears to be a threat, I just did not use my words correctly, I meant I would involve another editor in a mediation dispute if you continued to accuse me of bias. I didn't express that correctly in the heat of the moment and it was not meant to be threatening in any way shape or form. I sincerely apologise. In regards to some of your comments, I voted delete for the Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery article because when I cast my vote it was a very poor article with, if I recall correctly, only two references which did not demonstrate a single evidence of this couple having any notability. I fully stand by my vote of deleteat the time it was cast Please understand that I do have a life and am not on Wikipedia every minute of every day and the next time I checked the deletion debate (some days after) the article had been expanded and the AfD had been lifted. For you to turn this back on me as being proof of my bias and evilness by not changing my vote to keep beggars belief. Once again, please assume good faith and stop trying to see dastardly crimes in every thing I do just because our opinion differs. I wasn't online for a couple of days!! It's nothing sinister, geez.... I apologise again for appearing to threaten you. Just please allow me edit and debate and vote delete or keep on Wikipedia without being accused of bias and being a shifty underhand character.Paul75 (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, Paul. You're right; you reported me before Rocksey fixed up the article, and I should have checked to see that before now. I will say, though, that while I am on Wikipedia more than you, I have a life, too, LOL. I still feel that this article demonstrated notability by that AfterEllen.com reference, even though the article was still in poor shape.
I'm confused about Reese and Bianca being added under the See Also of the List of fictional supercouples. I also noticed they were added to the Notable couples on the Pine Valley page. I know they're groundbreaking because of their storyline being the first of it's kind in American daytime but have they really gained the popularity to make them notable as a couple? Personally I think it's a little early to judge how they might catch on with fans. Rocksey (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are in the See also section because it is simply something worth seeing that is related to soap opera couples on television. And they are in the Notable couples section simply because they are notable. Flyer22 (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have way too many threads on this page, and it would really benefit from an automatic archiving system. If you need help setting this up, let me know. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK22:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'll do it, SheffieldSteel. I've archived my talk page before, as seen above. I've just been lazy in getting around to archiving it this time. Flyer22 (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You restored the fair image to the free image. I'm the one who switched the two. My bad. Anyway I also added detail to the music video chart. FYI I'm gonna put that back in. (NOT THE IMAGE, THE CHART). I'll create a talk page for you to reply to. IHelpWhenICan (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When your nomination was removed with the message "move to next," that means the reviewer was putting it into the queue for articles that are about to go on the main page; it doesn't mean they chose not to use it. There is a page called Template:Did you know/Next update, where editors prepare the next batch of DYK facts for the main page. Yours is currently listed at Queue #5, which will go to the main page in about 3 hours.
As for getting messages, in general you will not receive messages at your talk page, as messages are kept at the nominations page. Of course, sometimes when a reviewer likes your nomination and really wants to be able to clear up all the issues so it can get on the main page, they will nudge you about it (I do that a lot), but they're not required to do it, it's just the reviewer's personal choice. So if you don't get a message, that doesn't mean that your nomination has been rejected. In general, the best thing to do is check on your nomination once a day or so to make sure no one's left a message there, since often people will leave comments about something that needs to be cleaned up in the article before the nomination can be passed. If no comments have been left at all, that just means no reviewer has had a chance to look at it yet, since reviewers generally spend the most time looking at the old nominations first (before those nominations expire) before they get around to looking at newer ones.
Oh, and I did know that DYK messages are generally kept at the DYK talk page (except for when alerting an editor that their nomination made it to the main page) and to check often for comments there about any article I list there. I just felt that you guys had decided not to use the Lena Kundera and Bianca Montgomery article, and I expected a reason there at the talk page for that decision.
For your stellar work over the last month and beyond for keeping Danity Kane and the related articles up-to-date; free of vandalism, copyvios, and POV; and nice and tidy. You have done an excellent job. Keep it up. Acalamari18:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The photobucket links in question were links to copyvio content. If you want to cite an article in Soap Opera Digest, cite the magazine article itself, not an image in violation of copyright. I have fixed the citations, removing only the photobucket URLs. hbent (talk) 05:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and thank you for taking the time to format the references accordingly this time upon your removal; I really appreciate that. Flyer22 (talk) 05:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Making_the_Band_4_live_finale.jpg and Image:Aundrea_and_Aubrey_-_Main,_Main.jpg listed for deletion
FWIW The MOS says that obscure terms should be explained in see also sections so that people don't have to click on them individually to find out what they heck they mean. If you think about it, it makes see-also's a lot more useful.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed Raven in Orbit's comments from the talk section. Your reply was collateral damage. He has displayed a complete lack of any ability to engage or ever formulate a valid argument. He just doesn't READ, neither the article itself nor our comments. Therefore, as non-admins, I propose a simple damnatio memoriae. We don't engage or acknowledge that he exists. With any luck, his blatent ignoring of policy will result in a permanent block. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legitimus (talk • contribs)
Hi Flyer - I supported your ANI report (that was prior to Legitimus appropriately removing the comment). There was an admin response [2], and the user has received a stern warning [3]. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I thank you guys. You guys are the best. Child molestation is a very difficult subject for me, and being called a pedophile really stung. Thanks for the support. And, Legitimus, I will do what you ask in this case, except, of course, if he edits the article inappropriately again. Flyer22 (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you get Soap Opera Digest? There's a 4-page interview/article about Florencia in the latest issue (Dec. 9, Eric Braeden on the cover) that would probably be helpful for the Tea and Todd articles.— TAnthonyTalk20:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that would be great, TAnthony (the scan), thanks. Online, I've read pieces of her latest interviews about coming back, but complete interviews are better, especially when I know the dates of the interviews and the magazines they are from. Flyer22 (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Dixie Cooney Martin.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dixie Cooney Martin.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. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PJ has been blocked for one month for his recent inappropriate behavior. He did, however, upload a new Tea photo over his disputed one. I am going to abstain from the photo decision; I didn't really like the new one, but my main objection was his behavior and ongoing refusal to discuss challenges to his edits. There definitely does not need to be two images of the same actress in the infobox, so by all means choose the one you think is most appropriate and we can see if anyone else has any opinion. I am hoping PJ will have learned the error of his ways by the time his block is lifted and act more civilly and in the spirit of collaboration, but if history is any indication, we may have to deal with this silliness again.— TAnthonyTalk02:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks, TAnthony. I still feel that the one I originally uploaded of Téa Delgado is the better image, but I'll let P.J.'s new image stay for now. I'm going to upload a different 2008 image of her later, seeing as I feel that there will be better options later this week and throughout the trial. Then I will remove that second image of her (the original one). Flyer22 (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's very pragmatic of you, good idea. And you may be interested in my lengthy post-block exchange with P.J. here (you know me, can't quite ever shut up, LOL). Besides me banging my head against the wall for several paragraphs, he says he has Asperger syndrome, which explains a lot about why he has the troubles he does here.— TAnthonyTalk20:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly editing ... he tried to, and the IP was autoblocked, and then he acted as though he didn't know he couldn't edit anonymously when blocked (which of course is ridiculous, since he's done it and been warned before). The good thing is, his IP seems to be fixed; it's the same one his computer used months ago. So he shouldn't be able to log on anonymously from that machine during the block.— TAnthonyTalk21:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Flyer, would you please keep an eye on the articles in this IP editor's contribs? The IP is probably dynamic or a Tor/Proxy, so it would probably be a good idea to also keep a lookout on the various related topics for a while. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Jack. I haven't been looking at my watchlist lately; it stresses me out. And so does Wikipedia, which is why I have not been editing as regularly as I used to (besides outside work to attend to). But I will do what I can to help you. Flyer22 (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Soap Opera Digest image you removed from the Cliff and Nina page is Cliff and Nina. I know it doesn't really look like them but it is. In the bottom left corner it says their names as well as Peter Bergman and Taylor Miller's. I'm not necessarily saying the image should be restored, I was just letting you know.Rocksey (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beacuse IP's keep making crazy edits, I haven't gotten the chance to revise the article and correct mistakes, for example I found an uncited IP edit that everyone forgot about. stuff like that. IHelpWhenICan (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I undid your second edit (hmmm) as it is made up of weasel words, you are using words that lend an authoritative definition modification which does not reflect the mere fact that there simply are differing views on the definition.
As for biological sense, that equates no sense at all. In order to say biological sense in the first paragraph, you'd have to state the "non" biological sense in the next paragraph. Intercourse is a biological action, there is nothing non biological about it. Furthermore, your statement is in direct contradiction with a later paragraph stating that fingering/fisting is outercourse not intercourse. Your edit invalidates that entire paragraph... Just for the record, I've a wonderful lesbian in my family and I am bi so I am not cringing on politics here...--Tallard (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is my including "in the biological sense" lending an "authoritative definition modification which does not reflect the mere fact that there simply are differing views on the definition"? As I stated on your talk page, I feel that by not putting "in the biological sense," it is giving an authoritative definition, and that an editor felt that I was not giving a broad definition of the term. "Therefore, I eventually expanded the lead to have more scope. I still do not feel that sexual intercourse is every sexual act we can think of, but I added 'in its biological sense' as to not give a definitive definition at its beginning." I also don't get how "in the biological sense" makes no sense at all, or how "to say biological sense in the first paragraph, you'd have to state the 'non' biological sense in the next paragraph." We practically do, anyway, but in other such articles where the definition varies, we don't have to do that. Take an article that has is about a term with a medical definition and a non-medical definition. There are many articles on Wikipedia where we state "In the medical field" or whatever, but do not state "in the non-medical field." We simply move on to stating the next definition. You say that "intercourse is a biological action, there is nothing non biological about it," but by "biological" I simply meant coitus/copulation, not the body responding to sexual stimulation.
I can be slow at times, but I also don't get how my statement is "in direct contradiction with a later paragraph stating that fingering/fisting is outercourse not intercourse." By the way, it does not really state that (though some of the references do); it is rather making it clear that those sex acts are hardly ever thought of as sexual intercourse.
As for my "hmm" edit, I don't see how it is made up of weasel words; I simply replaced "other forms of intercourse" with "sexual acts." Why? Well, because these other forms of sexual intimacy did not become known as sexual intercourse until the term broadened, and also because your edit lends one to believe that even more various sex acts are considered sexual intercourse. I'm always somewhere in my head thinking before changing an article; it's never just a whim.
I still feel that the lead needs to be tweaked from first stating sexual intercourse so definitively as sex between a male and a female. It should have something at the beginning of the lead to state that it somewhat varies, then we go in detail on how it varies. The Anal sex article, for example, at least tries to add flexability in stating the primary definition of anal sex as the "insertion of the penis into the partner's anus" by stating "most often refers to." Flyer22 (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments made it obvious to me that the previous wording was not so much misguided as only a bit muddled by multiple editors. So I included your comments and the archive content, and the outercourse content and came up with a bit of a rewrite. My main objectives were to remove the biological sense, the contradictions and to clarify the different possible erh... combinations thereof :) I think/hope you may appreciate.--Tallard (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you haven't noticed, I got the wording "biological sense" from this reference, which I used in the article when I originally rewrote the lead, LOL. I simply left out "strict" in front of that. But, yeah, as I stated on your talk page, I like our combined alteration of the lead and it has been great working with you. Flyer22 (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly handle that :) I was thinking of your "stress" talk/post from a while back, I also pretty much quit editing after some highly fatiguing moments last year (in which I eventually prevailed through arbitration); on pages where you'd never have expected arguments! I am bilingual and binational in Canada, which makes my cultural sensitivities and awareness a little over the top. Add arrogant Frenchmen into the mix and it makes editing French pages extremely litigious and the same vein as certain brit/american/auz litigations on language use. Some days I think that each language wikipedia needs to invent a country/region specific tool because endless regionalisms in a single intro is heavy. Another source of litigation is overuse of internet references, often these pop culture science sites are rife with distorted or misinformation, for internet references I like to limit it to webpages which are themselves well referenced or science organizations vs virtual non contactable entities (of course, as an overeducated scientist, mostly I mean in context of scientific notions) or media pages (I distrust these most).
Why, hello again... I'm good with "usually". However oral non penetrative sex is also mutual masturbation. Fingering/fisting are most definitely penetrative. I switched penetrative to the beginning of the sentence instead.--Tallard (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, oral non-penetrative sex is also mutual masturbation. Fingering/fisting are definitely penetrative, I get that, LOL. On your talk page, I was simply pointing out that fingering/fisting is also considered mutual masturbation, as even the Fingering (sexual act) article notes...even though it is penetrative. Perhaps that article only means "digital penetration," which it also covers, when meaning the penetration type of fingering. However, most people say "fingering" when referring to penetration of the vagina or anus, not "digital penetration." So there's the fact that even though fingering can be penetrative, it is still considered outercourse due to the fact that "no bodily fluids are intended to be exchanged, and outercourse is therefore often considered a practice of safer sex, as well as of birth control." I suppose that's the reason that fingering is listed in the Mutual masturbation article (actually titled Non-penetrative sex), because it may or may not be penetrative and is considered outercourse either way.
WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ???? I've barely been around since our last conversation and my first language IS English. I've read a gazillion books on animal topics during uni through my teaching of animal anatomy and physiology, so what, now you're going to want "proof" and "references" about a matter of wording which I know both exist but I know full well which is best in a scientific context. To use your terminology, why do YOU doubt everything I do??? I don't have much computer time so I don't hover over pages making sure they're to my liking! I visit certain pages once in a while and only correct things I know to be "less than correct". Does this page belong to you. Does EVERY modification need YOUR approval? Do you filter EVERYONE's modifications? Because that's sure what it feels like...--Tallard (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, you need to calm down. Second, I am not on Wikipedia as much as I used to be either. Third, I feel that you now feel that the Sexual intercourse article belongs to you and that you filter everything I now do it. Fourth, I didn't say I need "proof" and "references" about a matter of wording such as the wording I stated on your talk page. Fifth, I've read through "a gazillion books" on animal topics during my sexology and mating studies/research. Most of those books do not say "animals other than humans." They mostly say the words "animals and humans" or "non-human animals" to distinguish both, and yet you are saying that your usage is more biological and "more correct." I disagreed and changed it (before you gave your "more biological" talk about it). You changed it back not too long ago to yours without discussion knowing that I am not exactly for that wording. I didn't really come at you with an attitude, so I don't see why you are all worked up about this. When two editors disagree on something, no matter how tiny, it is best to talk it over. It's not like I immediately reverted back to "my wording" (which isn't really my wording, anyway, considering that I didn't originally write that).
The way you have it worded is as if it's including, instead of excluding, humans. It's like saying, "Other than Emmitt Smith, what Dallas Cowboy do you like?" I feel that the way I worded it gets the point across better -- Non-human animals. Flyer22 (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to your tone, simply that. Note, the way YOU'd prefer is non-Emmitt Dallas Cowboy??? Both ways "exclude" humans, it's just one is just less linguistically sound.--Tallard (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about my perceived tone. I didn't mean for you to take it as though I was angry with you. I was rather frustrated, which has a lot more to do with my life off Wikipedia. And, no, LOL, I wouldn't prefer the wording non-Emmitt Dallas Cowboy. But saying non-human animals makes a lot more sense than saying non-Emmitt Dallas Cowboy.
Someone keeps changing both their marital status to divorced, when clearly the couple hasn't done so. I tried to talk to them, but they keep saying that the new Soaps in depth magazine says they will divorce, but it has not happened yet so it should not be apart of their articles. The couple is currently separated and working on their marriage, they keep adding divorced November 2008. Can you please give me a little assistance in this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.85.219 (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are divorced and I have added december 2008 to it. Leave the thing alone. The couple is divorced. Jax
THe IP Vandal has been warned to stay away from making false choices and name calling. I suggest a longer block will do him good. --M42380 (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments but I didnot say that the source is bad, rather the content in the source doesnot support the point under consideration. Check both Efe and Dance-pop's page for clarification on your side. (Though i must say prepare yourself from attack from Dance-pop). Cheers! "Legolas" (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to let you know that the Tamara Braun Fansite, Eve [4], has the screencaps for The Reese and Bianca wedding up. They're a lot clearer than the AfterEllen one and show the couple at the alter, not just approaching it. Using one of those might illustrate the moment better. Rocksey (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added that she was the first bisexual character of color onto her section. Anna's article was little more than plot really and was basically a stub. I feel that the section suits the character much better, and is the begining to cleaning up the character list article.Russell[ Talk ]21:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know, and thanks for that. We should be clear that she was the first recurring bisexual character of color in American prime time television, though. Flyer22 (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer, though your idea to limit uncited additions to the modern examples via paragraph form was a good idea, the manner in which you carried out the reformatting procedure was decidedly biased and therefore unprofessional. You cannot enhance an informative summation with personal opinion, even if it is echoed by an editorial/review source. The fact you centralize a Buffy-Angel relationship (and, by your page inputs it is noted that you are a personal fan), is unacceptable. Rpg/video game references are not appropriate additions for what is supposed to be a non-opinionated, brief (viz., non-esoteric) list of couples which are synonymous with modern day versions of Romeo and Juliet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eos11Eastw (talk • contribs) 06:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not get what you mean. Directly biased? Not at all. It's in the citations. I am not a fan of the Buffy and Angel pairing. I'm just quite familiar with the notability/popularity of that pairing (don't know what you mean by my "page imputs"). I personally prefer Spike and Buffy over Buffy and Angel. Cannot have personal opinion, even if it is echoed by an editorial/review source? Wrong. Stating that a couple is one of the most notable prime time couples when it is backed up by reliable sources is quite allowed by Wikipedia. The personal opinion by many that the couple is notable is what makes it fact. And, yes, Rpg/video game references are appropriate when sourced with reliable sources.
Flyer, I am not someone who is from your past. I do not agree with how you have opted to dominate an article based on personal opinion. That is not what Wikipedia is about. I changed the list back to a list, as that is the format that best serves the topic input. Moreover, it agrees with the standard outlay of the page. You cannot threaten to "bring editors in" because you "prefer" a certain format. Please provide a justification for the paragraph form, which introduces a biased subtext. Even if you were to remove the comment about Buffy being one of the most...etc. couples, you'd still need a logical reason to validate introduction of extraneous information. I feel preventing improper/lack of citation is important, as do you -- yet there should be a better way. Again, a list for this particular type of information is the optimal format, according to sound organizational reasoning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.200.247 (talk) 07:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. As I stated to a Wikipedia administrator: "That section was in messy list format, which is discouraged by Wikipedia, and it only served to tempt people to continue to add uncited couples to it. It was also tagged as needing to comply to Wikipedia standards. I rewrote the section in paragraph form, which was/is cited and valid to comply with Wikipedia standards, and to cut back on people adding uncited modern day star-crossed couples to it, which it did/does. But the editor reverting it, who also recently once blanked the page as an IP and was warned about it, has stated that it's biased. I explained on my talk page that it is not biased whatsoever. The fact that it mentions Buffy and Angel as a notable star-crossed couple is backed up by a reliable source, and can be backed up by more; I hardly see it as biased. The way I worded that section is quite allowed by Wikipedia and preferred over messy list format.
Furthermore, this editor/IP has stated that anime/video games cannot be added to the Star-crossed article, as if there are no anime/video game star-crossed couples."
You say that I have opted to "to dominate an article based on personal opinion." Wrong again. I opted to clean up part of that messy article. And a fictional couple being star-crossed is not a "personal opinion" when they are written that way and there is a valid source to back it up.
It's not a matter of my "threatining" to bring editors in because I "prefer" a certain format; that is the format that Wikipedia prefers; it's Wikipedia's preference. Please provide a justification for the paragraph form, which introduces a biased subtext? There is nothing biased by stating that a couple is a notable star-crossed couple when valid references back it up! And the tag that was on that section, which you can go back in the edit history and find, clearly shows that Wikipedia is against your style of formatting.
A logical reason to validate introduction of extraneous information? It's not "extraneous." It's paragraph form with valid sources. And if you haven't noticed, the Supercouple, Supermodel, and various other articles on Wikipedia are backed up by "personal opinion" of valid sources of what those terms mean and the couples/people who fit those terms. The Star-crossed couple article, however, is more about a couple literally being written as star-crossed. And when valid sources say that a star-crossed couple is notable, it can be added to the Wikipedia article about Star-crossed couples...just like that. Flyer22 (talk) 08:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While Wikipedia prefers concise, thorough coverage of a topic, I believe the aim is for an unbiased entry. The manner in which you present modern examples would not be found,say, in an encyclopedia. In most instances, a list format is unideal, but in this particular case, and with respect to the "classic" examples list preceding it, the bulleted output best serves to convey the information.
The way in which you present Buffy is biased. Even if a source claims the couple to be "one of the most notable" doesn't make it a fact worth "reporting" : an editorial which claims a certain film to be the most memorable film of 2008, doesn't make it thus. The subject is "Modern Examples" -- and so modern examples should be provided. No more. To included video game characters and so forth could make for a tediously long list. It is best to stick to easily recognized/commonly agreed upon (via several sources) examples.
I do not wish to argue with you; it is my hope that a neutral third-party can resolve this issue in the manner that best serves the content (as it has been requested; I have also linked to this page). It is nothing personal. Please realize that.
You are wrong, as I've stated more than once. The manner in which I put the present modern examples is found, say, in this encyclopedia. I noted one couple as notable. And, yes, by Wikipedia policy, if a valid source claims the couple to be "one of the most notable," it does make it a "fact" and worth reporting in an article about the subject. The subject is about star-crossed couples. Romeo and Juliet are noted as a notable star-crossed couple (the most notable, in fact). I simply put Buffy and Angel as a notable prime time star-crossed couple, backed up by a reliable source. It work this way in the Supercouple article as well. What are you going to do, go to that article and remove all that stuff and say that it's "simply opinion"? If you did, you would be seen as a vandal. And, really, I do not see that what you have done to the Star-crossed article, reverting it back to that mess, as that different than vandalism.
Wikipedia also does not go by your standard of this: "To included video game characters and so forth could make for a tediously long list. It is best to stick to easily recognized/commonly agreed upon (via several sources) examples."
WRONG!!!! If the couple has a valid source listing it as a star-crossed couple, it can be added. What don't you get about that? I go by Wikipedia's rules on this, not yours. And your revert to that messy list is the main thing that is going to "make for a tediously long list," as has been witnessed many times in the past.
As for "respect to the 'classic' examples list preceding it," that section will be changed into paragraph form as well, as I was planning on doing. The way I had the Modern day examples section is not something I was planning on having that way forever (not that it would last forever, anyway), seeing as I was going to expand on it, and make it more encyclopedic. It was temporary, and a start in moving away from a mess that has plagued that article ever since that list was introduced to it. Your couples list format is what most definitely would not be found in a, say, encyclopedia. Flyer22 (talk) 08:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and another thing: The Buffy and Angel part could easily be reworded to state that they are considered a notable prime time star-crossed couple (as in using the word "considered" to convey that that is the thought of others). Thus, I really am not getting your problem with my rewrite of that section. You simply seem opposed to the Buffy and Angel couple; that's all. Because reverting that whole section all because it names Buffy and Angel as a notable star-crossed couple (and because it names anime and video games couples) is ridiculous. The rest of that section in the way I worded it simply lists star-crossed couples in paragraph form. With the exception of paragraphs and Wikipedia's preference, it's not that different than list form. Flyer22 (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on the page, it looks better. Only advice I could give you is that some of the info lacks sources. For the article to be stable, they should really be sourced, no matter how obvious it is that they fall into the "star-crossed" category. Paul 73015:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I get your point, Paul. But, other than the last paragraph of the couples in the famous/classic examples section, the majority of the rest of those couples in that section are not directly stated as star-crossed lovers (though it is obvious that we are classifying them as such); there is instead a bit of information about each of those romances. As I stated before, I got most of that information from their couple articles, which are not sourced or are lacking a lot of sourcing in most cases also. I suppose those articles are not sourced too well for the same reason we do not see plot summaries of films sourced here that often -- because the stories, which many have usually seen or know of, serve as the reference. But, as you suggest, I will later try to source that information in the Star-crossed article, and will probably then use whatever valid sources I get to also source a little information in their couple articles. Flyer22 (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply. I commented at the article talk page, I've seen these kind of disputes before. Some editors just don't like opinions in the article, even if they're sourced and notable. As for the sourcing in the article, those examples likely won't be contested but by policy they should still have sources. It's really bordering on OR to discuss them in a Star-crossed lovers article if they haven't been identified as such by a source. Paul 73014:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a big deal for me, either, so, no, I wouldn't really be opposed to you restoring that bit. It just seemed like a non-issue to me - I bet a lot of people who haven't actually seen a particular entertainer don't know that they are white/black/etc. If the implication was that Shepherd "doesn't know much" (i.e. the ""Is the world flat?"" bit from that same paragraph) then I suppose it is useful. If the implication was that Shepherd was making some kind of offensive comment, then it's probably less useful. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your review and edits. Per your previous suggestions, I am trying to shorten the storyline section and put it in the present tense. Why did you override my attempts to put in these revisions? I would like to make them. Were you unaware that I was working on revising the storyline when you made the other edits? I have saved my revisions elsewhere and will put them in the article after I receive your response.
You're welcome for the help. I do not know what you mean by my overriding your attemtpts. Were we editing at the same time, and you had an edit conflict? Flyer22 (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had an edit conflict. I am about half way through the storyline revisions. I can work on the rest tonight and put them all in at once later for your review. Does that work for you?
Loveoandn (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it works for me. I'm not in charge of that article, LOL (though I am often protective of articles I have created, significantly expanded, or fixed up a little). Once I saw it, I knew it needed improving and did so. Then, as you know, I contacted you on how to further improve it as well.
I don't know what happened there. I've never head of Janice Dickson, can you get a wrong IP address? I haven't done anything on wikipedia for years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.119.81 (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I was totally going to mention how I think a section on Jolie's tatoo's is utterly ridiculous, but then decided not to. I just found it funny how you brought it up a few moments later. No hard feelings though, we can agree to disagree. :) The Bookkeeper(of the Occult)03:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She was known as Annie McDermott (seeing as she was married to a minor character named Terry McDermott), which was her common name for a bit. That last name is no longer her common name, however. Flyer22 (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you know the procedure, then you should follow it. No one was saying you are not smart; I was not trying to be condescending to you. It's just that experienced Wikipedia editors know the deal by now. Of course, unsourced information, like water replenishes the body, that is not contested is allowed by Wikipedia (though there are some editors who would even want a source for that), but information that should clearly be sourced is not (no matter that Wikipedia is full of information that should be sourced). I apologize if I offended you in any way. Flyer22 (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that's a bit odd, that is the third time he has done that. Seems quite a perverse edit for vandalsim. Thanks for fixing it, anyway. SimonTrew (talk) 04:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your edits and comments to Olivia Spencer and Natalia Rivera Aitoro article. TV Guide Canada just released an article where they call Otalia "a fledgling supercouple." Is this enough of a mention that I could put them as a supercouple in the article? Also, how do I go about getting them onto the "List of Supercouples"?
Additionally, what is the procedure for the photo deletions. The bot took away an image and I can't tell if any admins made a response or is the bot's actions their decision? I will use your format in the future.
Loveoandn, no, we cannot add a couple who is called a fledgling supercouple. Despite the fact that it is from a reliable source, that's basically the source saying that the couple is a supercouple in the making, not that the couple is indeed a supercouple right now. If the source was most definitely calling Olivia and Natalia a supercouple, and not in a joking manner or in a manner that could be contested, then that is how you could go about getting them on the List of fictional supercouples. For now, they have to remain in the See also section.
The procedure for photo deletions varies depending on what type of photo it is. But in the case of fictional characters, the photo is deleted if it is not tagged/licensed properly or if it does not serve a critical commentary/"needed" purpose in the article (or both). Flyer22 (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated in the edit summary, I know that. I restored further to remove the unsourced changes. Check what I restored to more closely. An editor changed information that was already there; that change was likely a hell of a lot more wrong than IMDb. Flyer22 (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't state that in the edit summary. Your ES read "Restore further" which says nothing about whether you thought IMDb was a reliable source. Dismas|(talk)13:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It stated that I was restoring the article, as I felt restoring the article further was better than leaving it in the state it was in. Unlike some editors, I check the changes by more than just one IP (who has vandalized an article or added contested information) or newbie editor. I did not care about restoring the article back to its IMDb state, as long as the newly unsourced information was removed. The IMDb source has been there for some time, as opposed to that new addition.
I am not a new editor here, nor do I like being treated as though I don't know how things work here. While IMDb is not reliable to Wikipedia in regards to biographical information (though its news source is or was used to source something in Angelina Jolie's article), it is reliable to/allowed on Wikipedia in other instances, which I already knew. I do not need anyone telling me this and reverting the article back to a worse state. I said that I was restoring the article further, and that's what I did. Flyer22 (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You missed my point entirely. You got offended when no offense was intended. I never said anything about your editing experience. Trying to explain any further is probably just going to piss you off even more. So I'm just not even going to bother. Good day, Dismas|(talk)01:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dismas, I feel that you missed my point entirely. It's not just about my editing experience (which, yes, thinking that I might not know the "No IMDb" rule is a part of that); it's about what I stated above. Good day (or rather night right this moment where I'm at) to you as well. Flyer22 (talk) 04:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's him. The IP's Swedish, just to drive that home. Eh, I think we can let this one slide since I deleted it and he didn't retaliate. But one more and he's toast.Legitimus (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I think that the only way to stop the inclusion of unsourced stuff in the article is protecting it from anonymous users, what´s your opinion? Regards, Vanthorn (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Vanthorn[reply]
Yes, it should be protected from IP addresses (anonymous users), but so should all of Wikipedia. Most IP addresses are not that familiar with how Wikipedia works and end up hurting articles more than helping them (they also vandalize articles way more than newbie registered users do). Still, as Wikipedia currently is, we cannot protect the Supermodel article from them for too long; if there is constant vandalism to that article, it will get protection for a few months. But it is not a top priority article, like the Sexual intercourse article is (which is always protected). Flyer22 (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Animate made some edits to the Olivia and Natalia article.
First, I read the WP:Soap section and, as you pointed out to Animate, the section seems to allow soapcentral for character bio info. Now, how does that work? That a section approves of its use, but an individual editor decides otherwise. Now, I have no problem not sourcing any of the storyline. I appreciate your input on this issue.
Second, I understand not using specific YT clips as sources in the storyline section, but was it necessary for Animate to remove the external link to the Otalia Channel? I used the same format as in the Bianca and Maggie article for the BAM Channel. Why remove mine and not that one? What do you do to avoid these problems with that article?
I made good points on AniMate's talk page about this. But so did he. A soap opera project cannot really override a Wikipedia policy, but WP:SOAPS has been in agreement in the past that Soap Opera Central is fine for sourcing plot information due to the fact that these plot summaries are not truly contested, in the same way that film plot summaries on Wikipedia are not usually contested and are often unsourced. After all, Wikipedia is more about contested or likely-to-be contested information, which is why it is so strict on sourcing. This is why I do not find using Soap Opera Central's fictional character biographies to source fictional character biographies here at Wikipedia to be that big of a deal. There are editors here who would agree with me, but there are also editors here who would agree with AniMate. Or even both of us. In the case of information not really being contested such as plot summaries, it is an individual call or WP:consensus call.
Why did AniMate not remove Soap Opera Central from the Storyline section of the Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article? Well, probably because it did not cross his mind. Either that, or he did not want to get into a debate with me about it. As I stated there, AniMate and I have not agreed on most things in regards to Wikipedia in the past. How do I avoid "these problems" of using Soap Opera Central in soap-opera related articles and linking to YouTube in the Bianca and Maggie article? Well, I have not really had to fight to use Soap Opera Central here (sure, I have debated it before with AniMate in the past, way before his removal of Soap Opera Central from the Olivia and Natalia article, but it was not a true struggle for me to keep using the source). As I said before, the source is reliable for soap opera news. It is using it for character biographies that may be cause for concern for some editors here...considering that those biographies are written by contributers (volunteers/fans) of that site, even though that site picks its contributers and it cannot be edited like Wikipedia is edited. As for YouTube, per WP:YOUTUBE, it is a case-by-case call. Sometimes linking to YouTube in the External links section is fine, more so if it is not an unofficial page. For example, some editors would probably want me to remove the link to BAMChannel, since it is not an official Bianca and Maggie page by ABC.
If I were you...I would add the Soap Opera Central references back, with the edit summary of "Soap Opera Central is allowed for that, per WP:SOAPS." But, as an alternative, especially if AniMate would just revert that edit, you could cite the episodes by using Template:Cite episode (like I did with the JR Chandler and Babe Carey article, as well as with part of the Bianca and Maggie plot section, if you know the dates those episodes aired). You could also simply put "Witnessed on air" as a reference, though that would still be better with a full date or year. Or, of course, not source some parts of the plot summary or the plot summary at all.
Update: AniMate has recently removed BAMChannel, as well as BAMForBeginners.com, from the Bianca and Maggie article. I did not revert him, because he has valid points for the removal. I did inform him that I would be taking that matter somewhere on Wikipedia where I can get various thoughts about it, however. Flyer22 (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have not forgotten about fixing up that article. I would not say that I am interested in fixing up several The O.C. character articles, however. Why? Because I have been lazy around Wikipedia lately and do not have the same passion I had about fixing up articles 2 years (or even 1 year) ago. I fixed up the Marissa Cooper article, and I will probably still fix up the Alex Kelly (The O.C.) article as well, though. Flyer22 (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article contradicts itself. And since MTB is a citeable source apparently, we should change the article to the groups current state. It you don't understand what I mean, let me know. IHelpWhenICan (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not that IP BS, I'm talking about stuff that can actually be cited. I'll tell you what. I will start writing a paragraph with ACTUAL cites. If you don't like it, delete it. IHelpWhenICan (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand what you mean. But do not let messy, uncited stuff like that stay in the article anymore. If you can cite something with valid sources about the band continuing on, then write it and source it. But if it is rumors, no matter if from valid sources, it really should not be added. Furthermore, I do not see how it is a contradiction to simply have information about the group having broken up and then new information that says they are regrouping. All the new information would be doing is saying that group is getting back together. Flyer22 (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know you wouldn't understand me. It's not your fault. I'm just too lazy to type a better and more full explanation. I will do that though. IHelpWhenICan (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding my section back, i'm not familiar with editing articles and wasn't sure how to add references properly but I just had to post the section. Phatboi35 (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you reverted multiple edits removing PROD tags from articles stating that the person removing the tag must fix the article's concerns before removing the PROD, but WP:PROD states "If anyone, including the article's creator, removes a {{prod}} tag from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except when the removal is clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article).". It goes on to say if you still want the article to be deleted, you should list it at WP:AFD. FunPika19:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not misunderstand WP:PROD. I reverted his or her removal twice. It was also reverted by the editor who added the prod. According to that editor, the article was speedily deleted before due to providing no notability, and yet you feel that the creator of the article's removal of the prod is perfectly valid? I disagree. Other editors on Wikipedia have rightfully taken the same action as me in regards to other articles when it comes to prod cases similar to this. Flyer22 (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, anybody, including the author, may remove the prod tag without having to even bother attempting to fix any problems leading to the prod tag's addition (and the spirit of PROD I believe is to be able to delete an article where no one, not even the creator, objects to deletion). If you feel that having to attempt to fix it should be mandatory, then I believe Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion#When_removal_is_not_contesting currently has a discussion attempting to change the policy. FunPika20:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are not going to convince me that restoring the prod was wrong, just as you cannot show me a Wikipedia policy or guideline that I do not know of. I may take you up on your offer to go to that disccusion, however. Flyer22 (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And notice this template? It says please do not remove the prod yourself:
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Flyer22 (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FunPika is correct that nomination for speedy deletion and proposed deletion are 2 very different things with very different rules. CSD's may not be removed by the article's creator. Doing so can lead to banning. Removal of prod tags is permitted but really should only be done after either improving the article or with some explanation as to why you think the article is notable enough to avoid deletion. Simply removing a prod tag with no explanation is permitted by is frowned upon. Without a comment its hard to tell if the removal was accidental or intended. All that being said, this is a bit of an odd article. The very first version, as created by Del N. Paulson(talk·contribs·count) led with a csd tag which makes me wonder where it was copied form, especially since the creator wasn't an especially seasoned editor.--RadioFan (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see the difference between the nomination for speedy deletion and proposed deletion and the rules for those, but I have given my reasons above for the add-back. Like you said, removal "should only be done after either improving the article or with some explanation as to why [that person thinks] the article is notable enough to avoid deletion." The removal was not accidental. Not only did that editor remove it twice, that editor made a comment about the removal on that article's talk page. The objection is not strong, however. Flyer22 (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that you are wrong on this one. Anyone can remove PRODs, even the author, and it is not allowed to add them back. Everyone makes mistakes and you are not expected to know everything, but please listen when people are telling you that you made a mistake :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did listen. And I happen to know the "prod rules." I just happen to see it in the way that RadioFan does -- a proposed deletion prod "should only be done after either improving the article or with some explanation as to why [that person thinks] the article is notable enough to avoid deletion." Saying "it is not allowed to add them back" is not something I entirely agree with. And, clearly, a speedy deletion prod being removed by the author is not allowed (nor is removing an AfD prod, which I would not put past that editor also doing). Flyer22 (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to pile on (these sorts of discussions are great at revealing who watches which talk pages), but this is not a situation where there's much scope for interpretation. To quote directly from WP:PROD: "If anyone, including the article's creator, removes a {{prod}} tag from an article for any reason, do not put it back", emphasis original; personal belief is irrelevant, there's no room for debate. I personally agree with you that this clause completely guts PROD and leaves it virtually useless, and should be removed, but as long as it remains in Wikipedia policy it should be adhered to. If you properly know the PROD policy then you know this clause, if you didn't know the policy as well as you thought you did, well now you do. No harm done, everyone move along. I know for an absolute fact that I don't know the letter of every Wikipedia policy and guideline, or even the spirit of some of the more obscure ones. There's no harm in making an innocent mistake or filling in gaps with common sense. As long as everyone learns from past experiences, we can all continue to move onward and upward. Happy‑melon20:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is...it is not about interpretation. I simply disagree, which is why I was pointed to an above discussion where others feel the same way I do. I knew the policy; as others have said -- the prod itself says it can be removed. I read that part of the prod. But all you of coming here and telling me you disagree with me on whatever regarding this matter is not going to change my mind in how I acted, no matter how politely you state it. Yes, this would likely be brought up if I were ever officially considered to be an administrator (though I am thinking of leaving Wikipedia for good these days, anyway), but it is what it is. I want to be honest about this, and I am being. I appreciate you guys wanting to feel that I misunderstood the "prod rules," but that is not the case. Did I make a mistake in regards to Wikipedia's rules on this matter? Yes. If that is what you want me to say, I admit that. But do I feel that I was wrong even so? No. And nothing will change that. Sure, it may not be normal for a person to know "the letter of every Wikipedia policy and guideline, or even the spirit of some of the more obscure ones," but I should inform you all that I pretty much have a photographic memory. Maybe not in its purest form, since it is a debated ability, but that is the closest term to describe my memory. I hardly forget anything that I visually see, unless it has been a very long time. Plenty of new images really do stay imprinted on my mind in a clear, exact and visual way. This helps me in my editing on Wikipedia and in remembering things that I said I would do, even if I am lazy in getting around to doing them.
Again, thank you for caring about Wikipedia policy being followed, as it should be; I usually care as well. In this case, however, I acted against the "prod rule." As I said, a mistake according to Wikipedia, but it is one that I do not regret or feel was wrong. Flyer22 (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly I'm not trying to chastise you for 'breaking' an ironclad rule; I can't speak for the others in this thread but as I've said above, I personally agree with you that the rule in question is somewhat asinine. No rule here is unbreakable, that's why we have IAR. I'm purely concerned with ensuring that there isn't any misunderstanding: the policy is absolutely clear, and it explicitly proscribes the actions you took. As long as you're aware that that is the situation, as you indeed say, then that issue is resolved. There is no requirement for you to agree with Wikipedia policies, and no one can force you to comply with them. If a consensus forms that any disruption caused by policy violations outweighs the benefit you bring to the encyclopedia, you can simply be asked to leave, but I can't see that happening if all you disagree with is PROD. Your mainspace contributions certainly support that expectation.
All in all, this is very much a tempest in a teacup, I agree with your comment below that there is little more to discuss. If you were an admin you'd probably have been trouted; life goes on. Happy‑melon17:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think perhaps the misunderstanding is arising from an incorrect word. Flyer is saying things like "speedy deletion prod" and "AfD prod" which is very confusing. Prod = Proposed deletion = WP:PROD. Perhaps the word you are looking for is "template" or maybe "tag"? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No confusion there. I usually say "tag," whether it is a proposed deletion tag, a speedy deletion tag, or an AfD tag. I hardly ever say "prod." My use of the "prod" above for speedy deletion and AfD was simply due to the word "prod" being said over and over again in this discussion.
Wikipedia clearly states that introductions should be concise and summarise the information in the article. some of the info in the intro could be re-directed elsewhere.
2. Article Length/Structure
This article is typical of many articles for long-established careers. It needs better defining into more section to ease navigation. furthermore the sources need check and consolidating as many are quite dated. finally some of the information is duplicated from the pages about the album. The information under each heading should be seperated into what has happened regarding that period's album and then a sub-section outlining what else Houston has been upto.
Might i just clarify that i didnt appreciate your tone on my talk page. Wikipedia is a online community and my addition of the improvement templates is by no means a degrading of the article nor of editors who frequently contribute. It mearly opens the discussion to make improvements to the article. Much of the information is relevent and factual but the whole nature of wikipedia is of continuous improvement for readability, factual accuracy and relevancy. Please do not take it as a personal thing. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Might I clarify that I do not appreciate your condescending tone on my talk page? My tone on your talk page was fine and was not meant to be rude. It is what it is. Tagging articles with tags that need clarification, without clarifying on the talk page what you feel is the problem, is silly (in my view). The "too long" tag has nothing to do with sources, and adding the tags back when an editor feels that they have improved the article is basically saying that you will continue to do that until you are satisfied with the improvements of an editor. What you consider a "too long" article, others do not. What you consider a lead (intro) needing to be improved, others do not. That is what the talk page is for. Like I said, I do not see how the the Whitney Houston article is "too long" in comparison to other legendary singer articles. Two editors clearly disagree with you, and yet you seem determined to keep tagging the article without discussing your problems with the article on the talk page first. Yes, I feel that was/is the wrong way to go about things. Do not take it personally. Flyer22 (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, for political correctness, and in some way for seeming more encyclopedic to me, I prefer stating "African American" as well. I was going to change it to that. But I noticed that it would not mesh well with the wording of some parts and I was being lazy in not wanting to reword those parts so that they would mesh well. Flyer22 (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Greatdaysfan, is here solely to contribute episode count updates. It seems mind-numbingly boring work, and they update GH, B&B, Days, and Emmerdale like clockwork. Should be simple, but it's proven rather contentious with User:Onelifefreak2007, User:OLTL2002, and a prolific IP having disagreements over it at various times. OLTL2002 has settled down and is a good faith contributor, and we both know what happened to PJ. I'm sure all of this is fascinating to you, but I'm kind of at a loss because on one hand this seems such a stupid thing to edit war over but on the other there are some WP:MOS issues. Greatdaysfan insists on putting the day of the week in addition to the date as seen here, here, and here. I may be a stickler for sources, but I'm not 100% on the manual of style. This seems like something you'd probably know. Frankly, I'm almost embarrassed to be asking this, since it really is so pointless and nit-picky that it's stupid people have fought over it. If you're fine with it, I'll let it go, though it doesn't seem encyclopedic in the least.
As an aside, I wasn't grouping you with PJ in any significant way in my talk page exchange with TAnthony. I value his opinion and he's a good radar for me to check if I'm being a dick or not, which is mostly why I was asking him about our exchange. Anyway, take a look and consider leaving Greatdaysfan a note... which will be blanked fairly quickly. AniMatetalk10:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another aside, is it just me or are the most contentious soap editors housekeepers rather than content contributors? We may disagree, but we don't edit war with each other. PJ on the other hand only updated lists and his preferred cast photos, Randy Jaiyan only obsessively moved articles according to his painfully limited grasp of proper names, and now we have a user who literally only updates episode counts and responds likethis when someone uses a different set of numbers. AniMatetalk10:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, generally, the day of the week should not be mentioned when listing dates. If Greatdaysfan is not going to listen to me about that, then I'm not sure that I should really approach him or her about it. I mean, if it was vandalism or a bigger violation of WP:MOS, then I would. He or she is not really causing much of a problem by listing the day, though. We could form a WP:consensus about it, however, in agreement that the day of the week is best not included in the above noted articles.
As for PJ, I know that you were not grouping me in with him in any signifcant way. That's why I said, "LOL" by that comment of mine.
Yes, it's apparent that the most contentious soap opera editors here are housekeepers rather than content contributors. That frustrates me. I wish we had more people at WP:SOAPS making big improvements to soap opera articles...rather than these trivial matters most of them who are still active here do. I respect the part you do for the WP:SOAPS project.
I have been thinking of significantly improving as many All My Children articles as I can to serve as examples for other editors on what to do with the other articles from soap opera shows (and on what to do with articles about fiction in general), and then leaving for a few months. I hate to think of what articles will "go to hell" without my being here, but Wikipedia has not been fun for me in a long time. It used to be fun to create articles here (it still is), but that fun is taken away in seeing all these other decent, good or great articles consistently needing to be wiped of vandalism. When you know you are the main one keeping those articles from being vandalized, it's even more frustrating because you know what would happen to the articles without you there. It's why now I often take two days off at a time from Wikipedia to help relieve me of such stress/worry. Not too long ago, I was taking 4 to 6 days off from here at a time. I really wish that Wikipedia would not allow IP addresses to edit here (no matter how that sounds); it would cut down on so much vandalism and errors in formatting. Flyer22 (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If WP:Flagged revisions becomes policy, I think a lot of the IP issues should be resolved. Seems like a no brainer to me, though some people are against it. I got Greatdaysfan to agree to no longer add the specific day of the week, and they even expressed some interest in contributing in other areas. We'll see. I was mostly asking for any specific MOS knowledge you have, since I chose to deal with this area that is so boring to me that I would never ask someone to wade deeply into it. I like your idea about AMC article improvement. I've considered doing something similar to GH articles, but they're so heavily edited that I just can't muster the energy. Actually, considering the fact that I extended my vacay for several days, I don't see me having too much time for heavy editing for some time. I love my job, but I think I love sleeping in and relaxing a lot more. If you're feeling down you should watch Susan Boyle's YouTube clip. I'm sure you (and everyone else) have already seen it, but I'm popping into my office every couple of hours or so to watch it again and feel good about humanity. AniMatetalk22:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have not yet seen that YouTube video. Don't hit me, but I had no idea who that person was/is until now. LOL, I guess I'm slacking off on my knowledge of popular culture. It's just that I have not been watching television that much these days, especially talent/singing reality shows. Flyer22 (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't get the memo that to be up to date on pop culture you have to be knowledgeable about singing competitions that don't air in this country. For shame. I love that video, though just about everyone does. I'm going to add it to my happy folder, which has another smile producing video of Christian the lion. AniMatetalk00:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay. I saw paragraph position changes you made to the article, but I stated my feelings about that on your talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just tell me what you mean and point out what problems you have with it, and I will help you on it. I'm in no rush. I'm patient for you to point out what you would like to see improved. Flyer22 (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Departure section is written flawlessly with all the dates intact while the End of group section goes from the 28th to the 25th, 26th, to the 12th. We need to find a way so that its chronological, yet it makes sense. IHelpWhenICan (talk) 03:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the End of group section to see what you mean, but what I see is it being in order. It goes from mid 2008...to January 28, 2009...to February 25, 2009...to February 26, 2009...to April 16, 2009...to April 23, 2009. That's all in order. I mean, if you mean the days, those days all belong to different months. The one time where it actually goes "back in time" is to mention that that new season of Making the Band 4 began on February 12, 2009.
This article is a nightmare. Well, now it's mostly a bad dream. I trimmed about 2/3s of the storyline info, which was painfully, achingly, horridly long. I still think it should be trimmed more, but am more interested in getting some real information in the article. Looking over your work with Todd Manning, would you be interested in taking a pass at Sonny? He's not my favorite character, but there's a ton of information out there about Maurice Bernard and bipolar that would actually make this a viable article. Take a look, and let me know what you think. AniMatetalk01:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen that article as "utterly terrible" for the longest now. I am really lazy these days when it comes to building up these soap opera character articles with real-world information, but it is time for me to "get my butt in gear" and speed up everything that I originally set out to do for these articles. Since I will be putting my "finishing touches" on the Todd Manning article soon, I will see what I can do for the Sonny Corinthos one. That's a promise, that I will try not to take months to do, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is going to be too hard. Sonny and Maurice have had a lot written about them, more so than Todd or his portrayers is my guess. For some reason, General Hospital gets a ridiculous amount of press, despite OLTL being awesome compared to what GH has become. I'll work on it tomorrow, though hopefully not as long as I did today. AniMatetalk06:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sonny and Maurice have had more written about them than Todd or his portrayers? Damn. If that is true, then I could have that article be even longer than Todd's (LOL; not that I want to go that route). I wonder how much scholarly work there is out there about Sonny. Flyer22 (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the amount of online activity in regards to GH, I thought that would be true about coverage. However, I'm learning popularity doesn't translate to complex and newsworthy necessarily. Anyway, I've added several references and a couple of sections, and haven't begun to probe TV Guide Canada or critics like Marlena De Lacroix or Michael Fairman. We'll see. AniMatetalk01:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, I agree with you that his previous relationships before Gwyneth Paltrow, weren't "high profile". When they began dating, yes, it was a "high profile" relationship, during the period that they became engaged and when they ended their engagement. As for Excuseme99, he's trouble; if you recall his edits, specifically on Angelina Jolie and Cher's articles, the user is trouble.
Now, to the final point, I have nothing against you, believe me, I respect you, you did some good wording on Pitt's article, and I thank you for it. Here's my reason: I missed the edit that Lookmeupinla added to the article. But, when I saw this edit, I reverted it back, which prompted me to go back to the revision that was there days before, because of the wording. A month ago, User:EnemyOfTheState helped with tweaking the article, because I do have intentions on nominating it for FAC. Another point: To be honest, I see no difference between the current info. and yours. Just, that you added Paltrow, Jennifer Aniston, and Jolie in the same opening sentence, and then the second sentence saying this ---> "Following a relationship with Paltrow, he married Aniston for five years. As of 2009, he lives with Jolie, in a relationship that has attracted worldwide media attention".
If I've offended you, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to do it. You're a great editor and keep doing what you do. Like I said, Excuseme99 is trouble and I do recall someone exposing the many accounts he has on Wikipedia. I think someone should report him to WP:SOCK. Enough about him, I do have a proposition for you, if you're over me "disrespecting" you. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)15:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I did not mean to give off the impression that you offended me. That's not what I was going for at all. My message on your talk page was simply about my agreeing with you in not agreeing with Excuseme99. By your restoring the article to the edit before my recent one, I simply felt that you were trying to get the article back to a better state than Excuseme99's edit (which was clear). Sure, I felt that you had a problem with my tweaking of his edit (as in you did not like either of the edits), but I was not holding that against you. I simply wanted to know why you objected to my edit of that part of the lead. Thank you for explaining. I did point out how I feel that my edit is different than the current one, but I do not have a huge problem with the way that part of the lead currently is. It has been that way for the longest now, as I stated on Excuseme99's talk page.
I very much respect you as well. The work you have done on the Brad Pitt article has been fantastic, as you know. You are the one who came along and fixed it up so well, and I appreciate that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good (what a relief) cause when I started reading the second paragraph, I was like, 'Oh no, I offended him and he probably wants me to apologize or something'. If its cleared up, its cleared up. :) Believe me, I didn't have a problem; when I saw my watchlist and saw that you left that edit summary in Pitt's article, I had no intentions of seeing what you edited, I knew whatever it was you added, it was all in good faith. Until, Excuseme came and I guess "reverted" your edit, in which I realized that what he wrote did not make sense, so I reverted it. So, to avoid edit warring, I just decided to go back, one of my "catchphrases" here, to the info. that was there before.
Again, I didn't mean to offend you or you're tweaking. :P You are welcome for my reasoning, believe me, I'm glad this didn't result in the two of us getting in each other's nerves, as I've experienced as of late. Well, thank you, I appreciate your comment[s] as well. You do deserve praise for your tweaks here. :) Yes, it was sad that no one was working on Brad Pitt's article, before I began the "work" on it. If everything is indeed good between us, I was wondering if I could ask you for a favor. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)22:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Sure, what's the favor?
I'm female, by the way (I never had much of a problem with people calling me a "him" on here, but it's best that I am called by one or the other instead of both by different people). Flyer22 (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, damn, that's my bad. Oops. I just thought, maybe a reference to the hockey team. My name is a reference to a baseball team. Don't worry, that has happened to me before; I too am a female. Some assume, because of "Blue". Again, I'm sorry, know I know how others have felt. Anyways, if you have some time to spare, could you maybe copy-edit Brad Pitt's article? You're a great tweaker, another hint that you were a "he", and I believe that you can "fix" some info. there. I hope that made sense. I only ask if you're not busy with anything. If you could, I would appreciate your help, a lot. ;) -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)22:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I should apologize to you as well, considering that I thought you were a "he."
Sure, I will copy-edit the Brad Pitt article. You are always copy-editing it and are great at it, though. I am not sure that you need my help with that, but I'll do it. Anything you do not like about my tweaks, you can tweak to your liking, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, people judge before knowing. Its fine, I get that assumption as well. Sometimes I am, just to be sure that the wording is good. Um, I was told that before nominating the article to FAC, I should get a copy-editor, before any nomination takes place. So, I was wondering if you could be that copy-editor. :) Oh, I don't think I'll complain about your tweaks. ;) -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)15:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am sure that calling editors and IPs a "he" without knowing is a combination of Wikipedians having experienced that most editors here are men and us wanting to use one gender pronoun for a person (so we choose "he" and "him" as the most likely or default). We all do it in online instances such as this, which I do not feel is that much about judging. I often say "he or she" when reporting about or talking to an editor or IP, though.
Exactly, I always get the sense that its a "he", mainly with the type of vandalism is inserted into articles. In the other hand, if its not that "heavy" vandalism, then there's a chance its a she. That's true, there are most "he" then "she" here on Wikipedia. But, what can we do. :) Also, it depends on the edits if its a "he" or "she". Thanks, you don't know how much of a lifesaver you are. :P -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)21:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Flyer, I deleted the SoapCentral reference from the Erica Kane article because the page has so many inaccuracies in it, including the part on her age. I really don't think we should use it as a source. Rocksey (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just replied on your talk page about that. What inaccuracies do you feel it has? As for the age, it is pretty right about that (from my knowledge of the show and the SORASing of Erica and her children. Flyer22 (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not feel that the rumor needs mentioning. That rumor of them having already reunited was before confirmation came with this recent episode that they are still no longer a group. Wiki-stlye would be not mentioning the rumor. If you want to mention it, however, it should be placed ahead of the information about this recent finale. Flyer22 (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that. My EXACT submission was "Diddy also stated that he would not be looking for new members, saying that the girls are the one and only Danity Kane.". ---Shadow (talk) 02:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. My bad. Still...try to keep in line with wording...such as calling Sean Combs by his last name (Combs) instead of Diddy. Going by the person's last name after the person's full name has been mentioned within the body of the article is Wikipedia policy; it is formal. Flyer22 (talk) 02:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was involved in doing that while I was staying with a friend who had eye surgery, Wildhartlivie. The discussion regarding it was on WT:ACTOR. There was a consensus (after much discussion) to remove the awards section from the infobox template, thus the ones I was removing were already not visible. The rationale was that the awards are present in several places already in the articles, including filmographies, succession boxes, templates and in the article body and that the listings in the infoboxes were becoming excessively long and in some cases encroached on the prose and layout of the articles themselves. I think there were several variations on proposals first made and the majority supported removing them completely. So, both your thoughts were correct. Hope that helps. LaVidaLoca (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for the template, I would list the actual creator and you as the nominator, but then leave a note saying that you were the substantial contributor. Both substantial contributors and the creators get recognition. That way, you're both happy.
LOL. You made it seem so simple. Not that I feel that the technical creator cares as much about getting credit for it (well, maybe now that I've significantly improved the article). Thanks, though. I was thinking about leaving a note, but was confused on that matter with that template WP:DYK now requires us to use in the nomination process. Flyer22 (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rjanag slightly changed my edit by putting me down as one of the creators.[6] I suppose I got my wish, LOL. I'll know what to do next time in a case like this, given that edit. Flyer22 (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like some of your sage advice regarding the Olivia Spencer and Natalia Rivera Aitoro article. Within the last few weeks, interest and fervor has grown over this couple. Now people are contributing to the article every week. I know it is not my article; however, as you pointed out earlier, I am the editor of the article.
I removed some external links that were posted in that section because they just seem to promote Otalia websites. They had copyrighted material in them (pictures and YouTube videos). My opinion was that the linked sites did not conform to the Wikipedia:External links guidelines. I sent a message to the contributors. They had not logged in so I sent the messages to their ISP addresses. One of the contributors has since reinserted the external link. Do you mind looking at the link and giving me your opinion on whether the external link conforms to the guidelines? The external link at issue is Otalia en Lesbicanarias Resumenes de episodio, vídeos, fotografías, noticias.
Another area of concern is the storyline summary section. I last updated it in January when Olivia and Natalia had the kiss. I did not update it because I was waiting to see how that chapter of the story would play out. I updated it recently because that chapter did end. Wanting to conform to the WP:PLOTSUM guidelines, I shortened the existing plot summary so that adding new material would not make the section overly long. Now, contributors are writing in detailed summaries of the weekly plot. I want to remove the recently added detailed plot summary and send a message to that contributor informing them of the WP:PLOTSUM guidelines. Have you encountered this problem with articles in which you are the editor?
Thank you for any advice or opinion you may be able to give me.
You were right to remove those external links and to leave a message to any of those IPs about it. And you would be right to remove any unneeded or overly long plot details and to leave a message to any IP who added it. Flyer22 (talk) 08:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure you will not find a source regarding the marriage. Respectfully, suggest it be a non-issue. The work you have done on her article is appreciated and your trusted reputation in the Wiki community is recognized. We are merely trying to give you solid information regarding her and her company.
The Total Request Live (TRL) mentions of her marriage to Ian Prange could be used as a source. If it was not mentioned on there that they were married, I do know that it was mentioned on there more than once that he was her boyfriend. Flyer22 (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the episodes can be cited, yes, it very well meets Wikipedia standards. That is why we have templates such as Template:Cite episode. What is a joke here? Her "alleged" marriage to Prange, you mean, at where you work? What company are you claiming to work for in regards to Hilarie Burton? Are you implying that Burton and Prange never had a romantic relationship? If so, then I suppose MTV and Burton was (were) lying about that then, is what you are saying, as well as other valid sources. Flyer22 (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You say let's stay professional. But maybe you should not have acted as though I was interpreting Wikipedia standards wrongly and should not have said "It is a joke here" in response to it being listed here at Wikipedia that those two were married...if you wanted to stay professional. Flyer22 (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
clarifications: 1) it is a joke here in Wilmington 2) suggest focus on HER professional accomplishments - leaving you in peace to upgrade her Wiki article
Aliexpedites (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am focused on her professional accomplishments. That, however, does not mean that her personal life cannot be mentioned. Flyer22 (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Flyer - I'm concerned about the IP's edits because they seem to be an attempt to both make the victims seem sleazier, as you mentioned, and to try to argue the case against the evidence based on OR, not on reliable sourcing. I think we need to be particularly vigilant on this article because of BLP issues all around, for Markoff himself, for the victims, for peripheral people associated with the story. So if we stick to what the newspapers, etc report, and seek out sources that give different interpretations if any exist, we'll be ok. But the IP doesn't seem to get that (yet), and seems to have a fairly clear agenda for whatever reason. I've asked him/her to join the discussion on the talk page, and I'm removing the OR again and reinstating the sourced stuff, but I hope we can move this on to constructive discussion and consensus, and not have to protect the article or bring in any sanctions. I also believe in the tooth fairy and that all people want to do the right thing, but that's another story... Nice to meet you, by the way. Tvoz/talk00:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, good points. Yes, I see much of what you see on this matter (minus the tooth fairy and all people wanting to do the right thing). Flyer22 (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem asking for help so soon, but I honestly don't know if I can help out on this one. I read it quickly and I have to say without looking at the sources themselves that the article needs a lot of work as far as the writing is concerned. Awadewit is a very experienced and talented editor, and I'd take her comments seriously - if she's having a problem with the article as it relates to the original sources, my guess is she's onto something. Sometimes it's more a matter of feel than literal word-for-word duplication, and it could absolutely be unconscious on the writer's part - the story just feels to the writer like it should be told a certain way. But that could be because it echoes the original source too much. If it's too close in structure and form to original sources, there's a problem. From an admittedly fast glance, just looking at the list of references there are way too many citations to two sources, the ABC Chambers piece and the 20/20 piece, which isn't even cited in a verifiable manner. (In fact, are those two separate sources or are they both the 20/20 show?) Honestly, in all of my editing here, I've never seen so many pointers to any single source. Not even close. I didn't even know that it would go to "aa, ab... ba, bb" after a through z. That suggests to me that something's very wrong. So I wouldn't even know where to begin on this. And I'm not familiar with the case, and don't have time to research it right now. But I have to tell you, I think the article needs a major overhaul. Sorry - I'm sure that's not what you wanted to hear, but I really want to be honest with you. Maybe someone else will have the time to edit it way down to something that is within a more normal range. Tvoz/talk06:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your honest take on the article. As for the 20/20 piece not being cited in a verifiable manner, we are allowed to cite sources without using urls, of course. Yes, a reference can go to aa's and ba's, but that does not mean anything is wrong with an article. Other articles have used a source as much as that here. That source is used so much, though, because that is the only source that reported the "full story" on Castor. Other sources only reported parts of the story.
Right, of course we don't have to include URLs (I make that point on a regular basis around here when I remind some of the younger editors that there was life before the net!) but the problem to me in this one is that I couldn't tell if the two sources were actually the same source or different ones. It raised questions to me as a reader, and we don't want to do that. I have never seen that many pointers to one or two sources in my work here, but maybe I just haven't seen it, I suppose. There is a sense, though, that we should not rely too much on too few sources - I guess it can be a problem if there aren't enough other sources available. Maybe what you need to consider is if you can reduce the details that are now in there - they work for a show like 20/20 or 48 Hours or even Unsolved Mysteries - they give a nice background feel and paint a picture that draws the viewer in to care about what happens to the people - but in an encyclopedia article about the case does it matter what color her hair is? Anyway - good luck with it - she sounds like quite a piece of work, and it is an interesting story that I'd like to see here. Tvoz/talk20:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are enough valid sources on this case. But, like I said, there are only the 20/20 sources that give detail about things that I feel are significant to the case. The color of her hair? I guess it does not matter, but there is no main picture of her yet in the article after all (the color of hair has been removed, thpugh). I did not include everything I could have in the Arrest and trial section; all the details there are the most relevant ones. But any revision example you would have for the article, I would be open to listening to.
Another reason that main 20/20 source (the one of the television interview) is used so much within the article is because I use it when I do not have to in some places, as a backup source. I suppose I could remove it from those spots if editors feel that it would make them feel better about how much that source is used within the article.
I have to admit that I am embarrassed by my copyright blunder with this article. I have never been in this kind of trouble with an article before, and am a little discouraged from continuing to work here on Wikipedia due to this. I am not saying that I usually give up when things get tough, but I am saying that it is a big blow to the ego and to my credibility as an editor here. This is really all my fault, though, for rushing with this article for the sake of listing it at WP:DYK. Flyer22 (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be discouraged - no one is judging you, and you've been responding responsibly to the problem which is what counts. Sometimes things get away from us, and we don't see the forest for the trees. I've seen this kind of thing happen before and sometimes I think DYK causes more problems than its worth. But I don't always think that. Hang in there and keep working on it! Tvoz/talk07:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Tvoz. Your words have helped. And I have kind of shaken this off enough to not want to crawl under some rug. It is just that I view everything on Wikipedia as evidence. When something like this happens to an editor here at Wikipedia, it will eventually be brought up against that editor at some later date. It is a strike on my reputation here as a good-faith and credible editor, and now I will have to look over my shoulder for this to be brought up again some day once it is over.
In any regard, I appreciate your advice and words about all this. And I also hope that we can significantly work together on something here at Wikipedia. I will help you when I can with the Philip Markoff article, that is for sure. Flyer22 (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although it may seem a little bit on the redundant side of the article it explains in depth and I mean more in the situation of Danity Kane and why they broke up it explains the relationships and the things that they had to go through in the 5 years since they have been put together. But I know with your help we can make it not seem so redundant.
Thank you for your input.
Icevirgo99 (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to the talk page. I saw nothing in that special that I did not already know and the article does not already basically state. It also did not clear up exactly why they fell apart...because the group itself does not even seem entirely sure on that and has different reasons why. In any case, if we do include it, it needs to be cut way down and does not need its own section. Flyer22 (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But maybe not all that in depth how about this I mean i had no problem with someone else editing it and reason for the break up was not speculation it is the truth but it was inferred that that is why the band broke up. I don't mind someone else revising it I just want to make the article better informative on why they broke up cause it is not.Icevirgo99 (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This should be discussed at the Danity Kane talk page, not at mine. And how is it truth about why they broke up? All it is...is speculation on MTV's part as to what eventually led to the group breaking up, though there is truth in everything that special stated. The truth is...they would still be together right now if Sean Combs (Diddy) had not broken them up. Sure, there were problems within the group, but they all stated that they would have rather kept on being a group while working through those problems.
The point is not revising what you wrote. It is that most of it should not be in the article, considering that it is already in the article and for the reasons I stated on the talk page to you. As a compromise, however, I did just a few minutes ago include a little bit of information that is not redundant...and that is the part about the friendship cliques and insecurities. Flyer22 (talk)
No problem. I will later incorporate other little small things from that special, but not at the End of the group section. Stuff like D. Woods doing a solo King Magazine cover after the Danity Kane King Magazine cover belongs in either the Rumors of disbandment section or the Departure of Aubrey O'Day and D. Woods section (which ever time they appeared on those covers). Flyer22 (talk) 02:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then if you're not going to delete it, then there's no need to woory. We'll cross that bridge if/when we come to it. IMO, it passes WP:NOTE. Dalejenkins | 23:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It having valid sources which could be seen by some editors here as being a notable article is not the problem. The problems with that article is what I stated on your talk page and at their talk pages. Plenty of celebrity couples could have couple articles here if valid sources are mostly all that is needed for that; that is not the point. Does the fact that the media dubbed Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie "Brangelina" and a supercouple mean that they are notable enough as a couple to have their own Wikipedia couple article? If so, that is beside the point. Even if they are also a notable couple for their humanitarianism. If having the Brangelina article was done to put most of the information about that couple there as a way to cut down on information about the couple in their individual articles and have their individual articles conform to not being too long, then you would have more of a valid reason for letting the Brangelina article exist.
I am not crossing any bridge on this. That will be you. Linking to that article in Pitt and Jolie's articles is beyond redundant and really not needed. Flyer22 (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Flyer, long time no talk. I want to thank you for copy-editing the article, I truly appreciate it. I will show you how I truly appreciate it, but first let's get to business about your concerns. The reason I "merged" the paragraphs, per here, was because it was a 1½ sentence, by itself, and didn't look right, IMO. I'll fix that problem, even though I should have when I "merged" the sentence with his appearance on Dallas, since its TV related. Believe me, it was nothing against you, its just that the article is 85 kilobytes long, and the last thing I want is the article extremely long. Hope I cleared that out of the way. As far as the "Brangelina" thing goes, I don't support that even being on the lead, nor a "see also" link in his personal life section, regarding their "nickname". If there is a consensus in Angelina Jolie's article to have "Brangelina" to be removed from the article, I will do the same for Pitt's article. Its really like POV, if you ask me. Update: I've responded to this issue at the talkpage. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)02:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now, to show my appreciation for your hard work, I give you this:
The Copyeditor's Barnstar
I, ThinkBlue, hereby award Flyer the Copyeditor's Barnstar for copy-editing Brad Pitt's article to ensure that it will be FA status. Believe me, your work has not gone unnoticed. Thanks and keep up the good work. :) -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)02:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, ThinkBlue. And thank you for the barnstar. I had no problem with you combining the paragraphs you mentioned. I pointed out on your talk page what my problem is (or probably was by now) with one part of one of the paragraphs. I am not sure about the best way to tweak the lead of the Brad Pitt article. When under review, it may be suggested that it needs a little tweak. Even when an article is fit to be nominated for Featured article status, it will still often times undergo work even during the nomination process.
Glad that you have weighed in on linking to that redundant Brangelina article (discussed above on my talk page). We are already have that "term" linked to once within the article, which leads to the Celebrity section of the Supercouple article; that is enough and not as redundant. Flyer22 (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're welcome. You deserve it. Oh, don't worry about the lead, it was tweaked a month ago. If something comes up, users at the FAC will make sure to make note of it. :) Believe me, I know; I went through hell with both Maggie Gyllenhaal and Kirsten Dunst's articles at FAC. Trust me, I was saying to myself that whatever the outcome was [for both articles] I would take a break from here. But, I never did. I guess I didn't want to quit. :) Yeah, it was decided that even though Jolie's article is FA, and Pitt's is not, that any such info. needs to have consensus before its first included. Its more like cruft, you know. Man, there's no words to say, but Thank you. Thank you for helping me out with this, I truly appreciate it. ;) Maybe in the future I could ask you for another "favor". :P Maybe. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)01:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As long as I am here, sure, you could ask me for another favor. Any time. I will also be right there weighing in on the Brad Pitt article for Featured article status once you nominate it for such.
I'll keep that in mind. :) Cool, hopefully you can help me if any problems arise, that I have no idea what to do. :P Look at me, I sound stupid. I'll nominate the article when this issue dies down (hopefully it won't be long), and thanks for the support, I appreciate it. ;) -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE) 01:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC) -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)01:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just was inquiring on why my addition the supermodel page was taken down. What I added was relevant to the article. I saw nothing on my talk page. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvisi111 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because we are not allowed to use Wikipedia articles as a reference, unless the reference is strictly by linking to that article with a Wikilink (not by formatting a Wikipedia article as the type of reference found in the references section). See Wikipedia: Reliable sources. Flyer22 (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Jenny and Greg on the cover of Soap Opera Digest.jpg listed for deletion
As long as Wikimedia Commons says that the image is free and legit, I go by that. Replacing a newer free image with an older free image makes sense when the older one is better and is essentially of the same thing (it is not like O'Day looks much older now). That image is better than the previous one because it actually shows a clear shot of O'Day's face and is not blurred in any way.
As for Dawn Richard, yeah, I was going to crop a new image for her from the one I got O'Day's current image from. If you do not, I will do it.
I will also add another picture of Aubrey and Aundrea in the Making the Band section of the Danity Kane article once the one noted above is deleted. I will make it harder for that one to be deleted. Flyer22 (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those words stood there for two years, and I never managed to figure or find out why -- if not to puff up a Hollywood frenzy and make it appear to be a global addiction. As for what I said -- let's pretend it's how I talk. It was better, I suppose, not to say anything. --VKokielov (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Aubrey O'Day performing At Last, Season 1.jpg listed for deletion
Oh, c'omn, you know very well that this image should not be deleted. You only nominated it to further your argument after I pointed it out. I knew that you or someone else would probably do that after I pointed it out. Flyer22 (talk) 05:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I am definitely speaking my mind about a few of these images. This deletion nominator is ridiculous. Nominating images such as Famous Luke and Noah kiss.jpg, which there is significant critical commentary about and is a famous kiss, is ridiculous. Flyer22 (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The simple fact is that assuming bad faith on Damiens' part brings nothing to the table that is useful. Are we supposed to revert everything he does because we assume bad faith? No. The nominations were removed once, and have been restored. Further, at the WP:AN/I thread it was noted this is highly inappropriate. Does assuming bad faith automatically clear the images of concern over their inclusion on Wikipedia? No.
You might not like Damiens. You might not like his edits. But, that's not cause to assume bad faith, and doing so only worsens a situation.
As I stated there at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, I cannot assume good faith in what I strongly feel is bad-faith editing. It is not that different than addressing a vandal, in my view. I am not truly calling Damiens.rf a vandal, but these types of irrational deletion nominations are very disruptive to Wikipedia in a way similar to the unconstructive edits of a vandal. He is experienced in nominating images for deletion and knows the rules, and yet he often goes after perfectly valid images. I am suppose to see that as a mistake, when he has done it so many times? If so, it is a costly mistake that he should have learned from by now.
Reporting to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is also about reporting incidents you feel are unjust and the reason for it. If one wants to call that assuming bad faith, then so be it. But I felt that what I stated was useful, as did other editors there. We are not some lynch mob going after an innocent editor here; this is an editor we feel are consistently acting in bad-faith. Removing his nominations were noted as highly inappropriate, but what I stated there was noted as valid by more than one editor. Flyer22 (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hammersoft is right to some degree here, but your attitude is perfectly understandable. I wish we could just close all of these now, and if Damien wants to renominate, he can only do 5 or so per 48 hours. Fifty images are alot to deal with at one time, so your anger is understandable. AniMatedraw20:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:Todd and Téa on Soap Opera Weekly cover.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Todd and Téa on Soap Opera Weekly cover.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. BJBot (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Stacey Castor's expression as verdict is read.jpg listed for deletion
The Bookkeeper(of the Occult) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
Aw, thanks, Bookkeeper. When I first saw that I had a new message, I was like, "Oh, jeez, now what? I really need to take a long break from Wikipedia or just quit this place." But when I saw that it was you with this message, I was glad and very relieved.
Kindness like you have shown me does help, Bookkeeper, especially considering my issues in life off Wikipedia. Thank you a lot. Flyer22 (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man, it's nothing personal. This is simply the policy of image usage. While I think Damiens.rf doesn't always explain things very well (who does?), he has a point and this is exactly the kind of situation we are trying to avoid in WP:NFCC. Try not to take it personally. I don't think Damiens is doing this because of you personally, he hates soaps, he dislikes gay issues, etc, but because he is trying to follow our policies. I can understand you being defensive. When it is something you put so much effort into and then someone tries to undo it, it feels as if your work is being undone. It isn't that your efforts aren't appreciated, but that they just don't meet our criteria.
I know that it is nothing personal on your part. I have already stated my thoughts about Damiens.rf and this matter above. As I stated there and elsewhere, while I feel that some of his deletion nominations of these soap opera images are valid, I feel that some were/are not and do meet criteria (two of these images in particular -- the Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer famous kiss image and the image of famous soap opera couple and "creator" of the Supercouple term Luke Spencer and Laura Webber). His nominating images such as these for deletion is what I feel is careless and does nothing but hurt Wikipedia. His reason for nominating the Luke and Laura image was even more about it being decorative in the Luke Spencer and Laura Webber article, as if its importance to the Supercouple article should be totally disregarded due to that (a "problem" which can be easily solved, and was solved by me, by removing it from the Luke Spencer and Laura Webber article). Flyer22 (talk) 04:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that you feel that the image's use is more valid when used in both articles instead of the Supercouple alone? I mean, as Damiens.rf pointed out, it is mostly decorative in the Luke Spencer and Laura Webber article (as formatted in the way it was before I removed it from there). But I do not see at all how it is against Wikipedia's image policies by being used as the main image in the Supercouple article, considering that it is displaying the appearance of a fictional couple who "created" the term and the event at which the term was coined, as noted in the lead and discussed within the article. Its use is more valid within that article than any other fair-use image there. 05:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Flyer22 (talk)
If the cause of your restoring is written within 40 seconds... man, you're fast!
Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. You have new messages at Mbinebri's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Flyer22 Frozen. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi, Flyer22. I was wondering, after all that recent image cleanup, would you consider voluntarily reviewing all your images uploads and nominate for deletion those that are simply plot decorations? To nominate one of your own uploads for deletion, you just need to add the {{db-author}} tag, and the process is much more quickly resolved than usual FFD. I believe it's currently the best way to continue to improve the free encyclopedia on this regard. What do you say? --Damiens.rf15:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. And I know about db-author. I have used it for some images of mine I have discarded in the past. Thank you for taking the time to politely approach me about this, Damiens.rf. I know that you are just doing your job, and announcing you as possibly being on a crusade against me was not the wisest route to go. I honestly felt that way at the time and saw that a few images you nominated were clearly not just decorative. That, plus your having nominated two images of mine for deletion previous to all the ones of mine you nominated that day simply frustrated the hell out of me.
Hey Flyer, this is about Erica Kane's married names being listed in the character infobox. Since an alias is most notably known as an assumed name, in my opinion, married names don't really fit along side her fake names she took on like Sheila and Desiree Dubois. I also think it's kind of redundant to list them all since the character's marriages are already mentioned in the article and in the infobox. Anyway, I just wanted to explain why I took them out. Rocksey (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As long as they are out of the lead, I do not care much. I do disagree with you, though, where you feel that her married names should not be listed in the alias section of her character infobox, since all are still an alias and those two fake names of hers that she used probably once or twice should not really be noted in the infobox at all, but I am not going to fight you on that. I don't care to fight about too much on Wikipedia these days. Flyer22 (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on those two fake names. She used each of them for a few months and they seem more like "fun facts" then really important information. Rocksey (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Dixie Cooney Martin.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).
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
