Archives

1. Archive 1 August 2007 thru October 2007
2. Archive 2 November to

LOL, nosy me went to Sami Brady to check out what was going on, and I noticed that her loooong character bio is in desperate need of some subheadings to split it up! I see you've said it's being worked on, so maybe you have that in mind. Obviously, it would make editing easier if the text was broken up. — TAnthony^Talk 01:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I think she does too. I started watching the page when it was being moved all over but now I'm looking at the storyline and it kind of sucks and is in need of a lot of clean up. It needs like a section for the 90s, her marriages/engagements, her schemes. There's a lot that could be done. But give me this, I at least tried to edit "in present tense" this time. CelticGreen 01:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to soapcentral, the member on the message boards, known for his insights and detailed information posts, cited that Renton is now on contract, effective immediately. His name will be anonymous, because there is no reason for anyone, like you who is questioning my source, to locate his post. However, you may do that on your own time. Also, this is not an idea. Thank you so very much.71.255.62.199 04:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does "also this is not an idea" mean? Doesn't matter, you are wrong. Unsourced information, rumours from the internet, "some guy" are not sufficient to cite as references on Wikipedia. Since you feel there's "no reason for anyone to locate this post" it is obviously false information. Someone with legitimate forces isn't afraid to say where they got their information. CelticGreen (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism refers only to bad faith edits, and accusing good faith edits of being vandalism is generally considered to be a personal attack. The section, to be blunt, sucks. It relies on sources that do not even use the word "supercouple," and its examples are utter nonsense - Buffy The Vampire Slayer never got ratings high enough to possibly be a supercouple - it was notable only to SF/Fantasy fans and die hard TV watchers. And Mulder and Scully, while a fine example of a will they or won't they couple, are dwarfed by Moonlighting. The section, as it stands, is trash. There's a good section to be written on the subject, but this isn't it. I am sure that primetime supercouples exist. Go find sources that actually use the word supercouple, though, and broaden your references beyond SF/Fantasy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It "sucks" in YOUR OPINION. You removed verifiable, referenced content. That's vandalism. And on a personal note ~ I don't watch sci-fi but very much enjoyed Buffy. CelticGreen (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy is one of my favorite shows of all time. However, its ratings were terrible compared to most TV shows - it aired on a 5th and 6th string network and at its high point pulled ratings that would have gotten it cancelled on any other network. The content, meanwhile, wasn't referenced - it was OR. None of the sources mention supercouples. For an article on supercouples, that's a pretty big problem with the referencing. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The references dont have to say SUPERcouple. Your removal is vendictive and self serving. The section is well sourced and does not have to say supercouple only has to note strong support for the couple. Your removal is obviously personal and not contributal to an encyclopedia. CelticGreen (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For an article on supercouples, yes - the word supercouple has to be used. This does not strike me as a particularly onerous requirement - if the term isn't used to describe these couples then they are not supercouples in any verifiable sense. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. Read the supercouple article to understand what the criteria is, maybe then you'll get it. CelticGreen (talk) 05:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have. This makes me even more sure that the examples are poorly chosen - neither Buffy/Angel nor Mulder/Scully are particularly financially successful, for instance. And, more to the point, it is OR to declare that a couple is a supercouple if nobody previously has done so. Please read our basic content policies WP:V and WP:NOR. This section flagrantly violates them. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I hope you'll at least take this dispute to the talk page of the article, which is a more appropriate place to have it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'vandalism' has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, described at WP:VANDALISM. No good faith edit is ever vandalism, and using the term incorrectly only serves to alienate others. In this case, it would be more productive to discuss ways that the section could be improved, rather than describing Phil's attempts to improve the encyclopedia inaccurately. Phil's concern that the source is being interpreted in violation of WP:NOR is well founded and warrants discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have issue with discussing the subject matter. I don't even have issue with adding a citation needed tag. I do have issue removing entire sections of an article because WP:IDONTLIKE which is why he deleted the entire section. Rather than stating it needed improvement, he mass deleted. That's just ridiculous. There are plenty of things on Wikipedia I don't like or think should be here, but I at least go through proper channels to delete them. CelticGreen (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any proper channel for removing a section from an article; the basic premise of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit any article, as long as it is done in good faith. That includes removing information. In this case, I think Phil is concerned that it might be original research to use a set of criteria we have fashioned to identify characters as supercouples when we don't have any reliable source that makes that identification. That is a subtle issues, because it's right at the edge of what might be permissible. Maybe you could pose the question on WT:NOR, to see what others think. That would bring some other opinions into the discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Anyone can edit articles? NO!! I didn't know that. Okay, end of sarcasm. I disagree with you that removing entire sections of an article with an edit summary that they person doesn't like the section because it's all about sci/fi "Rm section - none of the cited sources refer to the couples mentioned as supercouples, and section was absurdly SF/Fantasy biased" That's personal opinion which is not good faith editing. Removing it because he didn't feel the citations were enough, not lacking, just not enough in his opinion. Flyer22 has gone to great pains to make sure citations reference super, power, notable couple when including. Phil came along and just deleted the section because he didn't like the citations that were there. At least they were there. If he didn't like the citations, he should have requested more, not deleted a sourced section. I read the OR policy this morning, for the umpteenth time. It does not say that sourced information is OR, it says unsourced info is OR. The section is not OR regardless of Phil's opinion. CelticGreen (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do the sources literally say the couples are 'supercouples'? If so, you should point that out to Phil, and I think it will satisfy him. If they don't, that's an issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt he is in and of the mindset to be reasonable. Even Google searches and links do not satisfy HIS criteria. Apparently even Google isn't enough for him. I Googled supercouple = powercouple and got numerous hits and gave the link and one specific links that he apparently doesn't like the name of and claims it's "just a blog" regardless of evidence to the contrary. I don't like the name TMZ but I don't discount their reliability. The link provided was simply to indicate that the URL said "supercouple" but the story read "powercouple." To me that's enough to show that the two words are interchangable, but to Phil they are not. Reasonable at this point is doubtful. CelticGreen (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carl, my opinion has only grown stronger. He's being difficult for the sake of being difficult, not to improve the article. The horse is dead, he keeps beating it and discounts every source given. There's no dealing with people like that. I know, I've encountered them before here. Good luck to Flyer. I gave Phil his precious final word to my comments. I doubt he'll move on though. CelticGreen (talk) 05:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he's being difficult for its own sake. The issue seems to be the scope of the word supercouple - whether it includes all well known couples, or only ones that have been explicitly identified as supercouples. Phil will probably be very vocal in making his case, but I am sure he will work in good faith to improve the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok look. Ford Decker was a storyline for two months ok. And That part about Stefano needs to be added, because that is part of the brady/dimera fued!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newradkid (talk • contribs) 19:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of false information and assumptions/speculation is not allowed. You're vandalizing the page by adding false information. CelticGreen (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it is not false information. Ok maybe we should make a Event page for days or our lives. Cause the page is just going to keep getting bigger and bigger and bigger, cause Days is still on the air! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newradkid (talk • contribs) 19:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try understanding what the page is about before continual disruptive editing INCLUDING how you reply to other users comments. No, an event page is not needed. This is an encyclopedia, not a summary review of soap operas.CelticGreen (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are detagging articles on extremely weak characters. I request that you stop. AnteaterZot (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, you really need to take a deep breath and step back for a second here. "Urge" is not a threat word, and AnteaterZot also did state "I request you to stop." I'm not going to get involved in your argument, but you really need to keep your cool and perhaps have a cup of tea. GlassCobra 04:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't start with "listen" and expect me to read any of what follows. I'm not a teenager and I don't take kindly to "listen" starting a statement. That's reserved for children and I'm far from a child. CelticGreen (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I'm trying to defuse tempers here, not start anything else. I'm merely asking you to be more civil. GlassCobra 04:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take HIS side in his spamming efforts, take his side in his threats, that's fine. I'm cool, I'm not uncivil. I was the one threatened. He's the spammer tagging like a gang banger. When "urging" someone to do something it is always an "or else" proposition. Obviously the fact that you are involved the "or else" was "I'll tell on you and get an admin involved" even though I only removed three unnecessary tags. I strongly disagree with their spamming, that's not uncivil, that's fact. CelticGreen (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly stated that I am not getting involved in the argument, and certainly not taking anyone's side. I have not looked into either your or AnteaterZot's contributions. Urging is most definitely not an "or else" proposition; and indeed, AnteaterZot has stated that he is not trying to threaten you. GlassCobra 04:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was reviewing the SarekOfVulcan thread, and was curious by some of what I saw when I looked back through his contributions...and saw the reverting that you were doing. I questioned why on AN/I, and IrishLass correctly pointed out that I should have come here with it first. Sorry for not doing that. This is the subsection where I brought it up. --Onorem♠Dil 15:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the edits, some of which were very wrong, and just edited or reverted stuff. He appeared to be stalking and I was creeped out and didn't want to see his name on my watchlist, plain and simple. I'm sure admitting that is some sort of violation but it was weird to see so many edits by a person who's never participate in the Days articles. I didn't touch any other than the ones on my watchlist and only reverted edits I felt were wrong. Maybe they weren't, but at the time, my feelings were different. CelticGreen (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your repetitive question. I removed it once, that should have told you I was done with the issue. Since you persisted again, I'll say it outright ~ I am done with the issue. I will NEVER answer you. Please just move on. Thank you.CelticGreen (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Changing username. It's a pretty simple process, actually. Mangojuice^talk 03:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If I get my wish I'll be KellianaCat. Kelliana ~ the name I wish I was born with or had given one of my daughters. Cat ~ I have soooooooooooooooo many. CelticGreen (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the new name. :) Mangojuice^talk 04:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You think people will know I'm a female now?  :^) KellyAna (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that all of the edits you made to the article were fine. I wouldn't have manually removed the slashes myself, but I also wouldn't have replaced them as Xihr did. I can't understand why they'd waste time reverted that change. I don't think a formatting issue is worth getting too upset over though. In the issue with SofV's edits, I wouldn't have brought it up if there had only been a few reverts that only had to do with formatting in the background. It was this revert that really confused me...and then I noticed other edits which, while not wrong, seemed to be unnecessary. I do think it's kind of funny that if he'd have followed his own advice to start with, there'd be nothing to potentially be upset about. --Onorem♠Dil 02:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why are you signing your posts with your old username? Since that user does not exist, the user pages technicallyshould be deleted per WP:CSD#U2, which would delete the redirects here, also. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I understand. I only ever use the four tildes to sign. I'll do it here and we'll see what happens. KellyAna (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you can see, it's my new user name showing up when I sign so I'm not sure what the problem you are seeing is. KellyAna (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I didn't check your other posts. I did notice this one. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's old. I just got the name change over the weekend. I wondered what was going on when you said it wasn't working. I didn't think I should go resign things because it would throw off the dates. KellyAna (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? I didn't do my homework on this one, just noticed the difference. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]