User talk:KellyAna - Wikipedia

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

Nobody knows if they went through with the annulment so for the time being they are still married until they clear it up.Bleek25 (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

If The Futon Critic is "gossip" then I'm hear to tell you they have the right "gossip" and they have been 100% reliable all season with the episodes for Las Vegas. You still didn't say why now you're jumping in there. I submitted episodes earlier in the season and you never said boo.

I still stand by The Futon Critic as a reliable source for episodes, because they get their information from NBC. Same goes for TV Guide's blogs. They've stated many times someone will make a guest appearence on a show and said person does appear.

James Blunt - "Same Mistake" in the two hour finale of Las Vegas titled "Three Weddings and a Funeral Parts 1 & 2" airing February 152008 @ 9:00pm E/P.

I'd like to point out one other thing. Many users do not believe Wiki is reliable either, since this site too relies of fans of shows for information and can be considered "gossip". Robinepowell (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Many people/users don't believe Wikipedia is reliable because of users who continually put up unreliable information. If we were more diligent about bad sources, Wikipedia would become a more reliable site in and of itself. Stand by Futon Critic all you want, it's not considered reliable, as you've been told many,many,many times, your edits will just continue to be reverted. KellyAna (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

If the Futon is so unreliable, then why did every single episode for Season 5 of Las Vegas right? Same thing for Gossip Girl, Law & Order: SVU, ER and CSI?

Btw, concerning references, when are you going to re-add for episodes from Seasons 1-4 and the rest of Season 5? Robinepowell (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

It is not my responsibility to go back and find old references but it is my responsibility to keep you from removing legitimate references. You were blocked for your actions. You should discontinue editing in a manner that has already gotten you blocked. KellyAna (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Kristen Renton on Days of Our Lives is on Contract not recurring status. She first appeared on days in september 2007 on recurring status. But in december went on contract. Her first contract appearance on Days was December 3, 2007. http://members.aol.com/jason47b/ is a source on this but I've seen this news in several different places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doolkid (talk • contribs) 23:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Incorrect. That is false information perpetuated by a wanna be Days "historian" by the name of Jason (you've put up his not considered reliable source webpage) based on speculation that her name was in X order in the credits. She's not on contract and has only appeared once in 2008. KellyAna (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I found another source that says Kristen Renton is on contract. Here is the Link http://www.soapcentral.com/days/castlist.phpIf this is not satisfactory enough, I will email nbc, sony pictures, whoever... to get proof.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doolkid (talk • contribs) 04:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also, just because she's only appeared once in 2008 doesn't mean she's not on contract. Frances Reid is on contract and only appeared twice in 2007. I understand these are special circumstances for the shows aging Matriarch. I'm just saying that one does not have to be on often to be on contract. They put her on contract so they can use her at their will. Just because they aren't using her much now doesn't mean they don't how plans on using her more later down the road. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doolkid (talk • contribs) 04:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

http://www.dayscafe.com/cast.html is another source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doolkid (talk • contribs) 04:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

http://celebratingthesoaps.com/news.html another source —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doolkid (talk • contribs) 04:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/12/30/Northpinellas/Days_of_her_life_look.shtml also mentions her year-long contract —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doolkid (talk • contribs) 04:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The most recent link I put up with a published newspaper article. That's a veriable source. If you have doubts about this source or want to know where the reporter got her source (she interviewed Renton herself by the way) there is a link to the reporters email address below the article. One of us could contact her. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doolkid (talk • contribs) 04:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Further speculation... I've seen this on several message boards, there's a rumor that Morgan is Tony and Anna's long lost child. Tony and Anna made their first appearance in 2008 today. (1/29). Since we haven't had Tony and Anna yet, they couldn't have used Morgan yet to initiate this storyline. I don't have proof that this storyline will take place...I'm just trying to show her lack of appearance on 2008 thus far does not mean anything about if she's on contract or recurring. Which is an argument you used that she's not on contract. Besides her character was in her hometown for christmas break...my college would not start up school for the spring semester until the end of January...so its perfectly reasonable to assume why the character hadn't been seen yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doolkid (talk • contribs) 05:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Rumours and speculation have no place in articles. IrishLass (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

That rumor was not in an article. I placed it in the discussion. I had no intentions on putting this information on an article. I was only trying to make a point about how Morgan is popping up everywhere in the rumor world and she should be taken seriously. I would hope you try to help me verify if she's on contract or not. And It would be okay if you said that rumors without reliable sources have no place here. But you got on to me for placing a rumor on article when I did no such thing. I expect you to not get on to me for things I did not do.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Doolkid (talk • contribs) 19:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Doolkid (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

What are you talking about? I didn't "get you" for anything. At the end of each comment is a signature, check that before accusing, please. KellyAna (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

That comment was not directed to you, it was directed towards IrishLass as it was in a response to her comments right above. I know your User talk page isn't the place to respond. But IrishLass commented on my comments to you on your page and I was just continuing the conversation. It was fairly obvious that those comments were directed to IrishLass. She was the one who comment that rumors and speculations have no place here and I was responding to her. I did not once say your name in that comment when I defended myself against her getting on to me. Please fully understand that context of the comment before accusing me of accusing you. Thanks! Doolkid (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I suggest next time you use a name and the bold feature (i.e. Doolkid) when replying to someone. I causes far less confusion in the long run. KellyAna (talk) 05:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

KellyAnaI just want offer my apologies for any trouble I may have stirred up. Please refer to my detailed comments on days of our lives cast page. Thank you.Doolkid (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am only using imdb to look up episode then i am using the dvds box set i own to verify the name. which they match. Tj21 (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC) TJ21Reply

Two problems, IMDB isn't reliable source and the DVD box is OR, Original Research. Making so many unsourced changes is problematic. Just go slower and people will be less wary of what you are doing. I have no doubt you are making legitimate edits but you need sources and references. KellyAna (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

okay gotcha, i'll remember that in the future. thanks for the information. Tj21 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I didn't know there was a spot in the infoboxes for that. Should we include the executive producers also. I noticed several sites include both production companies and producers. Here are the names if you want to add them: Gary Scott Thompson, Matt Pyken, Kim Newton, Justin Falvey & Darryl Frank. Those came off of NBC.com, I'll leave it up to you on rather or not to add them, I'm busy on another site. Anymore issue's with Robin? Thanks DJS--DJS24 (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes and Yes. Yes, we should include them, that's why I went and brought the whole template over. I didn't mean to maliciously remove your edits, I thought the field was filled in but the Vegas box was missing it. I think any field we can fill in makes the box look better. There's co-producers and executive producers. Fill them in as appropriate would be my opinion. As for Robin, constant!! She loves to remove citation request, valid sources, et al. KellyAna (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

No Problem, let me know if you need help with the infobox or consensus/my opinon on the Robin issue.--DJS24 (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay for the second time, yes there were in that episode, I saw it, even if you didn't. Since you won't believe me, go over to TV.com and look it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinepowell (talk • contribs) 03:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

First, their name is Montgomery GentRY. It stands for Eddie Montgomery and T-roy Gentry. You seem to completely not understand that the citation request is for them being in that SPECIFIC episode. If you can't prove it, remove it. Yes, they guest starred this season but you have NO proof which episode. KellyAna (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'd be happy to explain how I made up my username. See, One of my favorite television shows is One Life to Live, so what I did to make my username was take the abbreviation (OLTL) and use the numbers off of a telephone keypad. For example, the letter "O" appears on the number "6", "L" on the number "5", etc. The last four numbers come from the year in which I began watching, 2002. I know this sounds a little silly, and possibly confusing, but I can change my user name if it is required. 65852002o (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's at least a good explanation that I understand. My sister in law uses 2337 at the end of whatever user name she chooses for whatever site. 2337 spells BEER. So, I get it. Not a problem. Just wanted to make sure there was a reason since Wikipedia likes for there to be a reason. Happy editing!! KellyAna (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

sex lies and lamaze episode: 1. the buddist statue and chinese theme is to attract chinese investestor in order to build a casino in MACAU,CHINA. In order ot get into macau needed chinese investors. So he takes them out personally. 1. it is shown him taking them out. 2. at the start of the episode danny and mike talk about it and how its a great move for cooper to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.200.66 (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC) ITS NOTS A POV ITS FACT GO WATCH THE EPISODE ON NBC.COM/ they mention IT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.200.66 (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for helping me understand the difference between the cast members. I am sorry for my mistake. Have a great weekend. AsTheWorldTurnsFan4Life (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. Just try not to jump the gun too much. KellyAna (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

okay when a guy says he played COLLEGE BALL it means he played for his college. Its a slang term. There is a difference between playing pick up games and COLLEGE BALL. Tj21 (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, it's not. He said "he played in college" and for someone his age, there's a big difference. Maybe for a 21 year old it's slang, but AJ Cooper isn't a 21 year old. KellyAna (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's a dead link. Wikipedian 05:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, it's not. This is the link you keep removing [1] and it's working just fine. KellyAna (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

My bad. It's just me, I've asked 2 others Wikipedians (Pumpmeup n' Master of Puppets) n' they said the link's workin' fine. I apologize. Wikipedian 06:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's also a blog, as their own "About us" testifies. "TV Fodder is an oft-updated blog featuring TV news, features, reviews, commentary and any other TV-related stuff we can throw together." Pairadox (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

It is a past story that's true. How do we go about balancing? The sites been around for 8 years. This person was removing the link as broken when it isn't. I've never heard of tvfodder.com. I know TVGuide.com has gone to this "blog" format so it's getting muddy in the waters, you know. You tell me. The facts are accurate as James Caan and Nikki Cox did leave Las Vegas (TV series). My returning it was based on its correctness of facts. His/her removal was based on the false information that it was a broken link. KellyAna (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is also a thread on the article's talk page. I suggest that the appropriateness of the source be discussed there, so it's easier for others to see and participate. Pairadox (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I replied there with essentially the same thing I said here. Should it go to that page where sources are discussed? Sorry, I found it once and didn't put it on my watch list so I don't know how to find it again. You know the page, you contribute to it (so I should probably not be lazy and just check your contributes, shouldn't I =) now). I'll wait for others. The Las Vegas article can get nasty, we'll see what others say. KellyAna (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, missed this earlier. The page is located at WP:RS/N (Reliable Sources/Noticeboard), if I understand your question correctly, but I'm not sure that's necessary at this point. Pairadox (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, it's not necessary for the previous issue but I like to have the info available so, thank you. KellyAna (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

No problem. One suggestion I have for the Project, if it hasn't been done already, is to discuss and compile a list of consensus-based reliable sources and a list of unreliable sources. That would provide a handy reference for established editors and a place to refer new editors, as well as diminishing the need to go over the reliability questions again and again. Pairadox (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm confused on the references. Why are you keeping them if they don't like to the episodes anymore? I tried the links, they just take me to "Three Weddings and a Funeral Parts 1 & 2". Robinepowell (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Because they were valid on the "retrieved on" date making them a valid reference. That's why there is a "retrieved on" date on each reference. It's this easy, DON'T REMOVE ANY REFERENCES. Period. Leave the references alone or get blocked again. KellyAna (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I WILL REMOVE REFERENCE WHERE I SEE FIT!!!!!! Do yourself a favour, don't wait until near th end of the season to jump onboard. Also when are you going to add those so called "valid" references for ALL past episodes?????? I'm still waiting since they're "valid". 22:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinepowell (talk • contribs)

Fine, but you'll be blocked. You've been warned and blocked before, you'll continue to be blocked for your actions. You've also had the situation explained to you by an admin and he's told you to stop removing the references, that means your actions are vandalism. Plain and simple. Fortunately, anyone can revert vandalism. KellyAna (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I see Robin is back to her usual ways, is she removing the same references? I see Fuhghettaboutit gave her one more chance, however I have a feeling she is going to continue reverting. I'm going to keep watching her, as I'm sure you will too. P.S. - Going to Daytona Sunday?? - Thanks DJS --DJS24 (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thursday (was supposed to leave tomorrow but my ride is snowed in in PA and I try to avoid flying at all costs). We're hooked up with the trucks and the Busch Nationwide series. Yes, Robin is up to it. We'll see what happens. He's only giving her one chance so it shouldn't be too much of a problem. KellyAna (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I'll be down there Sat and Sun for the 500. --DJS24 (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I haven't been able to stay for the 500 since 2001. It's just too much for me, you know. Although, I was supposed to ride back with my neighbor but for some reason the town cops are at his house right now so who knows what that could mean. My other neighbor is in the infield for the week starting tomorrow so I could stay with them for Sunday. That's the beauty of my neighborhood, many, many options. KellyAna (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Really? I guess you haven't heard of internet cafes or using friends' computers. Here's an original thought. DO NOT THREATEN ME AND DO NOT BARK ORDERS AT ME!!!!! You are not my boss and I don't respond AT ALL to threats. What's "is up to it" supposed to mean? None of you were around at the beginning of Season 5 of Las Vegas, only the end and have the nerve to say that I have no idea what I'm doing - right. Robinepowell (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Robin, you've been warned by all the proper authorities. Go heed and leave me alone. KellyAna (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

"Good heed"? Did you go back a few centuries or something? If you want me to leave you alone, then why don't you try that too? You're the one who started it. Robinepowell (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Calm down, because you are not correct it doesn't and shouldn't take years for a characters to get notable. Second off this is only you and IrishLass's opinion if you have a problem bring it to the Project page, until then please refrain (is that a better term) from doing things as you see fit wait until a concensus happens, are we clear?--KingMorpheus (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

First off lady? Take your attitude and your insults off my page. End of discussion before it starts. I'll be glad to nominate the article for deletion. Not a problem. It's already been deleted once, did you even know that, which is why it was redirected (which is in accordance with the soap project) I'm sure it can be deleted again. Before it was a speedy delete, I'll just nominate now for a full delete. By the way, talk to me like this again and you will be reported for gross incivility. KellyAna (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC):Reply

Talk to you like what tell you to calm down, and try to catch your ear in a brash way because you know you wouldn't listen to me anyway because you are dead set on what you believe in? Am I right or am I wrong? If I'm wrong report me then.--KingMorpheus (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Article's nominated. Nothing you can say or do now. Your behavior is noted. KellyAna (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Danny belived Delinda when she said that they were still married at the annulment party.You should watch the episodes before. you make edits.Bleek25 (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I did, three times. She said "they're still married" and he said "Really? Noooooo!" We've discussed it on the talk page, you should see there before making edits that remove VERIFIED information. KellyAna (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

You did't watch the episode.After delinda told danny that they were still married he said "cooper is going to be pissed" and then she said" but mike and piper aren't".Bleek25 (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've waited a week, still no references for the rest of the episodes. Where are they? You're the one who insisted past episodes still need a reference, so what's taking so long to add them? Robinepowell (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's not my job to go back and find references, it's only my responsibility to make sure what is put there now that I'm here is correct and referenced. Your comments are uncivil and grounds for being reblocked. You've been warned about this, you should heed the warnings. KellyAna (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

It helps Wikipedia to add reliable references. It hurts Wikipedia to remove them. The fact that there are thousands and thousands of articles that are unverified or undersourced is a problem, not a rationale for removal of references. WP:V is one of our three core policies. Yet, I have now seen quite a few post by you where your logic is along the lines of "well since other things aren't fully referenced" or "since you haven't referenced these things" that means references can/should be removed. That argument is the equivalent of saying "This street has a lot of litter on it, therefore I should be allowed to litter". Actually, it's worse than that. Since the references already exist what you're doing is reaching into garbage cans and strewing litter on a street that was already cleaned up. Your haranguing of Kellyana here to add references fits in this analogy well too. She's another pedestrian on the same littered street. You're now bothering here because she hasn't cleaned up the communal street? Please stop this whole illogical line of attack. You obviously care about the articles you are involved with. If you just keep a few of our policies in mind, which keeps this place a reliable encyclopedia and not something else, you will avoid all these arguments and drama.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Then why are the old but "good" references deleted from past episodes? That's what I'm trying to find out but you guys don't seem to want to answer! Robinepowell (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Because someone else removed them, not me. If they've been removed it was done improperly and incorrectly. I returned several references but before references weren't even being put. I can only address what I see, not what I don't see. Just listen to Fuhghettaboutit because he's an admin and he is in charge of enforcing the rules. KellyAna (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

If it happens again, let me know, or post at WP:ANI, and your talk page can be semi-protected to stop IPs editing it for a while. --Stephen 01:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. KellyAna (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Have you ever heard of the site http://www.afterelton.com/blog? I have someone using it as a source, to reference a pretty big statement. With the statement being as big as it is, I want to make sure it's a reliable source. I'm only asking you because you clearly know TV and I haven't heard of the site before. It looks like a blog(unreliable) to me. Thanks DJS--DJS24 (talk) 04:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Definitely an unreliable blog. Interesting for sure, but still a blog which is first and foremost unreliable. KellyAna (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I just saw this, so I'm late butting in. But blogs from commentators/critics/editors known as reliable in their field from websites that are considered reliable are allowed on Wikipedia, sort of like this blog from TV Guide. AfterElton.com is a reliable source, as is AfterEllen.com, of course (a source that I use often). Sarah Warn's blogs, of AfterEllen.com, for instance, would be considered reliable. Just wanted to point that out. Flyer22 (talk) 05:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure I agree with that statement. I work around TV sites often, and I have never heard of that site until days ago. I'll let others reply. Thanks DJS--DJS24 (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Right you are... sorry about that. I've blocked him for 55 hours. · AndonicO ^Hail! 02:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Bless you for pointing it out. :) · AndonicO ^Hail! 02:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

...for this. Seems like you incurred his wrath ... is this the first time? Daniel Case (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have some IP that keeps violating my page but this tweedle seems to be new. A 24 hour block seems rather short for his violations, don't you think? KellyAna (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

He's a sock of User:Seancarlin84, who's evidently tweaked off that I declined his unblock, then protected his page when he came back with another, frivolous request right afterwards. If you look at his history you'll see why he's been blocked indefinitely. Daniel Case (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

See WP:WARN for user warnings. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 02:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. KellyAna (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it is needed. The IP's edit on your talk [2] was just a rambling rationale for reverting your edit here. It wasn't related to the earlier abuse, and it's in a very different IP range. --Stephen 03:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I put what Alina is mostly known for! What else do you want? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dixiercat (talk • contribs) 00:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

See WP:NOTE she has no notability to have an article in an encyclopedia. KellyAna (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The twins who played this character previously, their article survived an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olivia and Ava White. So sadly precedent would seem to say these very young child actors are notable. RMHED (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The twins had a long history. This child has been an actor for a minute and a half with only 2 episodes in one show and one month on Days and has been fired. Notability per guidelines do not exist. As for Ava and Olivia, they had notability based on the honor of receiving a contract and being under contract as the youngest child actors ever. There a huge difference. But I can always put the article up for deletion the old fashion way. KellyAna (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, AfD would be the best way to go on this. RMHED (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm trying but having a devil of a time. I knew how to do it one way but was told that was wrong and now I'm completely confused as to what step 2 is. KellyAna (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

But she hasn't been in just 2 episodes! This coming Wednesday will be her 18th episode! And I'm more than certain that she will get more roles. She is the daughter of actors!

Go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alina Foley and fill in the required info using {{subst:afd2 | pg=Alina Foley | cat=B | text=Reason the page should be deleted}} ~~~~. Then goto here and use {{subst:afd3 | pg=Alina Foley}}. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 01:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Got it all fixed now. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 01:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why didn't anybody tell me that until now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by King Gemini (talk • contribs) 01:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Don't know. It's there right above the relatives field. KellyAna (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

History Bites article confirms the statement. History Bites, is therefore the source. Jazzeur (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

An unsourced article cannot be the source for information in another article. See WP:V for clarification. KellyAna (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

In this case, I know the All in the Family television series inside out and I have personally seen the Talkin' Turkey episode of the History Bites series. So, I could be the source. Jazzeur (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Check policy. You can't claim "I know" as reference. It's not allowed at Wikipedia and you can be blocked for adding stuff based on "me" as a referenced especially when citing it as a reference. KellyAna (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

You like using this new toy you found :) KellyAna (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, primarily I like keeping discussions together, but if one can have a bit of fun along the way... :D Pairadox (talk) 03:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I wasn't around to help you, I was in Florida all weekend. As I see now, Bleek25 has been blocked for good reasons. Also I can see, he reverted your edits and mine several times without discussing. I haven't read the Las Vegas Talk page yet, but I will. Thanks DJS --DJS24 (talk) 06:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

No problem. We were supposed to go this weekend but we really weren't needed and I have company coming so I thought it better to stay home. It was only cup quals so our time would be limited. I don't know what Bleek's problem is. He's pissed at me for other people's reverts and that he reverted more than 3 times. Just keep an eye on the page. It's funny how it's only when he's around that there's a problem. KellyAna (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

You really can't proactively protect articles until and unless they get hit again. At least I don't think so.

Probably very soon, I am going to request that he be considered banned by the community. Six months of blocking him indefinitely haven't changed one thing about him. It won't have a practical effect except to require that any edit he makes be reverted. And just show how gone our patience with him is. Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks. He was back again under another soap's name fan. I think he's even back again but I can't prove it. There's an editor who claims to be from California but edits at 3 am California time. It may be coincidence but maybe not. I'll let you know. Thanks for any help. KellyAna (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The two reverts you guys did seem to have stopped those vandals (I don't think they're Grant. Not yet). I'll keep an eye on it; if I'm not available put a request in at WP:RFP. Daniel Case (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello... sorry to disturb, but I came across a post you made at Danigro89's talk page. FYI, it is not appropriate to update the episode count for a series prior to the episode in question actually airing, and reverting such changes is not considered vandalism. The accepted custom is to wait until it airs, as we cannot predict whether or not the event will actually happen until it does. By way of comparison, let's say we had an article about the space shuttle that said "AtlantisThe space shuttle is scheduled to launch at 8 PM EST on February 12th." We certainly wouldn't change the article to say "AtlantisThe space shuttle launched at 8 PM EST on February 12th" hours - or in the case of some of Danigro's edits, a day - in advance of the actual event.) Hope this helps. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have no freakin clue what you are talking about. I don't watch anything titled Atlantis (I hate all Sci-Fi Star Trek related shows, isn't that what Atlantis is) so you're not making any sense. KellyAna (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

"Atlantis" is one of the three remaining US space shuttles... although I can see the possibility for confusion with Stargate Atlantis. Sorry if the use of a shuttle name confused things... I've reworked my example to remove it. The point still stands, however - changing episode counts prior to the episode airing is not appropriate, and reverting said changes is not vandalism. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, that Atlantis. That one I know. I thought you were talking about the show. I find Wikipedia an odd entity. You hear two different things from two different people. I don't care one way or another it's all a matter of preference to editors in cases like this. Yesterday I saw it said it was okay to put an end date for a character even though they are still appearing on a show, so there seems to be a lack in consistency. Thanks anyway and thanks for clearing that up. KellyAna (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm so confused. You said that there was two head writers when Tony was created and not Pat Falken Smith alone and that we do not know which of the writers who created him. But two writers were writing when Caroline Brady was created, Sheri Anderson & Maggie DePriest. It does not say which one of the writers who created her.

And also Stefano was created by Pat Falken Smith and only her alone, according to the article. Why is that not the same for Tony? Did the other writer leave before Stefano was created and after Tony & Roman were created?

Also some unreliable sources and Wikipedia states that Sheri Anderson and Maggie DePriest were co-head writers from April 1982 to September 1984. I just need this cleared up Bilttd biscoi (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I saw the edit summaries and think I know what was meant. When Tony was created, 1981, there was more than one head writer during that time, not two co-head writers like Sheri and Maggie, two entirely separate writing teams. Gary Tomlin & Michelle Poteet Lisanti were around until October of 1981 followed by Pat Smith. Which created him? It's impossible to know without external sources of the actual date Tony arrived in Salem to pinpoint who his creator was. It is highly unlikely Pat Smith created Tony since she was only there for 2 months in 1981, it could have been, most likely was, her predecessors. However, there is no way to know that for certain unless he arrived well prior to Smith taking over.

As for Caroline, the team of DePriest and Anderson are jointly credited (no writer in a pair of head writers is ever credited as a single for creating a character. It's not done) because she was created in the middle of their tenure so it's obvious they created her.

As for Stefano, Smith was the only writer when he appeared, therefore, obviously she created him. We've had this issue come up before which is why I would delete any writer without source from Tony or Roman. Source is imperative when adding information to articles. IrishLass (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok I see what you mean now. First I thought that KellyAna meant that Pat was co-writing with someone at the time Tony was created. Like Sheri & Maggie was co-writing. I see what you mean now. And that decision is for the best of course. As long as the exact dates are not known it is best not to have any mention. It wouldn't look good if the creator is said to be "either Gary Tomlin & Michelle Poteet Lisanti or Pat Falken Smith"

Though I am still a little confused about Bo. KellyAna said Sheri wasn't even head writer when he was created. He was created after Shawn & Caroline somewhere in the spring of 1983. Wasn't Sheri & Maggie the HWs until October 1984 when DePriest left Sheri & Thom Racina? Bilttd biscoi (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I found the problem, Sheri Anderson is listed two different ways. If you look at her page, she's not listed as a head writer. If you look at the Days page, she is. It's a matter that needs sources. I won't be able to look for them, maybe you or Kelly can. I'm limited right now in my access. Sorry I can't be more help. IrishLass (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but I'm confused about what I did that was wrong? Would you like to clue me in? I just added soap to the infobox title on the Courtney Matthews page. Glo145 (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yep, if you just add "soap" the box is incomplete. Your best bet is to copy the original template and put it in instead of just adding a word. KellyAna (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Carly's name is Corinthos Jacks. Check out the ABC Page and click on Character Bio's and then you shal see Carly CORINTHOS Jacks. I'm Sorry for correcting a mistake. Why are you so mean to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy Jaiyan (talk • contribs) 17:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Doesn't matter what the site temporarily says, see the WP:Common names policy. I'm not "mean to you" I follow policy which includes following guidelines, not vandalizing pages, and not uploading illegal images. KellyAna (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Are you Crazy? The policy is there all right but you are the Fricking one who changes it. UNDERSTAND! I'm not going agiants policy by CORRECTING something. I should correct you UGLY LOSER!