User talk:George Ho/Archives/2013/1

Welcome!

Hello, George Ho/Archives/2013/1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Alhutch 16:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Untitled

I am the real doug spearman - if you have any questions, ask me. Until then, stop editing my bio. I am not HIV postive. --The preceding was unsigned by Dougspearman 10:59, 31 October 2007

Tagging

This tagging is really rather overzealous, the only issue that you added that is legitimate there is the lead, and the citation style issue should have been removed, as that was fine at that point. You shouldn't be added tags to articles to point out their deficiencies to GA or FA standard. A similar thing applies to this tagging, given its a stub the only thing it really needs is a source or two. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I don't mind your tagging articles about albums as unreferenced, but in the case of Chinese albums, may I suggest you help out by adding references from douban for a start? That would help a lot, especially as IIRC you can read the language! Kind regards, Fayenatic (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

For your help with the talk page archiving! As you can see, I don't spend a lot of time working on my user or my talk pages, so thanks for getting my talk page organized! We hope (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Photos

Please feel free to use anything I've uploaded that are free files wherever you like. :-). I may have more to come with Lucy; have a long list of ones I need to upload yet from a lot of different radio and television shows. We hope (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Found "only" in torrents

I'm here because of your revert of my edit moving "Cry Baby Lane" to the list of rediscovered movies. The movie was a lost one, unavailable to the general public and believed to be destroyed, now it is a rediscovered one (even if the availability is only over shady canals).

What is your rationale of removing it again? --95.208.128.7 (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Free Lucy images

If you're interested in more "Lucy" photos, have uploaded 2 more: File:Lucy wins racehorse 1958.JPG and File:Lucy in scotland 1956.JPG We hope (talk) 03:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

SPAMMING WARNING

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CANVASS

Your recent spamming of people for your AfD of Cliff Hangers violates the above Wiki topic. Please refrain from canvassing like that again. TySoltaur (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliff Hangers (3rd nomination), everyone says merge. Am I the only one who thinks you are stooping so low by giving me this message that I have striked out and voting "keep" without bolding it? I am certain that I am NOT canvassing. --Gh87 (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I checked your contributions per Special:Contributions/TySoltaur, and, to my amusement, you just voted and then tagged me this ridiculous message. --Gh87 (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

you did canvass with posting the same message to a mass amount of people, which the article clearly says is frowed upon. And btw, it's not a concensus, not everyone is saying delete. Some say delete, some say merge, and at least one says keep. TySoltaur (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I have checked your previous revisions, such as 02:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC). You have been blocked for your behavior; I realized that you have occasionally changed your talk page. I begin to re-consider your claims against me. What "same message" are you referring? (BTW, this same reply will be rephrased in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliff Hangers (3rd nomination)) --Gh87 (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

wow, resorting to using irrelevant crap now? TySoltaur (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Jim Sullivan (1920s pitcher)

Generally, major league baseball players are considered inherently notable, since essentially all of them would have reliable sources. I went ahead and added one to be on the safe side notability-wise. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Richard O'Sullivan

Hello. Since you decided to move Richard O'Sullivan and establish a disambiguation page at the old title, it would be helpful if you would also WP:FIXDABLINKS. There are still several dozen other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Richard O'Sullivan" that need to be reviewed and edited to point to the correct article. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Mark Tandy (actor)

Hi. Please be mindful when adding the {{multipleissues}} tag to articles. You added it to the Mark Tandy article recently when it really was not called for. While the article is not sourced, the subject clearly passes WP:ENTERTAINER, having appeared in several well known films and television shows. Further, the article is a stub and needs to be expanded in general so the lede is naturally going to be short. If you have additional concerns about the article, I suggest leaving a comment on the talk page or nominating it for deletion if you strongly feel the subject is not notable. Simply expanding the article and/or fixing the issues you think are present yourself is also an option. Thanks. Pinkadelica^♣ 20:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about nominating the article for deletion. Then I found out that he was in the 1995 miniseries, which has no article on its own and I'm unsure about its notability, of a novel. The rest: he was a guest cast of many series, including well-known ones, and supporting actor of other films and television movies. --Gh87 (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Mass-contesting your PRODs.

This is a note to let you know that I object to every PROD of any television episode of any notable television show you have made. Please go through and remove the PROD notices. Per WP:ATD, I believe the content should be merged into season articles, with the history maintained under the redirects so someone else can go through and flesh out the articles should they decide to research sourcing in the future. If you want to make those redirects directly, that's fine with me, and it's always your right to take things to AfD if you disagree with my stance. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, these articles have yet not established notability of episodes. Therefore, I have no intentions to remove PROD. Also, I have not watched The O.C., and I have found no major articles discussing them. Also, I am not available and not skilled enough to make a great article, let alone a "featured article". If you want to contest the PROD, just improve the article before you remove the PROD. --Gh87 (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC) See WP:PROD for details. --Gh87 (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is not how PROD works. Please re-read WP:PROD and revise your response accordingly. You don't need to {{tb}} me--I watch the pages on which I start conversations. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Some of my PRODs on articles have been contested because of the editor's disagreement (not my doing). Fortunately, I created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The O.C. episodes from season 4, volume 1. Almost forgot: prior to this topic and other PRODding, "The Dawn Patrol (The O.C.)" was deleted under {{prod-nn}}. Do you want to review it? By the way, I have read the guidelines of PROD, and my reasoning isn't "generic" and less "clear", is it? --Gh87 (talk) 06:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's generic or unclear, but rather that it runs afoul of WP:ATD, which prefers merging to deletion, among other things. Thus, since I contest all your prods of episodes, those that have already been deleted will be undeleted when an admin gets around to doing them. I'll comment at the AfD. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

There are still more O.C. episodes PRODded, and I will leave them as is until you want to contest my PRODs. If all contested, then I will create a volume 2. I'm still weary of unreasonable recovery from anonymous users. By the way, every episodes should start obviously with "The..." Look at what happened to Olivia Hack. --Gh87 (talk) 05:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I already did. That is, by saying "I contest your PROD", I've contested your PRODs. I asked you nicely to clean up the mess you made as well, but fundamentally, I don't have to edit each article to contest your PRODs. Jclemens (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is the link:[1]. Well, I did not remove the PRODs and let the PRODded articles be deleted. You can contest the administrators about this if you want, but I wouldn't do that. I mean, why saving the previous revisions for future editing on (less) notable articles? --Gh87 (talk) 03:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The way you have been using the PROD process is not appropriate. PRODs are for things where you believe, in good faith, that no other editor would advocate the retention of the material. It is not supposed to be a stealth attempt to have stuff you don't like deleted if no one else notices. I have indeed asked for everything to be put back at WP:REFUND, and, if you continue to user PRODs in this manner, I may blanket-contest every PROD you've ever made. I'd really rather not do that; I'd much rather you used more appropriate methods, such as redirection, to deal with articles created in good faith, belonging to a notable topic area, that do not merit standalone articles to the best of anyone's interpretation of the present guidelines and policies. Each of those articles was someone's effort; even if they don't deserve to exist in their current form, preserving them in the edit history of the redirects allows them to be easily moved to a topic-specific Wiki, or recreated with additional sources and elsewise upgraded to meet current standards, without administrator intervention. Jclemens (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

From/To Raintheone

I think an IP editor is attempting to convince others to vote keep - [Comment - This editor has canvassed and tried to persuade members of a project to save this article. - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Soap_Operas#Various_soap_opera_articles_have_been_nominated_for_deletion - tut.RaintheOne ^BAM 20:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why I signed twice last time. Anyway, I noticed you nominated Sunset Beach characters for deletion. However, where id the duscussion for these? Also, Kathleen Noone is an actress, why nominate her for deletion when she has been in so many programmes alone.RaintheOne ^BAM 17:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I reverted that nomination on an actress; it was a mistake on my part. --Gh87 (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

How come you are closing AFD's and merging? In one case the result you came up with did not match the talk - and most of the time seven days is given, right?RaintheOne ^BAM 21:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Some editor has been making cut-and-paste edits into List of All My Children miscellaneous characters. Therefore, keeping the discussions open is pointless. --Gh87 (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Well what do you think about Annie's article so far, from Sunset Beach.RaintheOne ^BAM 21:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's discuss the article of Annie from Sunset Beach in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional women of Sunset Beach

I'm not like stalking your edits or anything. I was just reading about Aaron Spelling, I clicked Randy and noticed you nominated it for deletion. However, the reason you gave was because there is no notable sources in the search... when there is quite a few looking quickly through it. I'm slightly concerned now about your AFD's and prods... can you honestly say you have looked through and made the correct decision? I just want to make sure you are really looking these over before nominating - as I've seen much better candidates for deletion from several other US soaps. I am more familiar with UK soaps, but I'm aware US soaps these days are not as notable as they once were. So I totally understand the need for merging many of the characters. A big problem with US soaps is that their core editors do not know what a reliable source is and love to use fansites. Maybe they will work harder in the future, if they really want seperate articles... but I still you'll find Randy Spelling is notable. How many sources do you want for him?RaintheOne ^BAM 04:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. This IP is actually canvassing to stop your AFD's - [2] - I reckon they need reporting for this one? I wouldn't be suprised if it is Casanova or that other IP using a sock.RaintheOne ^BAM 16:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

If you are concerned, report this to either Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or another link within the noticeboard template from that page. --Gh87 (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I was alerting you. If you do not mind then so be it. As for you removing refs from Randy Spelling, I added that ref for now as I was busy. I'm going to write a career section up.RaintheOne ^BAM 17:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I have gone to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations to report two IP users and some registered users for sockpuppetry if you are concerned. I must have forgotten the Sockpuppetry reports page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gh87 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

To Raintheone, I have appreciated your attempts to improve Randy Spelling. However, do not remove the PROD, even if there are improvements. Wait for the administrators to decide. As for the "Career" section, isn't it partially the summarized duplicate of TV credits list? Shouldn't that be reverted to non-existant or something? Articles, such as Alec Guinness and Richard Burton, would not do that, wouldn't it? Isn't it necessary to give citations of TV credentials? --Gh87 (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Above, Raintheone said, "I'm slightly concerned now about your AFD's and prods." Exactly what I've been saying! And you make it seem like I was wrong to report this to the project and that I was only trying to save these articles? Funny. Now you see what I was talking about. First you get it wrong that I committed inappropriate canvassing and tried to persuade members of the project to save the Hayley Vaughan Santos article. Then you see exactly what I see. Funny. Hayley Vaughan is already a redirect, by the way. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

To be fair Gh, anyone is welcome to add some sources and remove the template afterward. I'm not sure what you mean about the Richard and Alec example. They do include notable roles in career section and document them aswell as the filmog. I went for the more obvious roles for the career section. I can find sources for more.

174.137.184.36 - You say funny a lot, but I don't find it funny. That is why I'm picking the obvious notable ones and improving them. I don't understand how you can complain about the AFD's etc, when you are not willing to help improve them. I'd understand more if you were adding sources to establish their notability and potential. So while I may disagree with some, others are perfectly called for and as for images being removed - their is a strict policy on non free images, US soap opera editors seem to think they can upload a picture of any old event and shove it in an article. When one infobox image does the job of illustrating the article.RaintheOne ^BAM 00:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I can complain the same way Postdlf has complained.[3] You want to sit back and let this editor continue to edit Wikipedia in a way that hinders it, then that is your right. But ignoring the very damaging way this editor prods and nominates articles for deletion does not take care of that problem. I am willing to improve soap opera articles. Has it occurred to you that some of these articles cannot be saved and/or that I am not all that interested in saving certain character articles? Yes, I think it has. That is why I alerted the project, so that editors who do care may help out.

I said nothing about images, and don't care about images. If you are assuming that I some other IP, you are assuming wrong. I will say that one infobox image does not always do the job of illustrating the article, however. As for calling things "funny," I don't say it a lot, actually (just twice above on Wikipedia, in fact). And if you could not note my sarcasm in using that word, I don't know what to tell you. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 08:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, if you want to talk to Raintheone alone, go to that user's talk page, not mine. You can contact me with a newer section if possible. --Gh87 (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The IP just seems to be accusing me of wrong doings now too. Anyway Gh, I've started addressing your concerns over Olivia by adding some sources. :)RaintheOne ^BAM 10:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I was correcting you on your assertions of wrong-doing on my part. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 10:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Please review the policy on PROD. Any person can decline the deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion}} tag at any time and for any reason, with or without editing or addressing the issue indicated. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 20:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Highlander (season 5)

Such as? Be specific or remove the template, please. - Denimadept (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The whole article is not compared to every typical "List of..." or "<show> (season #), such as The O.C. (season 1) and List of As Time Goes By episodes. In fact, the titles and the summaries should be tabled/charted. See WP:TABLE. --Gh87 (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I see. Feel free to do it. - Denimadept (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Invalid AfD closure

Hi there, I noticed you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional women of ''All My Children'', volume 1. Closing an AfD which you yourself opened is against policy; speedy/premature closing without snow consensus is against policy; cut-and-paste merges are not only against policy, they're also copyright violations. I'm going to have to request that you revert your closure of the AfD, and revert all the pages involved to the state that they were in when the AfD opened, or this will have to be taken to deletion review, as it is seriously out-of-order. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know; tell that to Casanova88 (that link ain't a joke!): that user did the cut-and-paste editing for List of All My Children miscellaneous characters. I did not mean to prematurely close it; I had to do it. I had to merge quickly and then close the AfD per Casanova88's editing. What about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hayley Vaughan Santos, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalia Fowler, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Lavery, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional men of All My Children, volume 1? I should not be banned or blocked for this. What happens to me if I were not blocked or banned? --Gh87 (talk) 08:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ouch. You don't need to worry about being blocked or banned; it's a good-faith mistake and prompted by the severely out-of-process cut-and-pasting of another editor, so don't worry about it. :) I'll see what I can do about fixing Casanova88's cut-and-paste-move vandalism. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to revert the cut-and-paste moves, then reopen the AfDs. Again, don't worry about it - the other editor's cut-and-paste put you in a bad situation, so no worries at all on your part, and now you know! :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

They should all be back to normal now, reverted both the cut-and-pasting and reopened the AfDs. Once more, don't worry about it, good faith can be tricky sometimes but all's well now. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I did revert some more AfDs that I've missed. Marist2015 did also the cut-and-paste editing while I turned the articles into redirects. I'm too exhausted to tell examples right now. --Gh87 (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I know that feeling. Sometimes Wikipedia can be srs bzns! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Like I said in the deletion debate: Can't the nominator just withdraw the nomination if he or she has now decided that the articles should be redirected, just like nominations have been withdrawn once notability has been established? You say "Closing an AfD which you yourself opened is against policy," but I've seen this done on Wikipedia quite a few times in the cases of withdrawing upon the presence of notability. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

See WP:AFD to know policies if you want to understand more. --Gh87 (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have to see that to understand more. I know what I have seen time and time again on Wikipedia. That is why I asked The Bushranger about it. But I see that he is ignoring me. Whatever. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

List of The Price Is Right pricing games

I see that you've tagged this article for notability. It replaced, literally, 103 different individual articles on every game that's ever appeared on the show. The List article was created as a result of consensus among those who wanted to keep 103 pages and those who wanted to remove the whole thing. This information is relevant to an article on the show, but it's far too lengthy to be merged into the parent article. Removing it as non-notable or combining it would open up a significant can of worms. Thanks. JTRH (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Besides very few sources that explains the game online, what about the print publications, such as journals, books, encyclopedias, and newspapers? I just had to tag that for notability needs for the list of games in general. As for the games that are currently sections, they may not need notability right now. Instead, the whole bundle of games need notability, especially from the third-party sources. Also, I would prefer catalog of games, such as quickie games and cash games, along with active and retired to alphabetical order of games along with active and retired. Therefore, we must find out the notabilities of types of pricing games generally. --Gh87 (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your comments. Please note that, on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of the arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. Consider reading Wikipedia's deletion policy for a brief overview of the deletion process. We hope that you decide to stay and contribute even more. Thank you! Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 15:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Sock puppet investigation

While I did include this on the investigation article, I would like to post it here in case you do not get a chance to read it - and do not that it includes minor edits.

It is disheartening to see that while I was attempting to improve and save the articles nominated for deletion, I was targeted due to my differing contributions of GH87 as a sock puppett. Listen, I am only here on Wikipedia to edit and contribute in an appropriate manner. Just because my contributions differ, Gh87, does not mean I'm a sock puppet. I don't know who those other account/IP users are and I must say, it seems that the investigation was personal to you because we dared to declare different approaches into improving articles than agreeing to your daily, intense deletions. Please, you are welcome to improve them but that is something you are not doing. You want them gone and forgotten about. You have options of improving or merging articles but you endlessly want all the articles - on characters and information - gone. I am knowledgable of Wikipedia so please don't accuse me of being "dedicated to soap opera universes regardless of Wikipedia policies" while you try to get articles deleted with no logical or valid reasons and personally attack other users. It's becoming a daily pursuit with you.

Suffice to say, while we may differ in our views and edits on Wikipedia, I hope that we can rise above this and at least find common ground - as I hope for all users involved when differentiating themselves against your deletion nominations. Please try to understand where all of the other users, including myself, are coming from. What's that prophecy again - "treat others the way you want to be treated." I truly believe this applies in person and on Wikipedia.Casanova88 (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Reliance Industries Page

Hey, I was making edits on the Reliance Industries page since few days. You have made sum suggestion on the regarding the The Length and the neutrality. Could you please guide me further on the same. Actully i am new to the Platform; I might have been over-zealous in doing so. thanks a lot for looking into it. Looking for your reply and SUggestions. Mananshah15 (talk) 05:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much every aspect of soap operas are notable

Are you American? If you are, you've probably seen those weekly soap opera magazines in the checkout line at the supermarket, like Soap Opera Digest. They discuss every aspect of soap operas. and most of the non cancelled soaps have individual weekly magazines entirely about them. So, there's almost no character or couple that couldn't pass WP:NOTE if someone had the right magazines and put in the effort.

That said, none of them are searchable online that I know of, and because of this they aren't used as references. And all aspects of soapdom seem to not be notable when they really are. The upshot of all this, is that if you just want to get rid of the soap articles, keep on keeping on. But, if you thought they weren't notable, but would want to keep the articles around if you found out they really are notable (regardless of current state), then yes they are notable. Happy editing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm American-born and Asian (probably not exactly). I don't go out very much to buy those magazines. So many copies of issues are thrown-away or not carried by libraries right now. I do not know if the back issues have been duplicated in microfilms; too bad I don't see a single such in libraries. Primarily using soap-related publications and less of third-party and independent sources will lead to {{primarysources}} instead of {{third-party}}, but I would rather have that than no references that leads to {{unreferenced}}. By the way, some articles of fictional characters have been deleted under PROD, such as "Livia Frye", "Isabella Santos", and some others. I'm only targetting characters, cities, and histories of American soap operas, not the soap operas themselves. Right now, I'm goaling the soap operas that have been cancelled on television. --Gh87 (talk) 03:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC) --Gh87 (talk) 03:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I looked at your talk with JClemens above. I understand that your English is not good enough to really discuss this. Have a good day. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

How and why is my English "not good enough"? Can you clarify more? --Gh87 (talk) 05:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Just happened on this discussion but that comment by Peregrine Fisher was unacceptable, your english is perfectly fine. I also happen to agree with you that some disposable Rag found at a superstore and not kept on back catalogue is neither a reliable source nor any indication of notability. Best wishes Polyamorph (talk) 07:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your support for my English. If you are concerned about Peregrine Fisher's comment, one of warnings in WP:UTN can help. --Gh87 (talk) 08:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Um, sources like Soap Opera Digest and Soaps In Depth are not "rags." They are primary sources (like Gh87 said above) that discuss characters and their history. They are reliable sources that you'd typically need if you want to include information about character development and reception with regard to American soap opera characters. Some of these interviews and such are indeed online because these magazines have websites that replicate some of the information (or they are duplicated on news sites, in books, etc.). In fact, some of the interviews and such are only found on the online versions of the magazines. Third-party sources are simply the sources that show that people outside of the soap opera medium care about these characters and therefore establish notability. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)