User talk:AwardShowFan123

This is AwardShowFan123's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Taylor Forrester

Hey, awful news. Hunter Tylo just confirmed an hour ago that she left B&B and her contract negotiations ended 4 weeks ago... :( this is terrible! 20 years. Wow. Her last airdate is July 3. Ar re 11:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is terrible. Jacqueline MacInnes is taking a break and now Hunter Tylo is leaving. :( If they recast Taylor, I am going to be so mad. Steffy and Taylor are the only reason I still watch B&B. I am so sad. I wonder how they are going to do her departure? I think they should make her leave town. What do you think? Also, I've notice in Taylor Forrester article that you have put the departure section in development, I think it should be in Casting? Lastly, I think you should make Taylor or Steffy a GA. I think a least one article of B&B should be a GA. Just a suggestion. SoapFan12 18:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The character is leaving the show too I think. I didn't add that new awful departure section. Ar re 04:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey there, how are you? I noticed you added back the double dagger symbol to YA actress, and I was wondering why. I thought we decided it wasn't needed?Caringtype1 (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine. You? Yes I know that we decided it wasn't needed, but Giants2008 (reviewer of YA) told me to re-added it. To me, it did not seem to be a suggestion. SoapFan12 23:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do you know what Giants2008 meant by alt text? I read the page about alt text however I don't think what I did was done correctly. Can you check if I did? Please and thank you. SoapFan12 23:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine. Oh now I see where it says a color can't be unaccompanied by a symbol. That's fine I guess. But the legend should go back to the format used when it was the first added. See WP:ALTTEXT. I don't see what they mean about it. To me, no additional alt text is needed. But what did you do to the captions from all the images?Caringtype1 (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I shortened the caption to all images since it says that it should be short. SoapFan12 00:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They should be short,but I think you shortened them too much. They weren't that long to begin with. Just saying someone was nominated doesn't add any information or value to the image. Caringtype1 (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now why have you removed the double dagger symbol, I just said it was required.Caringtype1 (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I misunderstood. I am so sorry. :( SoapFan12 00:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So should I reverted the captions or not? SoapFan12 00:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You probably should.Caringtype1 (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I hope I did not harm on us collaborating together. I am deeply sorry for my mistakes. SoapFan12 00:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, you did not respond anything about the lead, does this mean that I've done the lead according to what you meant. SoapFan12 00:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as far as I see, there is not much else to fix., except ref 57 is repeated.Caringtype1 (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I'm so happy that I've asked you to help me. I think you should be very proud of yourself. You are a fantastic and a great editor! This means a lot. Again, I hope I did not harm on us collaborating together. Also, when YA passes for FL (well I hope), if you are still interested on working on the Emmy Awards articles. I think we should split on the articles we shoud work on. For example, I will work on Lead Actress and you will work on Lead Actor. Also, we should include Kelly Marie 0812, she did start on helping me. By the way, do you know what happen to her, I haven't seen her on Wikipedia lately? SoapFan12 01:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actress in a Drama Series, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a non-free rationale template to the image. Therefore, I should be able to use it. Why not? SoapFan12 19:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The file does not have a rationale for Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actress in a Drama Series, even if it did it would still fail WP:NFCC#8 Werieth (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell me exactly what to do, so I would be able to re-add the image? Be precise. I strongly believe that the image is needed for Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actress in a Drama Series and the other categories. SoapFan12 20:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to interrupt, but SoapFan12, just follow the same format as the the other two rationales on the page, expect use the YA article name.Caringtype1 (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Caringtype1. SoapFan12 20:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You cant, such usage would violate WP:NFCC see WP:NFC#UUI 6. Werieth (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay fine. Can I upload an image of presenters, presenting the category? SoapFan12 20:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the file is released under a free license then yes. Werieth (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	This is for your amazing contributions, getting the list Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actress in a Drama Series to a feature list status! Great work. You've come so far here. Ar re 08:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This means a lot to be recognize, especially by you. :) You are one are the greatest editors. I thought that I will never accomplish this achievement. SoapFan12 09:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your remarkable work on Daytime Emmy and other soap award related lists. Before you, nobody showed any substantial interest in these lists and they were suffering immensely. Great work! Ar re 12:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! You are so sweet! Thank you for the first user that welcome me nicely to wiki! You're awesome! Thanks again! SoapFan12 12:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bot

The bot runs once a week, so any promotions will likely not be reflected on the talk pages right away. Be patient and the bot should eventually do its magic. If another week goes by with no change, that would be worthy of a posting on FLC talk since it would indicate a widespread problem. Until then, I wouldn't worry about it much. I'll try to review your list tomorrow; sorry for not getting to the last one. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for telling me! :) Thanks in advance, plus its okay don't worry, its just that I would rather be responded to other than to be ignore. SoapFan12 01:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strike

As a director of the FL process, I don't like to support lists in the same way that I did when I was a regular reviewer. When I go to promote lists, there's a natural conflict of interest when I have already supported something, and I try to prevent such situations. That's why my only action at FLC was to strike. It doesn't mean that the list itself is unworthy, only that I want to be able to promote the list if necessary. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think my list is worthy now, since I received 4 supports? Do you think it is ready to be promoted to an FL status? Don't want to delegate you, but I am just curious. SoapFan12 14:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look the next time I check which lists are ready for promotion, which will be over the weekend. Four supports will usually do it, but it looks like The Rambling Man has posted some comments that you should try to resolve. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. I just resolved of the comments, I am currently waiting for his response. SoapFan12 20:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Dimera

Care to offer your expertise when it comes to summarizing Kristen's current 2012- storyline? There's an unregistered user (User_talk:71.233.227.127) who seems to act as owner of the page. I initially agreed with him/her that my original summary was way too long and overly detailed. I went back and took out everything out that really wasn't necessary. I included what was needed to sum up (briefly) how and why certain events happened. There was only so much I could avoid putting in. It wouldn't make sense without it. Here's what I came up with so far (still needing to add new sources). The user I referred to is just keen on giving simple 'no's' to whatever I come up with, and reverts anything I add. I told them that it would be better to get a few more people on board to come to a consensus. I said that neither of us owns the page. I'm also totally open for someone to come along and take out whatever they feel isn't necessary, is too long, or should be reworded. I wish the person would help in doing that, but they don't seem bothered to do so. I would really appreciate any help you could give me. The character's page has been ignored for far too long. BTW, do you know any other soap fans that could help out? :)

....

Kristen takes up residence at The Salem Inn. Initially, John and Marlena put on a united front against Kristen, despite her repeated attempts to make amends with the pair. However, after numerous encounters, John's suspicions of Kristen's malicious intent start to wane. Marlena refusal to accept Kristen makes her appear paranoid and delusional. Brady and Roman make Kristen aware that they're keeping an eye on her. Kristen repeatedly attempts to get into EJ's good graces; eventually, EJ and becomes Kristen's closet confidant. After a heated exchange with Brady at the rectory, Kristen storms out and is found getting mugged.^[1] Brady comes to Kristen's rescue. He ends up being knocked unconscious during the scuffle. Kristen has him rushed to the hospital. This changes Brady's opinion of Kristen, which in turn convinces John that she's changed as well. At the hospital, Kristen finds Marlena alone and says "Thank you," thus dropping the charade^[2] Now, Marlena is determined more than ever to expose Kristen, which backfires.^[3] Soon, Brady and Kristen start having a secret affair.^[4] Marlena learns of the affair and keeps it from John.^[5] Frustrated that no one will take her warnings about Kristen seriously, Marlena sends John to Brady's office to catch the two in the act.^[6] John walks in and is shocked by what he catches: Brady and Kristen on the desk having sex.^[6] He rushes out. Brady catches up to John who tries to talk some sense into him about getting involved with Kristen.^[6] John confronts Kristen at her hotel room, demanding answers.^[7] The two get into a verbal confrontation which leads Kristen to finally reveal her sinister plan: she's taking his son away from him to break his heart.^[7] She no longer wants him, and has yet to forgive him for what he did at their wedding fifteen years prior. Upon leaning this, John tries confronting Brady, who has already learned from Kristen that John went off on her.^[7] The two end up having a physical confrontation in the courtyard which lands them both in the hospital.^[8]

Alone with Marlena in her hotel room, Kristen reminds her that she lied to John about knowing of the affair^[8] (a lie of omission). Kristen also tells her that this time next year Marlena may be her step-mother-in-law.^[8] John learns that Marlena knew of the affair for a month and kept it to herself.^[9] She also sent him to Brady's office to catch them in the act. He decides to move into a hotel.^[9]

Due to John and Marlena's repeated attempts to get Brady to see Kristen for who and what she really is, he essentially becomes estranged from them and chooses to stand by Kristen despite what anyone thinks instead.^[10] Kristen convinces Brady to move into the DiMera mansion^[11] Soon, Brady, Kristen, Stefano and EJ are all living under the same roof. Kristen begins hinting at marriage to Brady. Brady thinks that she's joking, and laughs it off.^[12] It quickly becomes apparent that she's serious. He's quick to put a damper on the idea.^[13] John hatches a plan to lure Kristen away from Brady: getting her to sleep with him, and having Brady to catch them in the act. Little does he know that Kristen has the same plan. Brady overhears Marlena and John's plotting to get him away from Kristen. Angered, he rushes back to the mansion and proposes. Kristen accepts.

In my opinion, it's fine. Howewver, I am not the best person to say what good or bad for the soap opera character pages. I would suggest you, one of my greatest friends User:Arre 9. I believe she is you're best bet. SoapFan12 19:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series at FLC

Sure, let me know when you want me to help. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This means a lot! It will be great if you could do it ASAP (even now, lol joking). You can do when you are able to. I just really need the lead to be covered by someone. Like, if you can find any good sources, informations and correct what I have already written in the lead. It will be awesome. Thanks again! SoapFan12 19:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Logan and Bill Spencer, Jr.

Bill and Katie signed divorce papers. Then they are divorced! It's happen in episode of July 12, 2013. --Bold12 (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Their divorced is not finalized, when the show says that their divorced is finalized we can add the 2013, but now they are still legally married. So now stop adding the 2013! They are not divorced! SoapFan12 11:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daytime FLC

Sure, just give me a day or two to put something together. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! SoapFan12 22:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daytime Soap Lead Actress Emmy

Hello,

Sure thing. It might take me awhile, but I'll get to it. However, it looks fantastic. I could use it to improve one of the lists for the acting Oscars. So most obviously will support it.

BTW, would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/72nd Academy Awards/archive1? I'm in the process of archiving the sources (though the requests are quite slow).

-Birdienest81 (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll get to it soon. Thanks for willing! SoapFan12 22:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am giving my support, but I am quite busy, so I'll will posted it soon. SoapFan12 22:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image

--Alrofficial (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nerina Pallot discography FLC

Hello! If you have the time could you possibly take a look at the Nerina Pallot discography. It is currently at FLC and any comments or feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. :) SoapFan12 22:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving links at FLC

Hello SoapFan12. I noted you've been withholding support on a number of FLCs until all online links are archived. While, of course, you're entitled to your opinion, this is by no means a requirement of FLC (or FAC for that matter). If you'd like to make it part of the criteria, then I suggest you initiate a discussion at WT:FLC for a community consensus to evolve rather than just copy-and-pasting the same "I'll support if..." to each and every FLC you review. As nominators are under no obligation to do this, dare I suggest you may be wasting your own time. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I did not know until I haven't on a number of FLCs. I will remove all of these comments. Btw, I have responded to you're requests and comments on FLC. SoapFan12 16:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You removed your comment at the List of Square Enix mobile games FLC, but I fixed the script that I use and archived all my links regardless. --Pres N 19:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I have also archived all links at List of Detroit Red Wings draft picks. You indicated in your (since deleted) comment at the FLC for that page you would support the nomination once this task was complete- if this is still the case, please update the discussion page. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially the same thing as the post above me, if you're still willing to support Characters of God of War. I generally archive all of my sources, I just hadn't gotten around to doing it on this page yet. I will though. --JDC808 ♫ 21:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do not need to archive you're sources, since it is not essential part of FLC criteria. SoapFan12 Talk page here

22:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but I know it's good to do. --JDC808 ♫ 02:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, AwardShowFan123. You have new messages at Hahc21's talk page.
Message added 20:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

— ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Add sources: The Bold and the Beautiful; Forrester Creations; Carlton Draught; Soap Opera Digest Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Daytime Drama; Big Brother 1 (Canada); 35th Daytime Emmy Awards
Cleanup: Stephanie Forrester (The Bold and the Beautiful); Lisa Ann; Eric Forrester
Expand: Sonic the Hedgehog (series); Venus Williams career statistics; Shinzō Abe
Unencyclopaedic: Liam Spencer (The Bold and the Beautiful); Deacon Sharpe; As the World Turns

Wikify: Gloria Abbott Bardwell; Ashley Jones; Port Charles
Orphan: Craig Heller (writer); Approach/Inhibition Theory of Power; Andrew Thatcher
Merge: 64th Primetime Emmy Awards; 64th Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards; Rachel Green
Stub: Andre Gower; Incredible Crew; Nohohon Zoku; TVWeek; Tom Parker (actor); Le voyageur sans bagage

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Suggestion

Sure, I would love to do the acting Oscar awards! I just need to get my materials ready. You are free to give me your advice and you can become co-nominator if you want. I'll probably do that sometime in August or September.

-Birdienest81 (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FLC

Since the canvassing discussion came up only a couple of days ago, I wanted to give other reviewers a little more time with this one, despite the high level of support. For what it's worth, I thought the list looked good when I read through it, and I wouldn't worry that the list won't be promoted in due course. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
47	Forrester family (talk)	Add sources
143	UK telephone code misconceptions (talk)	Add sources
727	Multiple birth (talk)	Add sources
3,812	Liv and Maddie (talk)	Add sources
15	Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Casting for a Comedy Series (talk)	Add sources
12	26th Daytime Emmy Awards (talk)	Add sources
7	Grand style (rhetoric) (talk)	Cleanup
50	Robin Mattson (talk)	Cleanup
2,312	Forest Whitaker (talk)	Cleanup
51	Sally Spectra (talk)	Expand
430	Silver Lake, Los Angeles (talk)	Expand
10	James Warwick (The Bold and the Beautiful) (talk)	Expand
22	Cinco Ranch High School (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
34	Felicia Forrester (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
90	Thomas Forrester (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
127	Tim Taylor (character) (talk)	Merge
205	Minor characters of Days of our Lives (talk)	Merge
54	Ethel Mertz (talk)	Merge
66	History of General Hospital (talk)	Wikify
1,874	Danielle Fishel (talk)	Wikify
36	The Apple Dumpling Gang Rides Again (talk)	Wikify
1	Meg Bennet (talk)	Orphan
1	Deborah Dobson (talk)	Orphan
2	971p (talk)	Orphan
118	Camryn Grimes (talk)	Stub
2	The Daily Union (talk)	Stub
236	Scott Reeves (talk)	Stub
39	Beth Maitland (talk)	Stub
4	Western Communications (talk)	Stub
202	Maura West (talk)	Stub

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions

We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:

Views/Day: Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
Quality: Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:

Content: Is more content needed?
Headings: Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
Images: Is the number of illustrative images about right?
Links: Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
Sources: For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Responded to comments

I was about to support it, but I saw TRM concern about the "delivered an outstanding performance" comment. If you can find a source at NATAS it can be quoted, but if not, it really sounds WP:WEASEL. If it is fixed, I can support it. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 17:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I can't tell you the best option, because as the award says it is given to the "outstanding" actor of the year, but without quotes, it sounds like POV, but if it is quoted it needs a ref. It's a rare situation. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Hey, I'm really sorry but I don't think I'll be able to help with Writing Team and Directing Team. I'm just not the right person to help with the tables and everything. I've been trying to figure it out, but I simply do know how to make tables, add onto them, etc. It just seems very complicated to learn, and I'm not really in the position right now to be starting many new projects. I know I promised I would help, I'm very sorry. Please let me know if there is anything else I can help out with.Caringtype1 (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, I completely understand. I think there's is something you could do for me, can you add the locations on the references for Younger Actress/Actor, (see Lead Actress, Actor etc...)? It pretty easy, go on lead actress and just copy and paste the right location for refences. And I don't want to sound rude, pushy or mean, but You kind of owe me. But if you are not able too, I understand. — SoapFan12 ^Talk

00:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'l do that, but is this something you want done right away? I'll definitely do it, but I'm not sure when I'll get to it. I usually take a bit of break during the weekend, but I'll make it a priority to get done soon. I really would like to continue working together. It's just that I think I should be worker on things that I'm good at, instead of trying to learn new things right now. I go back to school soon, and then I won't have much time for Wikipedia at all. I hope you understand. Caringtype1 (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, do it when you are able too. Me too, I really want us to continue working together. Furthermore, me too I am going back to school soon, then I would still do some Wikipedia. Btw, are you in high-school or college/university? — SoapFan12 ^Talk

00:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good. I'm in high school.Caringtype1 (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. — SoapFan12 ^Talk

01:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some stroopwafels for you!

For reverting/fixing annoying edits to soap articles all the time. Thanks! :) Ar re 13:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! You are such a sweetheart! — SoapFan12 ^Talk

14:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy WikiBirthday!!

Happy WikiBirthday!! I just realized it's been one year since you joined Wikipedia! Haha, you made it one year!! Congratulations! You've been such a great contributor to the Daytime Emmy articles, and actually made constructive edits, instead of derailing articles under the guise of 'improvement". Keep up the good work!!Caringtype1 (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you so much! It means a lot coming from you! You're the best! — SoapFan12 ^Talk

19:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I added the locations for Younger Actress. If you don't mind, I'll do Younger Actor tomorrow.Caringtype1 (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, do it tommorow, I do not mind! Thank you so much, it looks great! — SoapFan12 ^Talk

00:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
32	Massimo Marone (talk)	Add sources
25	Owen Knight (talk)	Add sources
993	Palma, Majorca (talk)	Add sources
6	Marone family (talk)	Add sources
37	Logan family (talk)	Add sources
49	Solid HarmoniE (talk)	Add sources
11	Filipino Turkish Tolerance School (talk)	Cleanup
650	Passions (talk)	Cleanup
50	Tribune Media Services (talk)	Cleanup
46	Courtney Halverson (talk)	Expand
171	Kathleen Gati (talk)	Expand
23	Bill Spencer (The Bold and the Beautiful) (talk)	Expand
116	Racism in Israel (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
18	Clarke Garrison (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
84	New York Herald Tribune (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
53	Seasons of Melrose Place (talk)	Merge
3	Arabic Case (talk)	Merge
5	Rutherglen (wine) (talk)	Merge
9	Consett Academy (talk)	Wikify
1,690	Vanessa Marcil (talk)	Wikify
15	Hardy/Webber family (talk)	Wikify
3	Wormwood (computer virus) (talk)	Orphan
0	Angeluccio (talk)	Orphan
2	Ali Jadbabaie (talk)	Orphan
5	Observer–Reporter (talk)	Stub
104	Jess Walton (talk)	Stub
50	Francesca James (talk)	Stub
470	As I Lay Dying (film) (talk)	Stub
5	Soap Opera Network (talk)	Stub
8	Portsmouth Daily Times (talk)	Stub

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions

We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:

Views/Day: Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
Quality: Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:

Content: Is more content needed?
Headings: Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
Images: Is the number of illustrative images about right?
Links: Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
Sources: For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thats dumb

its better for people to know characters current occupation so there more up to date people on soap message boards dont even know who owns what company why not put victor nemwan as co-ceo of newman because thats his current title

We have done that for years. We keep the occupation general, so please stop adding the specific occupation. Please sign with ″~ ~ ~ ~″ at the end of a message. — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 15:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no it hasnt

occupations a few years ago were always current and specific look at chancellor industries it says there company is public when its really private and it says chancellor own jabot when it hasnt owned jabot in 2 years thats why it needs to be specific — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davonct (talk • contribs) 15:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but we do not do it specificly. If a character has worked in a buisness, we call him a Businessman, if it a woman Businesswoman. — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 16:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/R.J Forrester concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/R.J Forrester, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer what to create this page. So what I am suppose to do. — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 16:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Talk Show Entertainment may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

{| class="wikitable"

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Academy Award for Best Actor may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

| [[Spencer Tracy]]s}}
|}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FL

Truthfully, I don't see much that's ready to be promoted other than a couple of awards lists. Most of the lists at FLC just haven't received enough reviews yet. I'll look at FLC over the weekend and promote/archive as needed. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television awards for Best Younger Actor

Category:Television awards for Best Younger Actor, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 05:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox soap character 2

Hi, just in case you did not notice by the template's documentation. The standard infobox is Template:Infobox soap character. [[ Template:Infobox soap character 2 should only be used for EastEnders characters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, we started to uses them for other series soap characters if you did not notice, Steffy Forrester, Sharon Newman and others. — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 14:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then one of the two infoboxes is useless. I recall a discussion in 2008 or 2010 against detailed relationships in infoboxes of soap characters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not really since General Hospital characters uses the standard infobox. Well, I guess the rule has changed since we have been using that infobox for a long time now. — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 14:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies! Let's continue at Template_talk:Infobox_soap_character_2#Infobox_needs_to_be_replaced_in_many_many_cases. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain...

...from leaving me demanding messages to attend to your specific requirements. You've done this too many times now, despite me telling you I'll get back to the lists you've nominated at FLC. I don't know (or really care) what this "September" deadline you've mentioned is all about but where I'm from, we know "there is no deadline" on Wikipedia. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not giving you demanding messages. I am sorry if you thought I was doing that. I was asking for you to respond to you're comments before September, I am starting school again. Btw, because of you my list was not promoted. You already give comments before don't see why you had to give some again. I am sorry again. — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 14:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least two other editors were surprised at what you had written. I will always comment if I see things that either others or I have missed, either in a specific review or in reviews of similar lists. I'm sure would agree that maximising quality of our lists is paramount to the FLC process, not just rushing them through to promotion, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I agree. I am sorry again, I just have 4 lists that I need to nominate before September. That obviously not going to happen so I need the promotion to go a bit faster. Do not get me wrong, I am very grateful of you're comments and I apologize. — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 14:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar for Best Actor

Hi, there.

I think we can begin renovations for Academy Award for Best Actor to featured list status. BTW, I lent some support to your Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series list.

-Birdienest81 (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Best Actor Oscar

Hello, there:

I got your message, and I'm cool with doing the prose. Please be warned that it might take awhile though. In the meantime, I'm putting photos of notable nominees and winners to the right of the table. Can you make sure that no one deletes the photos or reverts any changes without good reason. If someone asks why we are making changes, tell him or her that we are making this list into a featured list. Oh, I did support your Outstanding Lead Actor Drama list. Keep up the good work!

-Birdienest81 (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do. I know it is very knowledgeable. However, this list only refers to Best LEAD Actor only. Likewise, you may also delete the portion regarding multiple nominees for combined Actor and Supporting Actor. I also would like the "Life expectancy of Oscar winners" removed, it's a nice anecdote which could be true, but we're only referring to the winners as winners. Plus, the tone of those facts don't fit Wikipedia standards as shown in your Daytime Emmy acting awards lists.

-Birdienest81 (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! It would make my work easier. -Birdienest81 (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 40th Daytime Emmy Awards, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bob Stewart and Bob Peterson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Academy Award for Best Actor

That's fine, although I would point out that four minor edits does not constitute "lots of changes". Of the three most recent, one was to put back a perfectly valid note about Paul Muni that you or Birdienest81 had removed without explanation, one was to correct mistakes on spelling and placement made by Birdienest81 and one was to correct a mistake made by you, which was when you started a sentence on Daniel Day-Lewis but unfortunately failed to finish it. L1975p (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you may. However, please also support Wikipedia:FLC#62nd_Academy_Awards so that I may have enough support to have another FLC.

-Birdienest81 (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FLC comments

I'll take a look at that list tomorrow and see if I find anything worth commenting on. Meanwhile, if you're worried about how often FLCs get promoted, your best strategy is to post on FLC talk, where others can see your concern. I try to go through the FLCs at least every other week, although I've been doing it every week lately. There are several other directors and delegates, and my feeling is that they should be given an opportunity to do closures too. The last thing I'd want is to be accused of owning the whole process, and I don't have the time needed to do much more than what I do now anyway. Again, you'll gain a bigger audience for your opinion at the process' talk page. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was not accusing you of owning the whole process quite the opposite you are doing a fantastic job. I am just saying that the other directors/delegates have not been active as much as they used to be and I was wondering why? Thanks again! Also, I think you should promote some lists today, my list has been a month, with a high level of supports. — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 00:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE: FLC comments

Well, I didn't promise, per se, sorry if it was misinterpreted. Due to school I can't check FAs, FLs, or GAs, because they take me a few hours to check them. I just finished a three weeks backlog of vandalism/disruptive edits reverts. But I can't this time. Until December or so, if you have another nomination, you can contact me for review it, but in the next three months I can't check them. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 17:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts

Hey Soap. I have seen that sometimes you have a hard time dealing with several situations that you usually don't consider to be "fair" from your standpoint, or to be stalking from other users. Also, I have seen that when a user tells you that they would do something, and then that person is unable to do what they said they would, you get upset and start making comments you later regret. You have done so at my talk page, at Rambling's talk page, etcetera. And that brings me here. I am sure that this is not done on purpose from your part, but nonetheless a change is needed.

First, you cannot go and start making comments you will later apologize for. It's not good for you, and not good for other users either. This is a good example of what I'm talking about. Both The Rambling Man, Giants2008 and I are entitled to lay an eye above all the FLC pages, and we (to some extent) are the holders of the last word in several matters like number of nominations, promotions and archivings. Telling to one of us that we are stalking you is incorrect; it's our job to take care of any FLC-wise, and we won't stop doing it just because you don't like it. There are rules that we must follow on this website, and they apply to all of us.

Second, I didn't want to mention this to you before, but I see that I have to. Constantly asking the directors/delegates to promote your lists is something you must avoid at all costs, and for two reasons: i) we are aware of the queue and we usually take a look at all these lists constantly, and if we don't promote a list is because we think it's not ready yet and not because we're lazy; ii) it only delays the process further, as we are likely to extent the promotion time just to see if somebody comments. The fact that a list gets three or four supports in two days doesn't mean it's ready for promotion.

Finally, I applaud your hard work doing these lists, but I also have to encourage you to be more patient and careful with your comments and actions toward other people. As I said above, you cannot write some angry comments and then say you're sorry. Instead, think of it before hitting the save button and evaluate different approaches. Remember that if you are kind to people, they will be kind to you too. Nobody is forced to review your lists, even if they told you they will. Most users have a real life they have to attend. Some of them are lawyers, businessmen, who knows. I am a writer, for example, and I cannot always focus on Wikipedia. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 21:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what to say. You are spot on everything. I feel that everyone (Giants, The Rambling Man and you) is against me now and no one is defending me which you guys have right to be due to my recent behavior. I am sorry and I hope we could get pass this and forget what this ever happen. I never wanted to have trouble in wikipedia and it here it happen. Again, I am sorry. Sometimes, I get confuse beetween personal and wiki life. I was neglected in my personal life and when I get ignore here and I intend to overreact which I am very sorry. Therefore, I will stop asking for comments (I will only ask to close friends users) and to promote my lists. Which, I did not want to sound to promote my list, I was just giving a suggestion (that does not even matter, you would not believe me any way since you guys say its canvassing). Its because school start very soon and I do not think I would be as active as usual I do not want to come on wikipedia and I have multiple comments form different users. If it was any different time, I would obvouisly chut up but that no excuse there is no deadline (I wish there was, lol). I am sorry and I would keep everything single thing you said in mind. Thanks for telling me kindly and I really appreciated. I am so sorry for this. :( — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 23:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are not against you. Even if it looks like, what we are trying to do is to show you the right path :) Also, you don't need to apologize (not to me, at least). What you need to do is, as you said, take this advice and be more careful next time. Sadly, not all users will come and leave a friendly message like I did (I which they did) to let you know that something you did is not right. Usually, they just shout at you and I wouldn't like that to happen. Now, about FLC, I wish we had a dealine too. Sometimes, well most of the time, I have to wait a month to get my lists passed, and that's the standard time. When a list reaches two months in the queue, something bad is happening. At least we are faster than GAN ;) Additionally, it is very unlikely that somebody is ignoring you. With the high amout of work most people do here (mixed with their real life obligations), what usually happens is that they miss some messages (I usually do!). Even if they answer other messages but not yours, remember that we must assume good faith and leave a friendly reminder to that user who may have overlooked your request :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for saying those kinds words. I really apreciated. Thanks! — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 23:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
19	Traci Abbott Connelly (talk)	Add sources
45	Lucas Roberts (talk)	Add sources
9	23rd Daytime Emmy Awards (talk)	Add sources
10	27th Daytime Emmy Awards (talk)	Add sources
1,496	Richard Ramirez (talk)	Add sources
101	William J. Bell (talk)	Add sources
306	Sami Brady (talk)	Cleanup
48	Salem (Days of our Lives) (talk)	Cleanup
20	Critics' Choice Television Award for Best Actor in a Drama Series (talk)	Cleanup
67	Paul Williams (The Young and the Restless) (talk)	Expand
76	The Young and the Restless characters (1970s) (talk)	Expand
45	The Young and the Restless storylines (talk)	Expand
92	Thorne Forrester (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
56	Lee Phillip Bell (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
29	Pamela Douglas (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
6	Sesame Street Emmy awards and nominations (talk)	Merge
486	The Thorn Birds (talk)	Merge
538	Bologna sausage (talk)	Merge
898	Monica Potter (talk)	Wikify
26	Lord family (talk)	Wikify
333	Marisa Ramirez (talk)	Wikify
0	Nidan (NGO) (talk)	Orphan
2	Birgit C. Muller (talk)	Orphan
1	Rebecca Hanover (talk)	Orphan
8	Arbind Singh (talk)	Stub
7	Cornelius Smith Jr. (talk)	Stub
69	Bradley Bell (talk)	Stub
76	Jeff Branson (talk)	Stub
4	John C. Tkazyik (talk)	Stub
5	The Union Democrat (talk)	Stub

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions

We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:

Views/Day: Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
Quality: Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:

Content: Is more content needed?
Headings: Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
Images: Is the number of illustrative images about right?
Links: Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
Sources: For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FLC director

SoapFan, I find myself sort of confused. You say that you have no interest in becoming a director, yet want to know how you would go about starting the process. Either you want the position or you don't, and if you do you're better off being honest about it. I couldn't support someone who wasn't honest about their interest level, and I doubt many others would either. If you are interested, there is no formal place to "sign up" for the position; we take it a little more seriously than that. Traditionally, FLC has either had elections for new directors/delegates, or newcomers have been chosen by other directors and then ratified by the greater community. I don't want to have that level of power, so I'd like to see elections for at least one replacement for TRM, preferably two. If an election is started, you're as free to put yourself up for discussion as anybody else. If you want to see what the process might be like, there's Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Delegate election, which features myself coming in second in a one-horse race. I will warn you that all of your behaviors would be put on trial in an election, just as they would be in an adminship request, and that you will probably need more experience reviewing lists before the community would support you. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actor in a Drama Series, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jonathan Jackson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Academy Award for Best Actor

As much as I like to nominate it for featured list status, I feel it is not yet ready to be nominated because of the issues dealing the Ref column in the winners table dealing with Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Drama Series. I looked at a similar list in Golden Globe Award for Best Original Score and saw that the Ref column was not colored at all. So after much tinkering. I think the table should look something like this:

Year	Actor	Film	Role	Ref
1927/28 (1st)	Emil Jannings‡	The Last Command The Way of All Flesh	Grand Duke Sergius Alexander August Schilling	^[14]
	Richard Barthelmess	The Noose The Patent Leather Kid	Nickie Elkins Patent Leather Kid	^[14]

If you can do this for the table, I believe User:Giants2008 will have less of a problem with it. Then you may nominate the list! Also, as much as I get excited about my lists being promoted, I try to avoid pestering other proofreaders too much. I highly respect your hard work, but I just want to make sure that our nomination does not get slowed down because of unnecessary pestering and arguments. Usually from my experience, lists take about a month to get promoted.

-Birdienest81 (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Featured lists

I have just reviewed your nomination for the "Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Drama Series" list. Fortunately, I did not notice anything wrong. Can I ask in return a review for Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Golden Martín Fierro Award winners/archive1? It's also a list of awards, except that it has no specific type of recipients (it may be given to either people or programs, of any genre), and that it does not have nominations. Thanks in advance. Cambalachero (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will do soon. — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 22:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Academy Award for Best Actor

Yes. I actually also have at least three other Oscar ceremonies waiting in the wings: 61st Academy Awards, 64th Academy Awards, 68th Academy Awards. So, I think we should wait. In the meantime, you could fix the other acting awards as well even if they are not nominated.

-Birdienest81 (talk) 03:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User page design

Hey there,

I saw your recent conversations with Hahc21 (talk · contribs) (they weren't exactly recent, but I must admit that I haven't been much involved within the talk userface for the past couple of weeks), and I just wanted to let you know that I am not ignoring you. If you could go on Commons and find a picture that you would like to be used as your userpage background, and let me know what it is, I should be able to get to your user page design this weekend. Also any specific userboxes that you would like to be included. I've just started my first year of college, so I've been pretty preoccupied, mostly just making mainspace edits here and there. So I do apologize for making you wait so long.

Best, — Status (talk · contribs) 03:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emmy FLs

I gave the Daytime Emmy lists their own section. Since I only count one Primetime Emmy list at FL, I'm not sure that's enough to justify moving that one out of the Other section. It was probably time for a new section for these lists, though. Thanks for reminding me. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This mean a lot to me to get my work better recongnize! You'r welcome it was my pleasure. Furthermore, I wanted to apologize for me acting out at pre-FLC, it was irresponsible of me, it was intended to be a joke but I had no right to do that and I made you inconfortable. I am very sorry. Btw, I have responded to you at the pre-flc and everything it is done, i think its ready to be closed, but that is you're descision. Thanks again for the review! — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 11:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
10	18th Daytime Emmy Awards (talk)	Add sources
403	The Next Step (TV series) (talk)	Add sources
197	Scott Clifton (talk)	Add sources
129	Sheila Carter (talk)	Add sources
1,703	Lab Rats (TV series) (talk)	Add sources
750	Shake It Up (season 3) (talk)	Add sources
53	Judith Chapman (talk)	Cleanup
202	Lulu Spencer (talk)	Cleanup
1,324	Nathan Kress (talk)	Cleanup
748	Katherine Chancellor (talk)	Expand
11	C.J. Garrison (talk)	Expand
45	Phoebe Forrester (talk)	Expand
13	Aggie Jones (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
42	Maria Arena Bell (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
44	Karen Spencer (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
958	Epic Meal Time (talk)	Merge
20	Cowles Publishing Company (talk)	Merge
99	Disney–ABC Television Group (talk)	Merge
321	2013 NBA Finals (talk)	Wikify
74	Alvin Straight (talk)	Wikify
34	Signing Time! (talk)	Wikify
2	Rory Conroy (talk)	Orphan
1	Gutsy Gals Inspire Me (talk)	Orphan
5	Michael Dean Shelton (talk)	Orphan
142	Nikki & Sara Live (talk)	Stub
19	Scott Bryce (talk)	Stub
4	Solid HarmoniE (album) (talk)	Stub
40	Eddie Alderson (talk)	Stub
1	Peter Brinckerhoff (talk)	Stub
3	Trent Jones (talk)	Stub

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions

We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:

Views/Day: Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
Quality: Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:

Content: Is more content needed?
Headings: Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
Images: Is the number of illustrative images about right?
Links: Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
Sources: For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey, how have you been? I'm sorry I never responded to your last comment on my talk page, I got busy and just forgot about until now. But it seems like you worked the issues out, so that's good. Have you been watching GH, I've barely had time to, but I just finished catching up, and it's been pretty good lately. what do you think?Caringtype1 (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am loving GH, I think the Connie's killer is Morgan. How Ava and Morgan have been talking to each other on today's episode and that he confess to her about it and that Connie wanted to framed AJ or Ava since the killer is neither of them. what do you think? Also, I have worked on 39th Daytime Emmy Awards in the past few days, what do you think? I would love to hear you're feedbacks and comments about it, also can you correct the lead ASAP? I would really appreicate this. — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 01:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have a new FLC ongoing and I was wondering if you take time to review it when you get a chance? — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 01:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry for the delayed response again! lol! I think Morgan turning out to be the killer would be very interesting! I just hope it's not Ava. I'll try to take a look at that article and your FLC tonight.Caringtype1 (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

64th Oscars and Daytime Emmy Directing for Soap Opera

Hi there,

Please see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/64th Academy Awards/archive1 for addressed concerns. I also supported your list.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
43	American Media (publisher) (talk)	Add sources
12	24th Daytime Emmy Awards (talk)	Add sources
40	1991 in American television (talk)	Add sources
19	35th Daytime Emmy Awards (talk)	Add sources
70	Bridget Forrester (talk)	Add sources
8	13th Daytime Emmy Awards (talk)	Add sources
102	Eric Forrester (talk)	Cleanup
14	Cramer family (talk)	Cleanup
391	Deadly Friend (talk)	Cleanup
2,807	Pittsburgh (talk)	Expand
24	Jackie Marone (talk)	Expand
104	Cody Martin (talk)	Expand
31	Marcus Forrester (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
22	Justin Barber (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
16	Darla Forrester (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
79	64th Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards (talk)	Merge
5,911	Stanislav Petrov (talk)	Merge
246	Albert DeSalvo (talk)	Merge
168	Ashley Jones (talk)	Wikify
54	Max Brady (talk)	Wikify
73	Port Charles (talk)	Wikify
2	Anwain (talk)	Orphan
3	Audio Analogue (talk)	Orphan
0	2008–09 National Division Three South (talk)	Orphan
26	Andre Gower (talk)	Stub
516	Alice Englert (talk)	Stub
285	Chad Duell (talk)	Stub
4	TVWeek (talk)	Stub
15	George Drouillard (talk)	Stub
126	Doug Davidson (talk)	Stub

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions

We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:

Views/Day: Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
Quality: Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:

Content: Is more content needed?
Headings: Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
Images: Is the number of illustrative images about right?
Links: Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
Sources: For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

68th Oscars (1996)

Hi, I was hoping if you can give me opinions and comments on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/68th Academy Awards/archive1 as you have done for my other Oscar ceremonies? I would like to receive feedback so I could make necessary improvements. If no problems, would you please lend me your support? It will be greatly appreciated! Regards.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FLC

I wanted to take a weekend off from FLC closures, but felt that the one list needed to be closed because there was a lot of drama surrounding that FLC and a true consensus on a stable version was proving impossible to find. That's why I only did that one list. The others will be promoted soon if they deserve to be, although I wish you would stop asking me to promote your lists with such regularity. A lot of editors do consider that canvassing, or annoying at the very least. If you think the closures are happening too infrequently, you can ask about that issue at the FL delegate election that is ongoing, or even run yourself if you feel that strongly about it. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What did I say to make you think I asked you to promote my list in my message? I did not say to promote anything, I was just curious on why you focus on that one list and I saw others that deserved to be promoted or archived and I thought you might of missed those nominations. Therefore, next time don't assume that. For the record, that was very hurtful, it's like you always think the worst of me. — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 01:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You told me on my talk page that you felt the FLC was ready to be promoted. How is that not inherently asking me to promote it? This isn't the first time you've done something like this to myself or The Rambling Man when he was still a director. I noticed that you were putting pressure on Hahc here to explain why he didn't promote your list today. You need to take a step back from posting such messages in the future. As long as you're putting your own lists in these messages, everyone is going to think that you are only pursuing your own interests, even if that isn't your intention. Do you understand why we might feel that way? Giants2008 (Talk) 17:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008:, First of all, you did not apologize for hurting me. Which I really do not appreciated. Also, ″you were putting pressure on Hahc″, tell me how did my message sounded like pressure? I ask him kindly if he missed those FLs, because every one makes mistakes therefore I thought that he missed those FLCs and to do their FLC closures. Again, that was very hurtful of you (you are thinking the worst of me). Yes, I understand and I will stop putting my FLs in those message but do not expect me to stop sending those kind of messages because again people makes mistakes and I was just wondering why he did not promoted those lists. You are just very ungrateful that someone like me actually cares about this process. Furthermore, I am so curious on how do you know I send that message to Hahc? Are you looking at my contributions? If so, why? — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 18:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to hurt you and apologize if I did. I checked your recent contributions because I wanted to know if you sent similar messages to anybody besides myself lately, which you did. That's one of the reasons why you have a user contributions tab: so people can inspect what you're doing if necessary. I'm greatly concerned about this, because I don't want to see any harm to an editor's reputation over such a matter. For example, if you decided to run for RFA I guarantee you somebody would make an issue out of it, because they tend to be on the picky side. And please don't accuse me of being ungrateful. There aren't enough people reviewing at any of these processes, and I'm very grateful for any help we can get; such an accusation hurts me greatly and is as de-motivating as anything I can think of. As for Hahc, he may have thought the list needed one more review and left it at FLC for that reason, not because he forgot it. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008:, I accept your apology and I have no intention on running for RFA or anything else for that matter because I see that there is no point since I know I do not have the capacity to do the job. Furthermore, I apologize for accusing you of being ungrateful, I was just pissed off at you at that moment but it was wrong of me. I am very sorry. Are you talking about my reputation? If so, none of this would have happenned if you would just respond to my question I ask why did you not promoted those lists and you said ″I wanted to take a weekend off from FLC closures, but felt that the one list needed to be closed because there was a lot of drama surrounding that FLC and a true consensus on a stable version was proving impossible to find. That's why I only did that one list.″ Therefore, you should at leave it at that, I would of understand and the case would have been closed but you kept saying that I should asked you to promoted my lists, so if you want blame someone look at the mirror. Do not get me wrong, I did do some awful things in the past which I regret but for this situation I am not the only that should be blame because it was my fault and yours even if you afraid to admitted. However, thank you for caring for my reputation that means a lot, I know I should of not added my list to the message and called you ungrateful but you started this drama. Also, if I did send that same message with not having my FLC on it, what would be your response? — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 10:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd find it somewhat unusual to think that we need FLCs closed immediately, but would probably have "left it at that", as you say. That's what I'll do now. Giants2008 (Talk) 11:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It concerns me that, even after the advice I left you sometime ago, we are still at this. I think that, sometime ago, I told you that delegates never miss a list, they just think it's not ready for promotion. The message you left in my talk page has several meanings: (i) that I am incompetent cand annot perform my job, (ii) that I am lazy to check all the lists, and (iii) that you believe you can do my job better than I. I am sure that you didn't mean anything like it, and instead just wanted to do a friendly notice, but the fact that you did so only because your nomination is there doesn't look good, or would you have done the same if you didn't have a list on the queue? That's why I told you that you'd benefit from thinking carefully what you write to avoid misunderstandings like those you've had lately with the FLC team. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 13:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Hahc21: I really do not appreciated you interrupting a conversation between me and Giants and this none of your business and I really do not appreciated this. Therefore, how am I suppose to take your advice. Like I said previously to Giants, none of this would happen if he would just respond to my question other than to write other things. Again, how is this any of you're business? I guess we are trading advice, I think it would for you're benefit if you mind you're own business. Fine, I would definitely stop sending those messages.@Giants2008:, I believe that every delegates and directors should check the FLC every weekend and I am going to bring it up at the talk page. — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 18:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a wiki. Everything you contribute is available to the whole world to see and comment on. Get over it. Your behaviour is becoming close to intolerable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you came to my talk page trying to do my job is my business. A conversation on your talk page with one of my colleages about a topic I am supposed to be involved in, is my business. If you don't like it, then stop doing the things we tell you to stop doing, and everything would be fine. You don't appreciate our attitude? Well, we don't appreciate yours. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:SoapFan12

Viola! The image that you said you wanted was just to large, so I picked one of many crops of the image that exist. If you'd like a different image used, let me know. I wasn't sure about what you wanted me to do with the navigation, so I just kept the tabs and added a little style. Let me know if there's anything you wanted done differently. Enjoy! — Status (talk · contribs) 02:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Status: Wow! I am speechless. This was out of my expactations. You do a great amazing job. OMg. My user page is fantastic, beautiful, phenomenal. Can I do anything for you? I am serious, anything? Just name it. Thank you so much for doing this and you are a awesome editor, one of the best I've sen! — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 10:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, shucks, thanks!

I'm good, but thanks for asking! You're most welcome. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

68th Oscars

Hi there.

I was wondering if you will be could proofread: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/68th Academy Awards/archive1. I would be grateful for the extra help and support; and if you need help on something, you can ask me. Thanks.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Birdienest81:,

Done. — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 00:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
88	Children of General Hospital (talk)	Add sources
13	26th Daytime Emmy Awards (talk)	Add sources
130	Bill Spencer, Jr. (talk)	Add sources
50	Forrester family (talk)	Add sources
63	Carrie Brady (talk)	Add sources
7,499	Netflix (talk)	Add sources
78	Lemonade Mouth (talk)	Cleanup
69	Robin Mattson (talk)	Cleanup
65	Deaf education (talk)	Cleanup
40	Sally Spectra (talk)	Expand
73	Avery Bailey Clark (talk)	Expand
52	Neil Winters (talk)	Expand
9	Whipple Jones III (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
82	Thomas Forrester (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
43	Caroline Spencer Forrester (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
41	Caroline Holden (talk)	Merge
4,120	Jessica Lange (talk)	Merge
167	Bone anchored hearing aid (talk)	Merge
54	History of General Hospital (talk)	Wikify
204	The Mosquito Coast (talk)	Wikify
53	Media portrayal of lesbianism (talk)	Wikify
2	Meg Bennet (talk)	Orphan
2	Alejandro Lacayo (talk)	Orphan
1	2010–11 Midland Football Alliance (talk)	Orphan
227	Scott Reeves (talk)	Stub
71	Camryn Grimes (talk)	Stub
29	Cassie Brady (talk)	Stub
10	James Warwick (The Bold and the Beautiful) (talk)	Stub
2	The Daily Union (talk)	Stub
37	Beth Maitland (talk)	Stub

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions

We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:

Views/Day: Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
Quality: Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:

Content: Is more content needed?
Headings: Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
Images: Is the number of illustrative images about right?
Links: Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
Sources: For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 19:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Livelikemusic:, why would you do this me? I am a kid and I am in tears right now because of you. Editing is my passion and you have taken it away from me. I understand that you had good motives and I agree I should of not keep reverting however I absolutely did not know it was a violation, you could of at least warned me to stop and tell it was a violation before reporting me. Please, answer this message because you owe me an explantation. I did nothing to hurt you and I even apologize to you on you're talk page about being a disruptive editor. Again, I did not mean to violate Wikipedia also, why did I not get a warning? I was just blocked with no warning I did not even get a chance. You ruined in my life. Why? Is it revenge from me being annoyance to you? Well apologize with all my heart. I am not angry and I am just crying my eyes out right now and wondering why I am blocked for something I never knew was a violation and did not get a warning to not repeated this incident. I would really appreciate an explanation and response. Thanks! — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 22:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SoapFan, I didn't do anything to you. You brought this upon yourself. It's unacceptable for a member of over a year to not know about the three revert rule. That is simply unacceptable in my eyes. And to try and pull the "kid" card is also wrong, because it's not my intention. But if you're THIS emotional and saying editing is your life, maybe use this time to re-evaluate and re-examine things. It's not healthy to be this worked up over a website. And to say I ruined your life is another alarming statement, and one you should be taking seriously. If you're this hung up on this website, maybe it's good to take this downtime and figure things out. It's alarming. Yes, people get dedicated to editing, but to be this upset when you're suffering a consequence to your actions, is quite alarming to me. As an editor, it's your job to know the policies that we're bound to when we sign up for this website. This has zero to do with hate (as I do not have enough room in my life for hate). Simply saying you didn't know if not an acceptable excuse for breaking policy of this website. If you're expecting sympathy from me, you unfortunately will not be getting it. That might sound harsh, but it's the reality and consequence of your actions for engaging in an edit-war with another editor. You broke the rules of WP:EDITWAR and there's nothing more to be done, unfortunately. An administrator felt you required the 72-hour block, and I won't be objecting to it. Nor will I apologise for doing the right thing in this case. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Livelikemusic:, I understand what I did wrong. But, I had did not even get a warning? Do you think that is fair? A 72-hour break is unbelievable. By the way, I am actually a kid so I am not pulling any cards. I need to edit, please I have so much work I need to do on wikipedia. You did the right thing but I have FLC on-going, and you did not even give me a chance. Again Is that fair? I understand every motives, I brought it on myself, true that. But still, I deserved a chance and you did not give me any. Which I found unacceptable. Come on, I have school on Monday and weekends is when I have time. If you are not going to objected, can you at least reduce it to 24 hours and I promise that you will never have to deal with me ever again. Please, I am begging you and I will do anything if you give me one more chance. Just name it and it will be done. Please! I am desperate. — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 01:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like you're too dependent on Wikipedia, and the way you're talking is alarming. If an Admin asks me, I think you should stay on the block because I don't feel you realize what you've done, given your words right now. Saying you're desperate to edit, and need to come back is not healthy. You won't die without Wikipedia, and if you feel you will, then that's something to be seriously looked into! livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 01:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Livelikemusic:, I know what I have done I violated Wikipedia policy and I am feeling my consequences but 72-hours is too much. But, that what I get for not reading Wikipedia's policies therefore I would stop begging you and I apologize for acting out. It's just, I miss wikipedia too much. When I have a bad day, editing just helps me forget about what happen today and then I dealed with the problem but I guess I need to deal with the consequences but I might get a chance to be off the hook since I have asked to be unblocked and hope that the admin accepts it. — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 01:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I know what it's like to be blocked and I understand why you're upset. That said, some of your comments here make me think that you may be taking Wikipedia too seriously. I would suggest you talk to a parent or a trusted adult about your editing to get their perspective on it. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Arsten:, Thanks for the suggestion and I would think about what you said. Thanks again and I left a message on your talk page. — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 01:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. v/r - T P 19:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z10

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

AwardShowFan123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have had absouletely no idea that I did something wrong. Please let me go, I will next time do it right by disscussing on the talk page. I apologize, please let me go! I am in tears right now. Editting is like breathing for me, please let me edit. Again sorry, — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 19:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Since you've promised to discuss the matter on the talk page instead of reverting further, I've unblocked your account. Please take care not to edit war in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 41st Daytime Emmy Awards may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Academy of Television Arts and Sciences]] (NATAS) and [[Academy of Television Arts & Sciences]] (ATAS0, the ceremony will take place in 2014. The drama pre-nominees will be announce in February

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

61st Oscars

Hi, I was hoping if you can give me opinions and comments on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/61st Academy Awards/archive1 as you have done for my other Oscar ceremonies? I would like to receive feedback so I could make necessary improvements. It will be greatly appreciated! Regards.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Writing list

Hey, I wasn't trying to be antagonistic to make you drop the nomination, I was trying to help you with improving the article and get it Featured, but you were ignoring it and being rude from the start with "I am dead serious" about dropping the first oppose you got in eight nominations. You can't just use a single source for everything and assume it's infallible, and then omit information that can be found elsewhere. If someone finds some sources for an article, you add them to it and move toward getting a bronze star on the page, not give up. The stuff about the award dimensions is just a quibble but a complete list is vital, and I will be glad to support the article once it's complete, but now readers might not get that. And no, I'm not staying away from future nominations, which I do hope to see and support. You did a fine job on the other seven FLs, but this one needed a bit more. Reywas92^Talk 04:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92:, Well, the article is longer my problem since you made it unenjoyable place to work at it. Also, since you found all these infos and you know how FL works you can add all those facts and nominate the article yourself so I can visualise what you want. since I did not really understand what you wanted me to do. I suggest doing it yourself then it would be easier to get it. Why can't you stay away for my future FLs? Shouldn't you be happy that you have one less user to deal with? Please stay away from them since I do not want to go through, what I went through with you again. However I grant you the Writting List therefore add, remove everything you think is needed and I would follow what you did for a future example. What do you think about that? — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 10:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I made it unenjoyable, I just wanted you to add the winners for 1981 to 1985 and nominees from 1986 to 1990, which the list was missing. There's no future example necessary, you already did a great job with the other FLs and this one is almost there. You know how FL works, and you are welcome to use these articles. I know you can do this, and I'm not trying to put you through anything other than a simple review to ensure these fine articles have all relevant information. Reywas92^Talk 11:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92:, Its fine. I suggest you to add the winners for 1981 to 1985 and nominees from 1986 to 1990 since I think a future example is necessay for me and I have no longer interest on working on this article. — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 19:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

61st Oscars

Hi there,

I hope you're doing okay there. I'm just politely asking if it is possibly to proofead 61st Academy Awards regarding Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/61st Academy Awards/archive1. I'm sorry about your nominations for the Daytime Emmy Writing Awards. Maybe I can help down the road. I would appreciate the help, though!

--Birdienest81 (talk) 05:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added winners for 1982,1983,and 1985. I also added nominees for 1988 and 1989. Unfortunately, I still cannot find credible sources that would warrant enough information for futher more information. And as much as I understand how much you love the lists (I know what it is like), it is best that this list not be renominated for Featured List until ALL information is included in this list. That means also adding the actual persons who received the award and finding valid sources that confirm this. I have to agree with Reywas92 on this one for the sake of fairness for the other list contributors. Also, I can't make too many promises, I am and adult (I resume classes in January) and the Daytime Emmys are a difficult subject to search, but don't give up though.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, pleaseconsult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
6	Folding boat (talk)	Add sources
39	Daniel Romalotti (talk)	Add sources
49	Port Charles (fictional city) (talk)	Add sources
5	Marone family (talk)	Add sources
34	Logan family (talk)	Add sources
82	Kathleen Gati (talk)	Add sources
124	Stephanie Forrester (The Bold and the Beautiful) (talk)	Cleanup
172	Michael Huffington (talk)	Cleanup
503	Passions (talk)	Cleanup
11	Macy Alexander (The Bold and the Beautiful) (talk)	Expand
26	Danny Romalotti (talk)	Expand
18	Owen Knight (talk)	Expand
457	As the World Turns (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
36	Bill Spencer (The Bold and the Beautiful) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
34	Jasper Jacks (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
50	Seasons of Melrose Place (talk)	Merge
1	George W. Snyder (talk)	Merge
188	Contingent workforce (talk)	Merge
16	Hardy/Webber family (talk)	Wikify
1,542	Vanessa Marcil (talk)	Wikify
9	Todd Howard (TV personality) (talk)	Wikify
0	Matthew Bucher (talk)	Orphan
1	Dan Pavlik (talk)	Orphan
0	Akkyungey (talk)	Orphan
136	Jess Walton (talk)	Stub
2	Jerry Birn (talk)	Stub
53	Housos vs. Authority (talk)	Stub
3	Soap Opera Network (talk)	Stub
79	Sean Blakemore (talk)	Stub
4	Elizabeth Korte (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there?

Did you read my feedback from above? I did not mean to offend you. I tried to add more info to the list, but I came up too short on some info. It's just that it will take considerable amount of time to do so.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Birdienest81:, sorry been very busy! Thanks for the feedback and for adding those further informations! It means a lot! If you can work on the lead also that would be awesome and fix Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Drama Series and Directing Team using what you found for Writting Team and find other informations to improve those articles? Please? Thanks in advance. I would review you're list tomorow since I have free time to do so. Thanks again! Have a good one! — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 23:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your participation required

Please see here for a discussion I think you should be involved in. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, pleaseconsult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
1,055	Joe Flacco (talk)	Add sources
23	Pamela Douglas (talk)	Add sources
284	Santa Barbara (TV series) (talk)	Add sources
17	Traci Abbott Connelly (talk)	Add sources
15	Soaps In Depth (talk)	Add sources
10	27th Daytime Emmy Awards (talk)	Add sources
68	Salem (Days of our Lives) (talk)	Cleanup
574	Marisa Ramirez (talk)	Cleanup
105	Louise Sorel (talk)	Cleanup
32	The Young and the Restless storylines (talk)	Expand
57	Olivia Winters (talk)	Expand
6	Gina Roma (talk)	Expand
35	Genoa City (The Young and the Restless) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
27	Diamond grinding of pavement (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
60	Lee Phillip Bell (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
9	Khosla Commission (talk)	Merge
15	Soft tissue technique (talk)	Merge
1,261	Roma (Romani subgroup) (talk)	Merge
4,506	Steve McQueen (director) (talk)	Wikify
55	Seattle Grace: Message of Hope (talk)	Wikify
151	Amelia Shepherd (talk)	Wikify
2	2013 ACC Emerging Teams Cup (talk)	Orphan
0	Andreas Michl (talk)	Orphan
0	Albert Duder (talk)	Orphan
87	Bradley Bell (talk)	Stub
3	Michele Val Jean (talk)	Stub
43	Francesca James (talk)	Stub
9	Benjy Hawk (talk)	Stub
75	Jeff Branson (talk)	Stub
17	Jessie Brewer (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Eric Forrester

Your recent editing history at Eric Forrester shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. TigerShark (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the other user for ongoing edit warring. TigerShark (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella Braña

Hey there SoapFan12, I just wanted to discuss the portrayer issue with this article. I understand that the unidentified actress in 2012 was uncredited and therefore cannot be listed in the infobox, but to just list Eva Longoria (I find) really misleads an unassuming reader. If I were a random reader and I stumbled upon Isabella's article, I would see Eva Longoria as the sole portrayer and assume she portrayed the role from 2001–03 and in 2012, which isn't true. Do you think there'd be a way to somehow include this in the infobox? Regards, Creativity97 18:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing with the Stars

Hello SoapFan12, Thank you for your contribution in an article Corbin Bleu from Dancing with the Stars. You can add this work in an article Corbin Bleu, because it is important in this article. Good luck in your life.

^ "Holy Water, Crosses And Wooden Stakes". Soaps.com. Soaps.com. 2012-11-16. Retrieved July 6, 2013.
^ Cite error: The named reference crawlback was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ "Best Medicine Is Revenge". Soaps.com. Soaps.com. 2012-11-28. Retrieved July 6, 2013.
^ "Lipstick On A Pig". Soaps.com. Soaps.com. 2012-12-03. Retrieved July 6, 2013.
^ "Robot Lobster". Soaps.com. Soaps.com. 2012-12-05. Retrieved July 6, 2013.
^ ^a ^b ^c "Playing Games". Soaps.com. Soaps.com. 2012-12-31. Retrieved July 6, 2013.
^ ^a ^b ^c "Unbelievable". Soaps.com. Soaps.com. 2013-01-01. Retrieved July 6, 2013.
^ ^a ^b ^c "Unsuspecting Pawn". Soaps.com. Soaps.com. 2013-01-02. Retrieved July 6, 2013.
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference kool-aid was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ "The Dull One". Soaps.com. Soaps.com. 2013-01-25. Retrieved July 6, 2013.
^ "Pact With The Devil". Soaps.com. Soaps.com. 2013-02-27. Retrieved July 6, 2013.
^ "Do Superheroes Cry?". Soaps.com. Soaps.com. 2013-02-04. Retrieved July 6, 2013.
^ "Can You Spell Delusional?". Soaps.com. Soaps.com. 2013-02-05. Retrieved July 6, 2013.
^ "The 1st Academy Awards (1929) Nominees and Winners". Beverly Hills. Retrieved 27 August, 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

[1] "Holy Water, Crosses And Wooden Stakes". Soaps.com. Soaps.com. 2012-11-16. Retrieved July 6, 2013.

[crawlback-2] Cite error: The named reference crawlback was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[3] "Best Medicine Is Revenge". Soaps.com. Soaps.com. 2012-11-28. Retrieved July 6, 2013.

[4] "Lipstick On A Pig". Soaps.com. Soaps.com. 2012-12-03. Retrieved July 6, 2013.

[5] "Robot Lobster". Soaps.com. Soaps.com. 2012-12-05. Retrieved July 6, 2013.

[playinggames-6] "Playing Games". Soaps.com. Soaps.com. 2012-12-31. Retrieved July 6, 2013.

[unbelievable-7] "Unbelievable". Soaps.com. Soaps.com. 2013-01-01. Retrieved July 6, 2013.

[pawn-8] "Unsuspecting Pawn". Soaps.com. Soaps.com. 2013-01-02. Retrieved July 6, 2013.

[kool-aid-9] Cite error: The named reference kool-aid was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[10] "The Dull One". Soaps.com. Soaps.com. 2013-01-25. Retrieved July 6, 2013.

[11] "Pact With The Devil". Soaps.com. Soaps.com. 2013-02-27. Retrieved July 6, 2013.

[12] "Do Superheroes Cry?". Soaps.com. Soaps.com. 2013-02-04. Retrieved July 6, 2013.

[13] "Can You Spell Delusional?". Soaps.com. Soaps.com. 2013-02-05. Retrieved July 6, 2013.

[Oscars1-14] "The 1st Academy Awards (1929) Nominees and Winners". Beverly Hills. Retrieved 27 August, 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]