User:KellyAna/Archive 3

Removing reports at AIV

Hi. Thanks for your tidying up at WP:AIV. May I ask you that you include the board status in your edit summary when removing reports? Ending your summary with "EMPTY" or "NOT EMPTY" will allow other contributors who watchlist the page to know if there is anything that needs looking at. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed it because I was told I was wrong to report it in the first place, so I removed it. That's the only reason I would ever remove a report because I was so emphatically told I was wrong for reporting it. Thank you for the advice, if the situation arises again I will remember what you have said. Thank you. KellyAna (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, in my opinion it is better to make a report in good faith - and have it declined - than not to do so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No, thank you! I did make the report in good faith, I was just chastised a bit too much over it and the editor had stopped his editing so I chose to remove. I'll wait next time. KellyAna (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

SOW Report of Drake Hogestyn's Return

Hello, I am the one who reported that Drake will resurface on January 8th, and in fact it is in the current issue of SOW-here is a link to my source- (you may have to get a login to view the information)-[1] I hope this will clear up any confusion that you may have on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.240.29 (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And I own the magazine and it doesn't say that he's returning on the 8th. Message boards are NOT verifiable sources. You cannot use a message board as a source. I have scans of the mag to document that there is no date for the return. Sorry, your source doesn't hold water. KellyAna (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to Futoncritic

Thefutoncritic.com is a very reliable source, they get there episode listings staight from press releases. Whatever they list is always correct unless the network makes a last minute change. 24.47.198.164 23:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's still not considered a reliable source. Sorry, but you can't use it to reference. KellyAna (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You get into conflicts a lot, huh?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I'll be happy to report your personal attack. KellyAna (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack. I've just had your talk page on my watch list since we had our little incident, and I've noticed people come here all the time having problems with things you do.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a personal attack, and false statements, and your being here constitutes being far less than perfectly civil. This second edit just confirms your behaviour. I've brought it up to Wknight94 for him to deal with you and your, now, harassment. Calling discussions about sourcing conflict is not civil in the least. Coming to my page after what happened before is is less than perfect civility as you are well aware it will cause strife. But again, I'll let Wknight94 deal with you.KellyAna (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

References

Thank you for your helpful comment regarding citation requests. Did not know about this. I will now use the latter whenever it is required. I have moved the citation request to the portion that is in doubt, i.e. whose hand turns the album page. The actual reshooting of the title sequence is not in doubt. Thanks. Allmychildren (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome. I understand wanting to immediately remove something but as you asked for references I thought there might be a hint of truth to the removed statement. When in doubt the citation request is always the way to go. I will honestly say that I doubt the information about Agnes's hands, but it warrants a request at least for a short time. If in a week or so no one has found a reference, at that time you can and should remove the information. I try and keep an eye on that page just for vandals, maybe I'll look for a reference in my spare time. KellyAna (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. I was not able to find something either. I know I read somewhere about the actual album having been bought by someone working on One Life to Live at a garage sale, but I can't find the reference. Should have noted it down when I was reading it! I'll look more carefully when I have some time, probably over the week-end, so I can add this info and reference it. As for the hand, I believe that the rumors that have always been going around are that it was that of either Rosemary Prinz, Ruth Warrick, or Agnes Nixon, but was never able to actually find out which one it was...! Allmychildren (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

Ah thanks for the information :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.15.74 (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Just wanted you to understand why the changes you made were reverted. KellyAna (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad day?

Yum!

That calls for some ice cream. =) I replied on my Talk page already, but I wanted to leave you an extra message to say sorry again that you had a bad day. I hope the ice cream cheers you up. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!! I replied to you but this is so nice!!! It's great when things go so very wrong in our real world that cyber friends take the time to make someone smile. Thank you!!KellyAna (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: Okay, I'll eat the ice cream, you can have the cheese cake. Not quite Cheesecake Factory, but good enough, I suspect. =) Bummer about the paycheck limbo. =\ I hope that it's straightened out ASAP. To answer your question about the edit summary, that's correct. Most of the abbreviations are over here.

Civility

I'm assuming you are aware of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. This comment was totally unnecessary and violated both policies. If I recall correctly, this is my second time warning your about civility in article discussions. Further violations of these policies may result in a temporary block. Thank you. Pats1 ^T/C 04:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Explain to my how that is ANY different than the way Chrisjnelson talks to me all the time and I'll believe that it was uncivil. What I said was FACT. You guys run the NFL portion of Wikipedia in a way I've never seen a section run. Chrisjnelson tells me "I don't know what I'm doing" and "I only work on articles because I have crushes" and no one even warns him. What I said was fact and it was as perfectly civil as anything Chris has ever said to me. As for number of warnings, this is your first to me. As to the statement, I am still licking my wounds and icing the bruises received from dealing with Chrisjnelson. In order for something to be personal, it has to be false. Have you actually thought about how your ruling of the NFL looks to other people? Serious question there. Do you and your fellow NFL editors realize how often you attack when a new person attempts to edit the NFL articles. I won't even edit glaring spelling errors and glaring grammatical errors because of the behaviour of Chrisjnelson. I've checked my archives, I keep everything, I don't see any warnings from you so this would be my first from you. The comment above, is, in fact, the first comment you've ever made on my talk page.KellyAna (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That's the point! It, for the most part, isn't much different. Two wrongs don't make a right. Chris served his time. What you said isn't civil, and quite frankly it isn't fact. If Chris says something uncivil, appropriate action will be taken. But that gives you no license to return the favor. No, this is your second warning. This was your first. Coming into a discussion like the one that was going on at NFL playoffs, 2007-08 and making the uncivil comments you did is considered disruptive and unproductive and is not tolerated. If you're still "licking your wounds and icing the bruises," then you quite frankly need to get over it soon, because continuing on with what you're doing could get you a temporary block. Your comments were a personal attack, based on my gender. Whether it's true (which it isn't) or not doesn't matter under WP:NPA - you can still be blocked for making the attack. Pats1 ^T/C 18:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's just move on. This is silly and I have a Colts vs SD game to watch. SD needs to go down. And, by the way, I hope the Pats crush the crud out of Jacksonville today. I'll dispute the concept of this being a second warning this evening. KellyAna (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

LAS VEGAS(TV)PAGE

I don't know who you think you are, but I tell can you that, you don't add former stars to the starring character box on the top of the page. That is for currently starring characters. You need to keep them under former stars in the cast's section. I can see, you don't know what your doing; if you look at any other TV page on Wikipedia, the starring box DOES NOT contain former stars. It does not matter rather the show is on DVD or sync.. You need to do some research to see how other pages are designed, as your mistakes/errors have been noted and reported. I inspect ALL TV pages and I can tell you that, former stars are not included nor are the years they were on the show. If you continue to ignore this warning, future notices/warnings will be sent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.211.179 (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Las Vegas (TV series)

The user is vandalising repeatedly. 3RR is not applied while reverting vandalism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I got accused of 3RR earlier this week when I actually found the page someone was looking for an linked to it. They called it a violation of 3RR because they didn't look at the edits and why they were made. I just like to be cautious. KellyAna (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning at User_talk:DJS24

Could you please fill me in on this situation? I only have diffs to go on and I'd appreciate any input you have. Thank you. Best regards, Rudget. 15:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Trivia sections

It may seem like a jerk thing to do, and ideally the people who do it would spend a little more time trying to a) find sources for encyclopedic trivia and then b) integrate it into the rest of the article, but he's within policy. Daniel Case (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now I see who you are! Changed your username. Daniel Case (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleting with a lie that says they aren't allowed? I know they are discouraged, but where does it say that they are definitely unallowed?? Just wondering because I've never seen a definitive policy that says all trivia sections must be removed. If so, then there should be a mass delete going on I missed. KellyAna (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the relevant policy is WP:TRIVIA which takes pains to say it isn't a search-and-destroy order (so to speak). If you'd like, I will gently ask this user to try to follow that guideline more specifically, in that relevant and sourceable info should be integrated into the article, and speculative and irrelevant info only removed. Because I do admit it can be perceived as disruptive, even if it isn't, by people who work on articles like these (and I once upon a time freely added to such sections myself). Even just tagging them and moving on to the next article is sort of unfriendly, the sort of thing I call "drive-by editing" and might one day write an essay about. Daniel Case (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: other links

I'm not formatting it per my standards, I'm formatting it per how almost all templated links appear (such as those directly above the TNT entry). Seems to me that is fairly standard, else they would not appear that way. I don't link things like the TNT.tv, since I dislike linking things that aren't immediately related to the article content, but that's my personal preference. However, I would suggest linking to the Turner Network Television article rather than the website (unrelated external links are strongly discouraged, as opposed to internal links). I would like to remind you that just because it is done a certain way on other pages, does not make it correct (this applies to both of us...neither of us will always get what we want, but we should strive for a look of professionalism. This is an encyclopaedia we are building!). — Huntster (talk • email • contribs) 05:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [2]. --Maniwar (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Survivor: Guatemala

Please explain why you undid my edits. I'm OK with quotes not being encyclopedic, but each edit I made was perfecty factual. Mynameisphil (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Following the others as they obviously missed a page. That's all. KellyAna (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Lucas' Last Name

FYI, Lucas is not in the process of changing his last name, he already has changed it.

No, he has not and it doesn't matter, there is policy to dispute your change Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names).KellyAna (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Selleck/Duhamel

There is a discussion opened on the Las Vegas site.[3] Also please see http://www.nbc.com/Las_Vegas/, as you will see Josh Duhamel is listed #1. Also see the title order, as Duhamel is listed first with the word "Starring" over it. To keep from a starring dispute, they added "and" over Tom Selleck's name, as he is last in the order. --DJS24 (talk) 03:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Just go away! KellyAna (talk) 03:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Then stop reverting my edits. Don't revert them; then when i try to explain you tell me to go away. Not good editor skills.--CarsGm5 (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Mine as well, your doing several reverts. --DJS24 (talk) 04:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You just got busted!! I've never reverted Cars' edits, he's never edited the article. You just blew your game. KellyAna (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You got busted?? I'm refering to the trivia section of reverts you did. Confused a bit? --CarsGm5 (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep digging. You have been exposed. I've never reverted CarsGm5. I'm letting admin deal with you now. KellyAna (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Exposed about what, being the same person. OK?? I'm 100% certain that our IPs won't match and that were from different parts of the would. As I live in Quebec Canada, and I can tell he's from the US. But go ahead. In Fact I'll do a cheackuser on him myself, if that proves the point. Best Regards CARS! P.S. I'm insulted that your comparing me to him. Have you seen his grammar compared to mine. But waste your time! --CarsGm5 (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever you say. You've been exposed and your edits back my theory. I can go to bed smiling tonight. You're even spelling the same words wrong tonight as you were two nights ago. KellyAna (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please Don't Intrude

Can please answer me. How did you get my userpage. In regards, BW21. Blackwatch21 (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I went to leave a message on IrishLass0128's page and saw your request of her. I was curious as to who you were so I looked, saw the illegal images and thought I'd warn you. I can always report it rather than just advise you, I was trying to help. I can certainly "intrude" in ways that would get you in trouble but I thought it better to say something to you as Gogo Dodo did. He and I work on Survivor articles together. KellyAna (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

References

If you feel the need for references, so badly, why are there not ones for the previous episodes still listed?

I'm following the pattern, which was set long before you and I jumped on the Las Vegas editing. Why are you removing my references if it's such a crime? I've now listed four different websites that have the upcoming episodes for Las Vegas, I could list two more if you want to keep on going. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinepowell (talk • contribs) 09:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because something was done wrong in the past doesn't mean it was right. I'm editing how it's supposed to be done, not how it was incorrectly done before. And we'll see about your references. You've been told time and again your references are not considered verifiable by Wikipedia. KellyAna (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

common names

okay i understand about the common names now thank you.00:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)TC

Las Vegas

Mike and piper claimed no such thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleek25 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WHAT? Please ask a question if you have one, but cryptic messages with no meaning only serve to confuse. KellyAna (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Las Vegas

I have been adding the episodes for Season 5 this year using The Futon Critic, which has been right all along. I know they do change episodes around but that's not their doing, they're following NBC which has been changing around episodes for quite a few of their shows this season. My Name is Earl is another one.

Take a look and you'll see for youself. http://www.thefutoncritic.com/showatch.aspx?id=las_vegas&view=listings

Everytime there's been a change on Futon's site, it ends up being the episode that NBC airs and I have been keeping track this season of the changes, which I suspect are because of the srike. Robinepowell (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable source. Period. Several people have told you so, why can't you understand that futoncritic.com is a fan site and just because you've gotten away with something in the past that was wrong doesn't mean you will continue to get away with adding unsourced information. Your addition of futon critic information is against policy and shows a lack of respect for the rules and the editors that have repeatedly told you it's not an allowed source. Please, stop adding episode information, it also adds to copyright violations by people who don't understand you cannot copy and paste information from other websites. KellyAna (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually Robinepowell is right. The Futon Critic is not a fansite nor an unreliable source. They get there listings straight from NBC's website, as well as official press releases. I don't understand why you think it's unreliable, every other show on wikipedia gets their episode listings from The Futon Critic and they are always right. Instead of easily just adding their correct episodes to wikipedia now, you have to wait every week to add an episode. Obviously copying and pasting summaries is wrong but putting in the correct airdates isn't. And where does it say anywhere that the Futon Critic is not allowed? Comicbook30 (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No she's not and I hardly think someone who just signed in today that I am about to file a sockpuppet investigation into is a reliable source. And I'm among several that disagree with Robin, and now you. KellyAna (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

KellyAna is right, Futon's site is consider a Fan site, in which the information is considered unreliable. Just because you got the information there in the past and it was right, doesn't mean that it is always correct. With the information not always correct, that equals a unreliable source. Any information put onto the site with Futon as a source will be deleted by almost everyone. In regards DJS24. User:DJS24 (talk) 19:16 16 January 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 00:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Who says it's a fan site? They get their information from official sites, so if they aren't correct or change a date, that means that the certain network made a last minute change. And I won't contine adding the episodes or bothering you any further with Las Vegas because I really don't care enough about the show. There are plenty of other shows that still go by The Futon Critic. Comicbook30 (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I just hurt my head falling down on the coffee table. DJS just agreed with me. Thank you. As to the "who says" comment, well, Me, IrishLass, the guy above Irish at Robin's page, Bignole, Paul, DSJ, and myself. Pretty much looking like a majority there. I've read the site, they never claim where they get their information. I really need to get that report started against Comicbook30 but I forgot, it's meatpuppet, not sockpuppet and I'm not sure unless there's a violation that a meatpuppet account can be reported. KellyAna (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine if you all care so much then do what you want. There are 6 episodes left anyway, I think I can wait a month for the episodes to be correctly listed. And FYI I'm not a meatpuppet, while I did create an account today, that was to try and help the episode list and contribute but theres no point now so I'm leaving and moving on. And I'm not going to be vandalizing anything. Comicbook30 (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Blackwatch

KellyAna, I really don't know where to begin. I understand if you don't like me, I really don't like you. I see you went to Gogo Dodo for advice. I'm not going to throw out "personal attacks" but trying to be civil. Blackwatch is my younger brother, he just joined a couple of days ago and he's having fun with wiki.. I got very upset when I saw you AND Irishlass both had comments on his page. I would appreciate if you leave him alone, ASKING I guess is what I'm saying. He doesn't need to get between a dispute or whatever between you and me. I would also appreciate it, if you stop mentioning my username in "bad" reference to every admin you talk to. I'm done w/ the Las Vegas page, and the only reason we came into contact again is when you came back for Daytona and on you’re forth edit put a comment on my brother's talk page. Yes, there is a lot he needs to learn but he's asking the right people for help. I see you also mentioned the word "sock", that issue has been put to rest. Did you read CarsGm's talk page? If not, you should, I believe it explains the issue. Trying to be civil here, but everyone else has stop mentioning the past, even Irishlass. Best Regards DJS--DJS24 (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Palko stats

I'm not going to revert you, but your reason for undoing didn't make sense. They are not 2007 season stats, they are career stats. Therefore my reasoning for re-adding them still applies, and it's irrelevant whether or not the season is over.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

He's had no debut, he has no stats. Having the section makes no sense. Per WP:CRYSTAL it doesn't belong. And if it's not 2007 stats, why does the heading say as much? And the fact that the season is over is relevant. He cant have stats if he's never played. Stats only belong to those that have a career debut. KellyAna (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue about this beyond this post, because frankly it's not a big deal to me at all. But you're arguments are weak and flawed. It doesn't say "2007 statistics" it says NFL statistics through 2007, as in career stats up to right now.

Also, WP:CRYSTAL does not apply here. By that logic, the "No NFL debut" section should be gone as well. There's nothing wrong with having a guy's stats even if he has none, just like an NFL.com page.

Finally, the big positive to having the section now, despite the fact he's never played, is that all random visitors to Tyler Palko's page will know that statistics are a possible field in the infobox. Sure I do, you do, and a handful of others do. But without those fields there now, the casual visitor won't know that statistics can be put into the infobox, in the even he accumulates some. There's simply no downside here, and you've yet to come up with a good reason why the field can't be there.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you're the one with the flawed logic. Read what the box said. It said through 2007 and since he's not debuted, he's not eligible to have stats. You are looking at the page as an editor, not as a casual reader. KellyAna (talk) 04:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I added the field, buddy. I know what it says and how it's intended. It's not my fault you're reading way too much into it. Oh well, I tried. Good luck figuring it all out.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't call me buddy and don't be uncivil on my page. The field is flawed, that's not my fault. If you added it then it's yours. It specifically says: Selected NFL statistics

(through Week 17 of the 2007 NFL season). If you've never played, you cant have stats in or through 2007.KellyAna (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hopeless.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? That's not very civil. You're never very civil when speaking to me but you always get away with it. You made the field, I pointed out the flaw. Rather than making rude comments to me, why not fix it? KellyAna (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Because the field isn't flawed; no one else has ever mentioned such a thing, and it's been that way on the MLB infobox forever. Therefore the flaw must be with you, and that is beyond my control. Like I said before, good luck figuring it out. I wish you well.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep bothering me? Why do you insist on being uncivil on my page? Your box is flawed, don't blame me. Now go talk to Pats, he's your friend, but stop bothering me with your errors. KellyAna (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

TomKat

Why not? That is exactly what should be in that article. It would be much more relevant to link to the article for the couple than the article for each separately. нмŵוτнτ 18:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Because not everyone agrees on every Portmanteau especially in soaps. Some people also really despise portmanteaus. Additionally portmanteaus are not encyclopedic in nature and while some may exist, most do not. For that reason alone, the links go to an actor or actress or character and there is a link under see also to the couple page if it exists. As you can see, no other couple has their Portmanteau listed. KellyAna (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but the TomKat article is about the couple, not that portmanteau itself. If it were titled "Relationship of Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise", would you let it be linked then? And what did you say about see also? The link to the couple's article doesn't appear to be anywhere in list of supercouples. нмŵוτнτ 22:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't make the rules, I just enforce them. All portmanteau articles are about the couples, regardless, Tom and Katie aren't special and they don't get their portmanteau on the list. Any further questions, please discuss with Flyer22.KellyAna (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There are no "rules" regarding this article. Rules are based on consensus, and consensus can change at any time. I don't see any consensus that was reached on this article regarding linking to the couples' article. Please direct me to the conversation regarding this if I am incorrect. нмŵוτнτ 23:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeating Any further questions, please discuss with Flyer22. KellyAna (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stay WP:COOL. This is not a dispute, but, rather, an attempt to find consensus on an issue without previous consensus. Please don't assume the worst on the part of other editors, and realize that Wikipedia is based on the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. =) нмŵוτнτ 00:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And, actually, the weight is on you for a reason for your revert, as you are the one who actually made it, not someone else. To avoid potential conflicts in the future, if I were you, I would make sure to know why exactly I was making a revert and reasons to support it in the future. Just a good tip to steer clear of WP:DRAMA. нмŵוτнτ 00:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't tell me to be cool. Don't use snarky comments in the edit summary. Just move on and talk to Flyer about this. I want nothing to do with it, just leave me alone about it. And don't tell someone who was perfectly cool to be cool, it only pisses them off. I didn't assume anything, I just wanted out of the discussion. Maybe you should have assumed good faith when I asked Flyer to take point. KellyAna (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A final word

I know I have said some stupid things and caused unnecessary tension. But I tried to apologize for some of the things I've done. You were extremely rude for your comments when I misread the word advisement. Instead of apologizing, you just deleted that section. You say you want a conducive environment but you are not providing. From now on, I'm done with the Days of Our Lives projects for wikipedia. We can not work together. People that know me find me the most easy going and likable person. I don't like where this negativity has gone. I'm not blaming you. I guess our personalities crash. I will familiarize myself with wikipedia more, play with the sandbox (thanks for the advice) and I will get involved with other wikipedia projects and I will do better to avoid another situation like this. Goodbye.Doolkid (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not delete what was said, I put it back on your page. That's not inappropriate to do that. As you can see from my edit comments I clearly moved your reply to my comments back to your page, which I indicate at the top of my page I will do. Do as you want, I have no control over others. KellyAna (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you moved it over to my page. But you left out the part where you make fun of me for misreading the word advisement and my following comment saying that was uncalled for on your part. I can see you're incapable for admitting to your mistakes. Now this is my goodbye.Doolkid (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Children of Salem page

I keep on trying to add the names of the children who portray Allie and Johnny but you keep changing it! The information I am placing is more than accurate.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dixiercat (talk • contribs) 01:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You have not cited sources and all unsourced information is removed from articles. You don't even have last names or where you got the information. Do not add unsourced information to pages. KellyAna (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No last names have been revealed. Maybe you should start finding out the information of children! I've done enough! It's not my fault StarKidz site is down and I can't link to a source! With any luck, StarKidz site will be back up tomorrow (I am a staff member of that site) and then I'll be able to prove the info I've added!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dixiercat (talk • contribs) 01:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

StarKidz isn't a reliable source. I only add information based on reliable sources. A reliable source must be a third party such as a news agency. See policy before adding propriatary information which is what you are claiming to be adding. Mods/staff of a site cannot add information to articles. That's covered under a few policies. And PLEASE SIGN YOUR COMMENTS.KellyAna (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

First off, I don't know how to SIGN my comments. second off, what do you mean StarKidz isn't a reliable source? How many parents of children on Soaps are YOU in contact with? Hm? They are in contact with dozens of families! I myself am in contact with Amyrh Harris' mom! (nutheo on days) That site's owner is in contact with Elle & Ithaca's parents (Allie) and Ethan & Morgan's parents (now ex-Johnny) And in contact with several other families. If you didn't know, StarKidz is the site that revealed Danica & Dakoda Hobbs' names! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dixiercat (talk • contribs) 01:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

First, see the colons in front of each entry, add those to indent. Second, signing is done with four tildes ~ after an entry. NOW, moving on. See WP:V for verifiability information. Parents contacting a site is not reliable information. You claiming to talk to an actors parent is NOT verifiable and is against Wikipedia policy. If you see the guidelines, you will see why the information is not allowed. I don't care who revealed Danica and Dakoda Hobbs. I care that a reliable party has the information, that party being NBC. I'm sorry you have a problem with policy. I don't make it, I follow it. I could be in contact with the entire Pittsburgh Steelers organization but I can't put any information I receive from them on a page. It's not allowed. KellyAna (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well it's not my fault Soap Opera Central doesn't have up-to-date information! But I do! And Wikipedia policies suck! I hope you realize that! You do realize that the majority of pages are completely wrong anyways! If Soap Opera Central is your only reliable source, then find another source because they are wrong alot of the time! Dixiercat (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Where did I say Soap Central is my source? I find them unreliable and generally DO NOT use them. I use other reliable sources including NBC and news agencies. I do not use SC if I can avoid it. You can claim all you want but it doesn't matter if you have no sources to back up your claims. I have great inside information about NASCAR but I can't add any of it and don't even touch NASCAR articles because my sources are personnel for teams which is not reliable as per guidelines. I'm sorry you feel policy "sucks" but it is based on a storied history of majority consensus. KellyAna (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you haven't noticed, all of the Children of Salem pages' external links go out to Soap Central! Dixiercat (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you have what information is there confused. It is not referenced to SC, it is listed as an external site, not source, for information which all soap characters have. It does not mean it is the source for the page, it means it is just another place to find more information on the character since the list is brief and not always extensive. None of the information is taken from there. KellyAna (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well then there isn't even a source included on that page! Maybe you should think about that! If you didn't get your info from Soap Central, then where did you get it? Because apparently you didn't get the word for word actors and actresses (and airdates) from Soap Central! Dixiercat (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

A buckle down on sources has just recently come in to play. That page is very new and still a work in progress. Most of the information was taken from the original articles that were determined to be unnecessary and placed in that list. I'm done playing this game. If you have a problem with policy, take it to the proper place, and that's not here. KellyAna (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay I'm done talking about policy! I just thought I'd let you know that no one believes Wikipedia info to back up REAL sources. We aren't even allowed to use Wikipedia as a source on our Source Cards for research papers! Maybe you should find a new hobby and forget about wikipedia because I just created this account to make this place a bit more accurate! The internet is screwy noawadays and the only place I really trust is StarKidz because they get donations from parents etc...NO ONE EVEN TRUSTS WIKIPEDIA SO MAYBE YOU SHOULD STOP WASTING YOUR TIME! I'm never coming back here again. I previous had an account which you blocked for "copyright infringment" when I wasn't posting anything you weren't. I honestly created this account to badmouth wikipedia so...YOU'RE AN ASS! Dixiercat (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the power to block anyone so I odn't know what you're talking about but at least I have evidence you have no intention of being a productive contributor. KellyAna (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I meant someone else blocked me. I don't care about being a productive contributor I just wanted my favorite peoples pages to be more accurate because everyone here is doing a horrible job! Someone once put in Alyson Stoner's page that she was pregnant which was entirely inaccurate. That didn't come from a source! That was removed by someone else obviously. Dixiercat (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR Violation

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Check the times. I haven't violated 3RR in 24 hours, I'm only at 2 for 24 hours. I know the rules and I'm not the one who repeatedly violates them, unlike you. KellyAna (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Dude chill

Calm down, you are always overzealous when talking to me and I don't like it at all. The source was tonight's SOAPnet show and many previous dialogs with the character's name.--KingMorpheus (talk) 05:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Call me dude one more time or tell me to chill and I'll report you. I'm not always overzealous but I do make sure the articles are correct when people move them without consensus to locations that have no references. You cannot move pages against verified references, which I've provided in spades, and you can't move them because you feel like it, which is what you did. I gave you reasons not to move the pages yet you went against that. That's vandalism. EJ calls himself Wells so moving it is against references AND against what the character calls himself. And FYI, he wasn't on yesterday. KellyAna (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

On a personal note, how can you report me for calling you dude, i'm not threatening you, or saying disparaging things--KingMorpheus (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, when a person is obviously a woman, DUDE is a personal attack as there is no way I'm a "dude." It is disparaging to call someone something they obviously are not. KellyAna (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

KellyAna, I must say you're an excellent editor. You stay on top of things, makes sure everything fits wikipedia standards, and that all sources are verifiable. You were right for correcting the mistakes that KingMorpheus made. There is no arguing that. However, claming that KingMorpheus is making a personal attack for calling you a "dude" is a bit ridiculous imo. Dude can refer to a male. But it can also be used to describe anyone. According to the American Heritage Dictonary, dude can mean "Persons of either sex". I don't think KingMorpheus is trying to be derogatory to you at all. You can be severely abrasive and that has caused several incidents for you. When people try to understand why you made certain edits, you accuse them of being hostile. Yes, several instances, they have been hostile to you. But in other times, they haven't. Maybe you just be a bit more patient, try to explain the ways of wikipedia in a less abrasive manner, and maybe some of these "offenders" can learn how to be good wikipedians, like you are. Please just consider my advice, I'm not saying you should agree with it. But please at least consider it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.14.111 (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That's all I was trying to say, I call ANYONE dude. Oh and "In informal speech, dude is, under certain circumstances, gender-neutral. "Dude" may also be used alone in a sentence, serving as an exclamation; denoting a feeling of surprise, happiness, disappointment, amazement or other emotions. The word might also be used practically anywhere in a sentence in order to convey such sentiments in conversation.The cadence, volume and length of the word is also used to denote the feeling such a clipped "dude" for irritation or a long "duuuudde" for amusement or surprise."--KingMorpheus (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a derogatory term when someone has repeatedly said DON'T call me that. Stop calling me dude. I do not believe it is gender neutral and I find it an offensive term. PERIOD. KellyAna (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I only called you dude once.--KingMorpheus (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope you two can accept each others viewpoints. There is no sense in bickering. KingMorpheus, now that you know that KellyAna is offended by the term dude, it would definitly would be offensive if you called her that again. KellyAna, KingMorpheus has not called you dude after you told not to. You may not think dude is gender-neutral, but to many others, it is. It is apparent that KingMorpheus did not intend to be offensive when he called you dude. Yet you continue to claim that he was. That's pretty needless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.14.111 (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Just so there's no doubt, I have no respect for, nor will I listen to or take into account, anything a random IP says to me. For all I know you're KingMorpheus just not logged in. KellyAna (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sami needs sections!

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

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

Las Vegas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kristen Renton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Las Vegas Guest Stars list

I am only using imdb to look up episode then i am using the dvds box set i own to verify the name. which they match. Tj21 (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC) TJ21

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

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

Las Vegas Production

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

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

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

Montgomery Gent

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

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

My User Name

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

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

CASINO IN MACAU CHINA=

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

Thanks!

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

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

Aj Cooper

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

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

Re: References

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

No, it's not. This is the link you keep removing [4] and it's working just fine. KellyAna (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First off lady

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

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

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

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

Las Vegas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IP harrassment

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

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

Source Question

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

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

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

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

WP:AN3.

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

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

Thanks

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

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

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

Warnings

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

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

Protection

I don't think it is needed. The IP's edit on your talk [5] was just a rambling rationale for reverting your edit here. It wasn't related to the earlier abuse, and it's in a very different IP range. --Stephen 03:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What is Wrong?

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

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

Alina Foley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cousins field

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

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

All in the Family

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

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

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

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

---

Hello, KellyAna. You have new messages at Pairadox's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

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

Sorry

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

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

Article protection

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

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

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

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

Episode counts

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

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

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

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

Confused

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What did I do exactly

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

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

Carly Corinthos Jacks

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

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

No U dont. You are mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy Jaiyan (talk • contribs) 19:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Carly Corinthos Jacks II

Are you Crazy? The policy is there all right but you are the Fricking one who changes it. UNDERSTAND! I'm not going agiants policy by CORRECTING something. I should correct you UGLY LOSER!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy Jaiyan (talk • contribs) 18:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The policy says common names are to be used, not married names and her common name is Corinthos. You've been reported again for gross incivility. KellyAna (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

her common name is Corinthos Jacks. It was stated on the ABC General Hospital Website.

No, it is not. You need to read policy and stop this vandalizing. KellyAna (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I stopped but you have been really unfair. IT IS CARLY CORINTHOS JACKS. ABC, the people who control the soap have credited Laura Wright on the credits and on the website as Carly Corinthos Jacks or Carly Jacks.

Please understand

If you can change the page as Carly Corinthos Jacks and keep it like that until she changes her name (again), I will never bother you or EVER make another edit. Please. I PROMISE! I KEEP MY PROMISES.

No, per WIKIPEDIA guidelines, she stays Corinthos. PERIOD. Policy dictates her name, nothing more. KellyAna (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Charmed pics

sorry for uploading the illegal pics. had no idea i couldn't do that. was just trying to make the pages better. Jpagan09 (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It was your first offense so no harm, just please don't do it again and if you have questions, feel free to ask, I'll be happy to help. KellyAna (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm Sorry

I never meant harm. Please unreport me. I just wanted to make corections. Friends? Truce OK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy Jaiyan (talk • contribs) 19:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No truce. No unreport. You keep ILLEGALLY moving pages and refuse to stop. That's vandalism. You're continually going against policy and personally attacking me when I am only trying to keep WIKIPEDIA clean and within guidelines. Your page moves are causing issues as are all the pages you created just to redirect to Carly's page. You need to step back and take a time out, if it takes an admin to do that by reporting you that's fine with me. KellyAna (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear KellyAnn,

One of my classmates that are obsessed with Soaps and Carly Corinthos kept on going into my accont. I feel terrible that he attacked you. I told his mother and now he is suspended for making me sound gross on the internet and vandelising Wikipedia because our school uses it as a ref. Have a good night.

I like you

Kelly even though we but heads i do like the fact that like me you don't back down and you defend your self.one question. what did you think of the las vegas finali?Bleek25 (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I was in Daytona, I haven't seen it yet. KellyAna (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

alright now i realy hate you because you were at the superbowl of racing. i was cheering for JR at home. but i was happy the tony stewart lost.Bleek25 (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologise on behalf of my friend

Dear KellyAnn, One of my classmates that are obsessed with Soaps and Carly Corinthos kept on going into my accont. I feel terrible that he attacked you. I told his mother and now he is suspended for making me sound gross on the internet and vandelising Wikipedia because our school uses it as a ref. Have a good night.

Randy Jaiyan. (I am now no longer able to edit) ( I do not blame you)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.44.131 (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC) 

Excuse You

Why are you reporting me for my mistake on Claudia Zacchara-Corinthos. I am a new user who needs help with edits and character bios. You called me asock and you also say I am trying to escape a block. I dont get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Roberts13578 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't play me. I know you're a sock of Randy. Claudia isn't even a Corinthos and only one person here has ever tried to make her that. Don't try an play the innocent with someone who is a sock tracker. It doesn't work. KellyAna (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kelly - I've blocked the account. It's very obviously Randy Jaiyan avoiding his block. Neıl ☎ 01:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!! KellyAna (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Las Vegas 2/21

Kelly - I switched the order of cast members in the infobox now that the show is cancelled. I think that's the right way to show them, now that the show is over. You can switch them back if you don't like it. DJS --DJS24 (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if Nikki is in the right place. This is what I feared when the whole issue started in the first place. I knew NBC wouldn't renew it again, the writing was on the wall when James Caan left. I like starting with James and ending with Tom. I'll take a look though. KellyAna (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Nikki should be third follow by James, then Marcil, Molly Sims, Selleck. I believe thats the order. --DJS24 (talk) 04:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I rearranged it. I think Molly definitely belongs above Marsha, which is where I put her. I did James, Josh, Nikki, other James, Vanessa, Molly, Marsha, and then Tom. I think that's the best order. KellyAna (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks --DJS24 (talk) 04:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, KellyAna. You have new messages at Pairadox's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drake Hogestyn infobox flagicon

I do not understand your edit summary [6] for reverting my removal of the flagicon from the Drake Hogestyn infobox, "Yeah, that's not what that link means".

The link I provide WP:MOSFLAG#Not for use in locations of birth and death states "The use of flag icons in the birth and death information in a biographical article's introduction and/or infobox is strongly deprecated, as flags imply citizenship and/or nationality." The United States flagicon in Drake Hogestyn's infobox is used to represent the country where he was born, so the removal of the flagicon is what the link means. Aspects (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You read it one way and went crazy removing flags. I interpret it another and it's not how you do. Strongly deprecated (bad wording but that's neither here nor there) doesn't mean MUST BE REMOVED. Additionally, I don't see that that says to remove the flag at all. Drake was born in America, he's an American citizen, he's allowed to have the flag. I don't see how you think that flag MOS says to remove the flag of US citizens. How do you see that use of an American flag for an American citizen should be removed.KellyAna (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If you read the full section Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags)#Not for use in locations of birth and death, it explains why flagicons are inappropriate to use in locations of birth and death: because the flagicons can be misused in some cases they should not be used in any cases, therefore they should be removed from infoboxes. It has nothing to do with removing an American flag from an American citizen in an infobox, it is removing any flagicon from a biographical infobox to represent the city/state/province/country the person was born in. If you still feel my edits are inappropriate, I advise you to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (flags). Aspects (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't explain anything, it's a collection of gibberish that makes no sense, double speaks, and never says what it means. The one thing is doesn't say is to go run around willy nilly and remove all the flags from American citizen infoboxes. Maybe you should work on improving the MOS than bothering me.KellyAna (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Las Vegas

I just found out about the show being cancelled and that suck.the show gave nbc mor than a 100 great episopes and they should give it a proper ending than what they gave.i do like the fact that someone but the stuff about sending baby booties to save the show.i'm going to do that.Bleek25 (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the reason that people are changing it from the Series Finale to Season Finale is because there are news reports now airing that NBC hasn't confirmed the cancellation and has no plans to do so until April. http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Ausiello-Report/Ausiello-Scoop-Las/800034137 Robinepowell (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Stay above the line and, better yet, stay off my page Robin. You're never right and this is no exception. You still don't understand that VERIFIABLE concept which means, two verified reports as sources mean that's what we go by. Did you even read what you put on my page? It says the show is cancelled.KellyAna (talk) 02:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

episodes 105/106

Hey KellyAna

it is called high steaks 105, and 106 is three weddings and a funeral part 1 even the MAIN page has it in the support for uncancelling it from TV GUIDES' interview posted with Creator scott thompson. that 106 is 3 weddings and a funeral part 1.

35.11.200.66 (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Prove it. I went to all the links provided and couldn't find verification of that fact. If you can find fact that states it's "High Steaks" it can stay. Not sure what the other part is about. You'll need to clarify for me to understand. KellyAna (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

okay i can't find high steaks other than the watchable episode on NBC.com's own site. However, for 106 it is 3 weddings and a funeral PART 1 as stated in this interview: http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Ausiello-Report/Ausiello-Scoop-Las/800034137 35.11.200.66 (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even see it in the watchables so I don't know what you are seeing. I also don't see in that article any reference to it only being Part 1. It has to specifically say it or it doesn't matter. KellyAna (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Couple of things

Hi there KellyAna. Thanks for all your contributions. Another user has pointed out that you reverted their change and then refused to discuss with them. Whatever I may think about the merits of flags (you will find WP:FLAGS an interesting read on the subject), this project only works through discussion. I encourage you in future to discuss before you revert others' changes; that way, you often find you don't have to revert at all, and it keeps everybody a great deal happier.

Links to months, days of week etc are deprecated, see WP:MOSDATE and also per Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. Best wishes, --John (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't use deprecated. It's not a word I can even find a definitive definition to. If you want to talk to me, which you put your comment above the line so I guess you do, use words that don't mean shit upon (my understanding of the word deprecated). Use real words. I refused to talk to Aspects because he can't put his comments in the right place. As for months, the soap project has always linked months when actors are coming back or in regards to time frames. Talk to the project because I'm going to keep reverting the change because it's how I was taught to do it. Oh, and tell Aspects to just go away, I find him annoying but rather than telling him so I try to ignore him but now he's played the tattle game so he's surpassed the annoying level. He's annoying and can't read, that's why I never reply to him, he puts his comments in the wrong place. And while I understand you mean well, this is such a non-issue that it is silly to even have this discussion. Everyone would be far better served if this was just left alone and Aspects would just move on and get over it. KellyAna (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. "Deprecated" basically means "we don't do it". Your personal feelings for other editors need not come into it. It's actually really simple. For these sort of style issues which are likely to cause silly edit wars, we have a manual of style, with subpages to cover various topics. These form part of our system of guidelines which we follow when editing. They are written by people from all across Wikipedia, and a sub-project does not have the ability to supersede the broader consensus. If you disagree with a particular style guideline, there are discussion pages I can point you to where you can make your argument. If you find it a non-issue, it would be especially silly to get into an edit war over it. If you think there are valid reasons to link months in a particular article, the article's own talk page would be the place to bring it up. Please remember that if you do choose to edit war you will end up being blocked. Likewise, it is necessary always to be WP:CIVIL when talking with others, and especially about a subject you regard as a "non-issue". Best wishes, --John (talk) 03:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get into an edit war and I know what an edit war is. All I did was not talk to one editor who ended up being a tattle tail and wouldn't just leave me alone. I only reverted once, which isn't an edit war and if you check my history I know damn well what an edit war is, so this is really silly and quite frankly stupid and quite frankly talking down to me, which not only do I not appreciate, pisses me off. Again, tell Aspects to grow up, read talk page instructions, or just move on and stop being a tattle tail. It makes him look ridiculous. In all reality, this entire discussion is ridiculous and Aspects is just making me more annoyed at his presence by causing you to discuss this ridiculous issue.KellyAna (talk) 04:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you know what an edit war is, and I'm sorry you felt I was talking down to you. The only reason I mentioned it was because you threatened to do it. I warned you that that would be a bad move. Also, try not to be so combative; the editors who have made edits you disagree with think they are editing to improve Wikipedia too. Words like "shit" and "piss" may give some people the impression that you're annoyed with them. None of this stuff is worth getting annoyed over, as you say. Have a cup of tea or something rather than get annoyed over something neither of us thinks is important. --John (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Your user talk page

As I just discovered, using the add section button to add a topic to this will result in the message appearing below your lines. This may be amenable to a technical fix; in the meantime I strongly suggest you do not automatically ignore anything posted below the line. Best wishes, --John (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If people can't read the words "DO NOT TYPE BELOW THIS LINE" then they really aren't worth my time. I have the ability of doing it on other pages, they should have the ability to do it here or be prepared for me to ignore them. KellyAna (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Do me a favor and stop stalking me. KellyAna (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:STALK, that is a very serious allegation. If you have grounds to make that, let's hear them. If not, you should not make such groundless allegations. Do me a favour and stop labelling the good faith edits of others as vandalism. A look at WP:AGF might be in order. Also, you might want to contribute to the project talk page I notified you about above and justify your position on linking date fragments. --John (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Why the hell are you on my page every time I turn around? In my book, that's stalking regardless of what your guidelines say. I'm talking in pure form. Why are you harrassing me? Bothering me? Butting in to things you have no business butting in to? Would one of those phrases work better for you? And as for AGF, I don't assume the sun will rise in the morning let alone assume I know the minds of others. You didn't deal with his actions over the weekend so you should stop assuming yourself. I'll comment to the project when I'm damn well good and ready, not on YOUR time frame. KellyAna (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry my polite messages to you reminding you to follow our policies are making you feel as though you are being stalked. However I am not going to go away. Why not try to follow our policies and then my warnings will not be necessary? One more word to the wise; please do not move other people's comments around like you did with mine. "Archiving" (deleting really) others' comments once you have read them is just about acceptable; moving them to another place without permission is not. Best wishes, --John (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)