User talk:Livelikemusic/Talk Page Archive 2

WikiProject Soap Operas alert

As a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas, and in accordance with the appropriate notification in deference to canvassing, I am alerting your attention to several current discussions for deletion pertaining to soap opera characters. This is an invitation to participate in the discussion. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 20:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Taylor 01.png

Thanks for uploading File:Taylor 01.png. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Taylor 01.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Taylor 01.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Gh87 (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing

FYI, fan sites with no affiliation with show aren't generally acceptable as sources per WP:V. The one most commonly used is soapoperadigest.com. If you can find other sources, you can return the reverted content. Thank you. Rm994 (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yet sites like soaps she knows can be accepted??? Thats not right. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 1:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

No, they can't. The only reason they're on there at all is because no one has caught it. Fan sites, such as blogs, are not considered reliable per WP:V. Rm994 (talk) 05:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Then Lisa Niles on GH should be removed. It's from soaps she knows and anything from daytime confidential. I'm adding a Soap Central link now, which seems to be accepted. Plous, I had Huffington Post, they dont put up things that are true. MUSICFREAK7676 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The embedded source said it was sourced by twitter, which is completely unacceptable as a source. Soap central is NOT acceptable. Please do not continue to undue the revisions until you can find reliable, NON BLOG, NON FAN SITE sources. Rm994 (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I got it through Twitter, which sent to the site. I can't go directly to the site, I can only go to it through Twitter because of computer issues. I'm going to remove everything from Daytime Confidential then and Soaps She Knows, cause if SC isn't allowed, as I feel it should be, rules or no rules, they shouldn't be up either. 12:39PM Musicfreak7676 (talk) 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Just letting you know, I removed tons of "fansite" sources that have been up for a while. Trying to abide by the rules, just so you know I wasn't going crazy. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 12:44PM, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Didn't think that at all. I'm certainly not trying to be a pest...but it says very specifically in WP:V that Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Fan sites do not count. Thank you :) Rm994 (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I know what it says. And I know you're not trying to be a pest, it's just frustating that the rules are so tight leashed, and I see others getting away with it. So I removed tons of fansite sources, and unfortunately will be forced to battle with certain users, including our own "Owner" user. I just want this place of soaps online to be as precise as possible, and provide the best care for them, you know? Sometimes we miss the mark and move on. :) Musicfreak7676 (talk) 2:05PM, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, and that is exactly what we need here. I tell you, several times admins have requested that certain soap opera articles be deleted because the sources were a) trivial b) fan sitish c) unreliable etc...if we can show that we have good verifiable third party sources, then we can help to prevent deletion. And I know it's frustrating when others get away with it. Unfortunately, not every editor has time to police every article. Sooner or later, someone would catch it. The easiest way to soap articles to get deleted is for someone to claim that site is being treated like "a fan site devoted to everyone's favorite soap characters"...which is not the point of an encyclopedia. So, if we can establish notability with these articles, including non blog, non fan site sources, the chances of them sticking around increases. I hope this helps. Thanks for your efforts :) Rm994 (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course, that's what I'm here for. I've been watching soaps all my life, and to know how people see them, it's quite sad. I've already been battling to keep what I deleted, deleted. It's quite frustrating. but it has to be done!!! Soaps FTW! Musicfreak7676 (talk) 3:56PM, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

List of All My Children cast members

Hi! I had to revert your edit on the List of All My Children cast members article concerning Cameron Mathison and Lindsay Hartley continuing with the show online.

Just as it is not acceptable to add a cast member from Days of Our Lives or The Bold & Beautiful until that actor makes his/her first or return appearance on the show, the same rule does apply for All My Children. Since All My Children is not airing at the moment, none of the actors on the article can be qualified as being currently with the show because the show itself does not exist. We have to wait for the show to air its first episode online before we can actually add any cast member on this page. And even when All My Children restart online, we'll have to take into consideration the time that it was off the air when writting the duration of the actors. (For example, Lindsay Hartley will read as "2010-2011, 2012-" instead of "2010-").

I have created a section called "Transition on the Online Network with Prospect Park" on the All My Children and One Life to Live articles. On this section, there is a list with the name of all the actors that have agreed to continue with the show online. If you want, you can help me fill up the list whenever you read from a legit source that an actor has signed up with the online version.

Regards Farine (talk) 06:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. I have no issues with that. I didn't realize there was that on the main page of AMC. I don't pay attention to OLTL anymore. I stopped watching the series during the summer, due to the snore fest I was having. I have no issues with that being done, it does not bother me in the least. Best regards. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 1:17PM, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

List of One Life to Live cast members

Another editor has added names under the comings and goings section that lists fansites as sources. I am leaving it up to you to revert their edit. Thanks. TVFAN24 (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay.. I don't see why you couldn't have done it.... but that's ok. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 6:16PM, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The same person added the names back to OLTL Cast List and said they are going to report me for removing it. Deal with this issue please. Thanks. TVFAN24 (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Then you should deal with the issue if you're the one going to be reported. I shouldn't have to clean your stuff up and fight your battles. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No the names you removed for being an unreliable source were added back on. TVFAN24 (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

MESSAGE TO TVFAN24

It's important to not start "hunting" for unreliable sources. If you catch a source that is clearly unreliable or questionnable, then remove it. But otherwise, let's not start accessing all articles about which sources are valid and which ones aren't .

I've seen the edit warring that has taken place on the article. As far as I know, Soap Opera Network is a legit source. But, I think it would be good that TVFAN24 and Alexisfan07 have a discussion on the article's talk page before this conflit degenerates any further. Farine (talk) 01:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is everyone being mean to me??? Two editors said that those are not reliable sources. So I proceed to remove them as I see fit and now I am getting yelled at for trying to help. Now I really don't understand??? TVFAN24 (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate this "argument" not to take place on my discussion page. Please take it to Farine or your own page. Thank you. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Your archive

Best as a subpage of your user talk space. I have moved it out of the main for you. JORGENEVSKI 22:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I tried getting it done the way it was supposed to as much as I could, but the instructions weren't as clear as I had hoped. Thank you! Musicfreak7676 (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Glad to help! JORGENEVSKI 23:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Um, whomever redirected, totally deleted my archive!!! Musicfreak7676 (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Babe 01.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Babe 01.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Heather Tom as Katie Logan.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Heather Tom as Katie Logan.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

The image was only orphaned because someone tampered with the template. It has been put back up! Musicfreak7676 (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

ok lets talk this out

Look I don't wanna start a edit war over this, why can't Jen Lilley be in the recurring section of General Hospital, so what if she is temporary, she's playing Maxie Jones, she should be listed in the recurring section. Unless Kirsten Storms is back now. Soapfan2013 (talk) 02:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Because, I have never seen it be done on other pages. I've seen numerous recasts, and every single one has been removed. They never added Martha when she temporarily replaced Rebecca Herbst earlier this year. And with Michael Learned on Y&R, she's not on the recurring list. I've just never seen it be done. Kristen is just out for a longer period of time due to the severity of her illness, it's not something she's going to quickly get over. She ended up missing majority of Dirty Soap episodes because of the illness. And that also goes for having red links around actors names that don't have a Wiki page, we don't put the red links around them. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Melanie Layton Kiriakis Jonas

Your input is requested at the talk page of List of Days of our Lives cast members. Rm994 (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I responded. I am also hoping you could help me redirect a page back to its original name, for a B&B character. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Red Links

Red links help out Wikipedia alot, that's why I kept putting them there, I'm so sorry I misunderstood, and plus just because you don't see it on recurring list that doesn't mean it never happend before, cuz it did back in '07. I know that's why I put Jen Lilley there. As for the red links I'm sorry, when you said infant I thought you was talkin about babies, I read that wrong and I'm sorry. Soapfan2013 (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, Jen Lilley should not be put on. She's not an actual cast member. This isn't 2007, it's 2011 and I've never seen it on other soap pages that have had temporary recasts. PS: All you have to do is reply to your past post on my wall. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I know it's 2011, I'm not stupid, I know alot about the soaps, except for GH since I haven't watched it since January, but yeah. I hope I can get caught up. Look I just want to work things out. Soapfan2013 (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I never called you stupid, so please don't make it seem like I did. And I want to work things out, too. I'm just trying to explain things to you, and you seem to be getting defensive because of it. I'm just trying to explain to you why we continually undo your edits. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not include unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Alexz Johnson, you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for guidelines. Thank you. 117Avenue (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

LOL. I'm not new to Wikipedia. And the information is from the video I saw on her page, before she removed it. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Then you know original research is wrong, and that "The video was removed 20 minutes later" screams it. 117Avenue (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so it was my mistake. So sorry. There's not a lot to go on for sourced material on Alexz that would be labeled "creditable". She herself removed the video. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Weak FrontCover small.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Weak FrontCover small.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

71.250.134.58

They had not been warned, so I warned them. Let's see how this goes. Daniel Case (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much Daniel. We continually remove their edits, and they continually put them back up, continuing the cycle. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked for 48 hours now (so you should at least get through Thanksgiving OK). I didn't see any efforts by them to discuss or justify their edits in their history ... to what are you referring when you say they say they're doing it the right way? And what, exactly, is WP:SOAPS policy on that, if any? Daniel Case (talk) 02:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, this time I decided to semi-protect the Y&R and GH cast list articles for two weeks. Let's see how this goes. Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, it's just horrific because they always add/delete the same people. And we always say, add sources and they don't listen. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

TVFAN24

I do remember this user from something; can't remember exactly what. I don't think it was good.

All the same, if we were to take action I would like to see some signs that they were duly warned that they were editing disruptively and could be blocked. Perhaps they have. But there's no current sign thereof on their talk page.

And if they haven't been warned, maybe this is more appropriate for WP:AN/I. If you go there, make sure to cite diffs of all the behavior in question as well as any attempts to talk to them. Daniel Case (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding and removing cast members as he saw fit, and was showing signs of Ownership of articles. They're all over the pages themselves, which he does check. He just ignores them, and wants to continue feeling as if he/she owns articles. And it's quite annoying, especially when a magazine over-rides a show's credits. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Eddie Alderson

Hey not to toot anybody's own horn here but Eddie Alderson should be in the contract section correct? I mean he is on contract, and he is in the opening, why is he in the recurring section? Soapfan2013 (talk) 07:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not know, I do not watch OLTL. Sorry Musicfreak7676 (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Page titles

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Katie Logan Spencer a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Katie Logan. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you.

The same applies to your copying of text from Ashley Abbott McCall to Ashley Abbott. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I tried the #REDIRECT thing, and was told I did it right. I'll keep in mind the "Move" option, thank you! It was just simply me trying to redirect the pages back to their original titles, and was unaware I did it wrong! Musicfreak7676 (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Annie-lavery.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Annie-lavery.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. George Ho (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Annie-lavery.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Annie-lavery.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. George Ho (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Lillian Walsh-Forrester, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please use CSD for speedy deletion requests. Frozen4322 : Chat 02:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Isabella Walsh

I put {{prod blp}} on it; that gives the creator time to come up with good-faith sources if there are any; but makes sure it's deleted if there aren't. Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. 'Cause it's false, since she was "dating" Rick when Rick wasn't even dating her, and dating other people during that time. Plus, that blog she posted from continually puts up false information all the time. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Image Updates

Hey Musicfreak7676, all of your recent image uploads really benefit the characters. They support the articles quite well and are suitable enough to remain in coordinance with policies. Would you consider uploading more images for some characters on GL, ATWT, and DAYS. Some characters have no images and some including Josh, Buzz, Blake, Natalia, etc. on GL and Bo, Hope, Jack, Jennifer, etc. on DAYS and Holden, Emily, Paul all need either images included or more recent ones. It would benefit these articles greatly. They all have very little suitability and images improve articles, and that would be the case here. Please think about it if and thank you.149.4.42.185 (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I have been meaning to, but I lost my access to my External Hard Drive, which held my HQ/UHQ images. So until I have either A) Re-find them or B)' Attempt to get my EHD fixed, they may need to wait. I plan on updating, though. No worries. I am in the process of doing such. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. Thanks for the great effort. You are truly improving these articles with all of your hard work.149.4.42.185 (talk) 02:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I want to do with all the soap pages, bringing a more high quality image base for soap characters. They deserve it. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

General Hospital

I have reverted the edits that you and Soapfan2013 made to the infobox of General Hospital because 1) Valentini and Carlivati will assume their role only in January 9, 2012 and 2) one of you guys put "2012-present" which isn't logical since we're still in 2011.

The edits I've removed are only those you made to the infobox. Your edits to the "Show's history" section are still there. Please note that it's okay to add content about the future in the text section of an article. But infos about the future are to be avoided on the infobox.

Thank you Farine (talk) 07:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Taylor Hayes (fictional character) Edits

Hi. Please do not list (deceased) or (lovers, high school lovers, dated) to the Romances list, as it is completely irrelevant and the list is to just list her romances and not describe each one. In addition, please do not change the structure of the page nor change the info box color. A clear color is used mostly for just actors/actresses. The page isn't in a very good form and subheadings are suitable for it rather then have minor/major events under main titles. Thank you. 124.180.16.139 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

In addition I might add, please do not change things to bold which they don't need to be. Actors names should only be highlighted in bold if the character has been played by 4+. Also, Taylor's birth date is actually unknown so please do not edit this part without a source. Usually, for the "Romances" section we only list the status of that person's current love (this case being Thorne Forrester, hence 2011-present). Thanks for understanding. Also, the "Recent Events" section was recently cut; due to the over-wording of one part of content in the article in comparison the other, 2011 hasn't been a very notable year with major events for Taylor, and please do not revert edits which make the text less over-described as it is easier that way. And listing her previous surnames (which officially didn't include Rashid) in bold isn't needed. Thankyou. 124.180.16.139 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

I didn't add any of those things, I just un-did an edit that completely removed a whole section which needed to remain with Taylor. I didn't add anything else, other than bolding her name. I've just seen this done on other pages, so I assumed that's how it's being done now. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Well the other pages will be fixed up in time. There is no need to put her names (or any other unnecessary things) in bold. I understand that the other character's pages should look the same, however it is still irrelevant. Please do not change the infobox to a clear format again, as that is only use for actors, as you can see- e.g Leonardo DiCaprio. They should certainly not be the same case with Soap characters. If you can see The Young and the Restless characters all have Red-formatted info boxes; and all soap characters should have a colored info-box. And that section that needed to remain with Taylor - I did contribute to, however it is very over described and that is the problem with most Soap Characters. Please do not keep that over-described text as it needs to be short. thanks. 58.170.184.40 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC).

All B&B Characters have been colourless for as long as I've been on Wikipedia, this is the only time I've seen it done. As for the long explanation, it's just how soap pages are done. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Long explanations are not needed. Because the balance of the page is extremely off - Taylor had massive story lines In 2002 (and before) which aren't explored in depth, while daily updates are happening In 2011 with smaller story lines. This is unneeded. Thanks :) 58.170.184.40 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC).

Never said anything about it being needed, please do not place words into my mouth. Storylines are just simply more explained in this day in age due to Wikipedia being more accessible now than it was then. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

B&B character articles are extremely out of shape. Aside from the info-box format, the text should be the main focus. Story lines that spawn over one episode shouldn't be explained with full paragraphs (such as the one about the June 2011 Wedding if i am right) used up a lot of space, and information that was relevant more to Brooke & Thomas was highly focused on. Plus, a whole year of story line (which can easily be expanded; but isn't needed to be) is explained in a line or half a line - it does effect the balance. When updating the story-lines, it is great to write in the whole situation however it will eventually be cut short. And I'm not sure if you edit like this (i presume that you don't hopefully) but on B&B pages small irrelevant story lines like "Steffy and Liam get married", "Liam knows the truth" shouldn't have their own sub-heading, if you understand what i mean. If you would like, i would really love a partner to improve these articles but I'm not sure. Call it truce? Your amazing work on Soap Character pictures can contribute to bringing the article to a GA(Good article standard) hopefully next year. I would love to work with you using my Wikipedia user account (which i haven't re-visited in a while). Also i might add we need lots of sources and references. Working together for these fabulous characters and bringing their articles towards a better standard is the solution (if you would like). Thankyou xD :) 58.166.22.40 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC).

I'm not here to argue, sources/references that can be claimed for soaps are little-to-none due to the dwindling of soaps. I'm not trying to argue anything out, I was simply trying to bring points to the table concerning certain things. All I mainly do is try and keep soap pages clean and as precise as possible. Removing spoilers/unsourced information. We can call a truce, I have no issues with that. I simply saw it as a healthy debate, not a one person vs. the other. And you should contribute more with your account, as IPs change and can sometimes be blocked and undone due to it not being a member of the Wiki community. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

link=User talk:<Rm1271>

Hello, Livelikemusic. You have new messages at [[User talk:<Rm1271>|User talk:<Rm1271>]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This is my account. I decided to open up one. And i am currently attempting to change the format of soap pages (US) because they are in a terrible state and in addition i had an account but if you see on my profile page, i had one 5 years prior. There is really no point in arguing over these soap pages. They need major re-con-structure. SoapJar21 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC).

Color dispute

See WP:DEW. Daniel Case (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm just trying to bring consensus on why B&B was colourless, but the user was not understanding. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you show me some diffs? Also, re 71.60.101.30, I should have blocked them but they haven't edited today yet. Let me know if they pick it up again. Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

What are diffs? Like differences of the colours, or? Musicfreak7676 (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Im just saying that the colourless templates aren't used for Soaps but real-life people and the B&B templates are different in colours and i would like to have one main color focus for it all. How was i not understanding? I clearly explained why. I will stop arguing now, but please see my point. Thanks. 58.166.22.40 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC).

I'm assuming you have no account, but there was a template for the B&B colour, and it was colourless. So the template should remain colourless. That's all I'm saying. There was a specific template I sent Daniel, that had no colour for B&B, making the B&B colour NONE. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Taylor 02.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Taylor 02.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TaylorHayes 01.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TaylorHayes 01.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It should NOT have been orphaned, I have put it back in the article where it belonged and should NOT have been removed. Someone is attacking me by removing it. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Taylor Hayes (fictional character). Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. You could clearly see the editor had the aim of improving the article, there was some points of use in the edits, however you reverted them all and simply included one edit summary across a number - in which you branded the editor as a vandal. This was obviously not the editors intent. RaintheOne ^BAM 18:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

We use smaller text on those things on all pages, it's how we've all been doing it. Plus, some of the information you undid was required as it is on all other pages. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Why was it required? You have consensus to prove it is required? Which guideline says small text is required on fictional character articles? Just because all the other articles do it, doesn't mean this one has too. Why don't you just let the articles have some work and improvement instead of dragging them backwards and trying deadweights around their necks.RaintheOne ^BAM 19:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It's how I've seen it done for months on other articles. I'm just trying to keep articles as uniform as possible, like others on this site. Everything was fine until that one member came in and decided they wanted things done their way. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That is not the case - that editor may have a got a few things wrong - but their thought process was clear - there needs to be an improvement. Their needs to be change on the US soaps to drag them out of the fancruft whole they've been stuck in for years. Non of these house facts, casting information, what the critics have said, development information, production information - all elements of the real world perspective that should be present in a fictional character article. ATM they read like they are real people. When they not not real, they are fictional works and that needs sorting.RaintheOne ^BAM 20:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

They are fictional people, but for those who watch soaps for years, they're beyond fictional people to them. There does need to be change, I don't dispute that, nor will I ever dispute that under any circumstance. But you have to understand, to many, these characters are more than characters, especially to those who have watched for decades. Losses are their losses, marriages are their marriages. And while I know that is not what Wikipedia is about, we should maintain some of that. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It isn't what Wikipedia is about, that is a certain. If those who watch soaps for years want to know every single, non-notable detail then Wikipedia isn't their point of call, it is a fansite. However, if it is a character that is constantly in the media - there is a good chance everything they do, all their ups and downs will gain not notoriety and fame in the media, books etc - then obviously they are going to have some broad coverage on here. It sounds blunt, but wikipedia cannot house subjects just because a niche loves it to whatever extent.

You are preaching to the converted here too. I'm a massive soap fan, pretty much obsessed with the UK and Australian ones - I know that it would be nice if everything could be included - but that is not how Wikipedia works. I like Wikipedia too, so I've found the happy medium and got on with improving and pushing things forward. What do you mean by maintaining some of that? Which elements of the in universe perspective do you think should be retained? If it is plausible, you can convert the same information with the real world perspective. So we could work something out aslong it isn't a list of minor character romances etc.RaintheOne ^BAM 20:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay first of all. You act like these pages are fine - they have barely any sources. Secondly, i didn't want it done my way. I wanted the pages to actually make some sense. To you they might seem like real people (the same to me - i've been watching Soap Operas since 1992 Honey) but this is Wikipedia. Go create a facebook/wikia page for yourself if your intentions are to treat it as a real person. You completely removed information that i added about Casting, Background etc; i know that it would have improved. Soap Pages should consist of not only story line - but this information as well. If you want, i can tell you how to set up a wikia page. This is WIKIPEDIA an encyclopedia which should make complete sense and also not seem like a body of words or small stupid sub-headings - it should have the correct sub-headings and content. I'm no Wikipedia genius - i make MANY mistakes on here however i do believe i had good intent. But please do not treat me like i know nothing. You created a page for Taylor Walker without knowledge that this should have never occured (She is an extremely minor character). You need to accept change. But because there are persistent users like yourself who stop articles from becoming better. Good luck with your Wikipedia pages *fansites*. 101.160.166.149 (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

While I understand that you are disheartened by the revert, MF also thought he was helping too - so try and get along there. Anyway, Musicfreak, I did have something to ask - on Taylor's article you removed this source [1] - Why would you remove legit info cited to a newspaper and then even accuse some one else of being a vandal? Tbh, I think this event is a little clouded and could easily be solved by a quick chat between you two - because I don't think there is any bad feeling here - just both of you thought you were doing the right thing for the article. Can I ask you to give this editor a chance MF, we were all new once and didn't get anywhere without a little help. I'd be delighted if a new editor popped up on articles I often edit with such good intentions.RaintheOne ^BAM 03:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes..i would love a chat MusicFreak7676...:) SoapJar21 (talk) 11:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

WOAH. WOAH. WOAH. I'm trying to stop pages from becoming better? That is the biggest load of B.S. I have ever seen in my life. I clicked one un-do, and it seemed to undo every single thing. Was not my intention. And I've already apologized for such and have moved on. So stop keeping it in the past and just simply move on. I have no issues chatting it out, but to say I am keeping articles from becoming better is so offense. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Never said that. How are you offended? That's odd that you are offended by something that was never said. You should see what you are reverting....before you press that undo button...seems like a personal attack (as you call it) - you saw my edit in the History, so you automatically pressed undo. SoapJar21 (talk) 11:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"But because there are persistent users like yourself who stop articles from becoming better." <<< Yes, either you or someone else accused me of stopping pages from becoming better. So yes, it was said, I DID SEE WHAT I WAS UNDOING. I'VE APOLOGIZED, IT'S YOU WHO CAN'T GET PASSED IT! I'VE APOLOGIZED MILLIONS OF TIMES!!!!!!!!! DO YOU WANT A BLOOD OATH APOLOGY!? I don't do automatic undoing. I didn't know who you were, I still don't. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Taylor Hayes

Hi... Instead of reverting my edits to the page (or completely removing it) could we maybe discuss this issue on either yours, mine or the character's talk page? I have just provided information about the Casting, a brief paragraph about her exits and background. This information should remain there..if there are problems please let me know. Also, i think its appropriate to sort out Tay's Story lines in 3 (or 2) parts, considering her many exits of the show the most notable being 2002-2005's absence. We can either right 1992-2002, 2005-, or even just Early Story lines, Return, Recent Events, etc. How bout that? I really don't want to argue. You reverted edits which were source and i assume that should have never happened. I don't think soap pages are just about keeping it update every episode of her appearance - that is for fan sites/fan pages if you understand where i am coming from. If you could, it would be even great (considering you seem to know so much about the character and have basic knowledge of everything about her) if you could provide more information about Casting, background etc. with sources. Sorry if i overreacted, but i was fetching sources here and there for a while...and i finally got a couple of valid ones and you removed them. And you also removed the tag at the top of the page such as this:

PLEASE do not...They are very important. It says to describe to fiction more clearly from a non-fiction perspective. Explaining basic facts such as Casting, Exits and other information like that (and im hoping to add a reception section once i have a reliable source) do so. And these tags (if i am correct) do help the page. I'm sure you love these characters as much as i do and don't we want to see her with a nice page full of sources and great info? thanks :) ! In addition: I am sorry about the picture thing. However, i had lined up a few links to upload free images (Taylor, Ridge, Brooke, Amber and other Soap Characters from Y&R and DOOL), that is why i removed your image to make way for them eventually. And these pictures were high quality screenshot from the series itself and 7 (out of 10) of them were from after August 2011 (being far more recent then yours). Sorry if i offended you in any way - it wasn't an attack as you stated. No hard feelings? Also i don't want to have a healthy debate..i just want to improve the page and people who remove sourced information without even attempting to maybe add something in there is very dis-heartening to me. :(... SoapJar21 (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Like I've said before, was not intended to offend anyone or revert all the edits. Was NOT my intention. Hunter's duration on the series should read 1990-2002, 2002, 2004, 2005- not 1990-2002, 2005- so that's something that should be fixed up. As for the image, I feel the image is fine as is. New Taylor promotional images have not been released as of yet, but my eye has been kept out. Promotional images are probably a better thing to use than screencaptures. I think her image is fine, as is. Healthy debates are good, those are the kind I like. Like I've said before, was not intended to remove everything. I clicked one button and it seemed to duplicate to every single edit. And I am not sure why. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Um..her duration should read "1990-2002, 2004, 2005-" ...why the 2002 in between? makes no sense. Well ok i understand it wasn't your intention..but you did and you removed sourced info. Please don't again. Thanks. Well actually i have a free image lined up from 2011 and it is a HD (very good quality) screen capture from this year - consider it please. SoapJar21 (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hunter's duration completely ignored her '04 appearance, and I did not put it in as I did not want to be accused of making a bad edit once again. And like I said, I pressed one "undo" and that completely did more than I thought it would. if I had known it undid everything, I would have undid my one edit. It's not like a purposefully set out to undo everything, I have no reason to do such a thing. And as for the new image, I do not see anything wrong with the current one, and think it should stay. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 08:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You really should consider before pressing undo. 04' appearance? Im not talking about that. Im talking about writing 2002 in the duration. I get it - you didn't undo it on purpose, but why don't you see what information you are undoing - why just undo something for no reason ?If there was a misspelling or wrong edit just edit that one little place no need to take out the whole thing. And on my talk page you said you were insulted as i just referred to you as "Musicfreak whatever" once?...Well thats a little hypocritical because you mislabeled me as a vandal (whats the reason?) and called my edits unneeded (basically saying i shouldn't be here). That's insulting. Instead of your "healthy debates" could you maybe help me add more information about the character casting background etc. and help me find sources?. Thanks. SoapJar21 (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

What I did was different, I didn't call you Whatever, that was what was insulting. I undid one edit, ONE. Not every single one. How that got done I do not know. Must have been a minor glitch in the system. It was one thing I saw and believed as vandalism. What, I don't remember since I've put it behind me to continue on doing with the edits as I usually do. I've been helping soap pages for the past year, and finding as much sources as I can with my limited time. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll reply here just incase Rm doesn't want us discussing on his talk page. As it stands - You replied to me and straight away requested to talk to Rm off-site. I had Rm's talk in my watchlist from a previous chat, so I noticed that you post there and here in quick flow. So I thought the likely hood it would be something about what happened two minutes prior. From Rm's reply it is clear it was as it directly links into what you told me about Soap opera article layouts. In Rm's reply it clearly states an answer and advice how to prevent someone from making the edits. Which suggests you asked how you can stop us. So can you understand how that would look suspect to me? Soapjar, Musicfreak has apologized for undoing the edits - so why not move on work together and take the focus back to the article improvement.RaintheOne ^BAM 18:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It was not about stopping anyone, it was a general question, I can surely and safely say such. It was a coincidence it was after you. I had been meaning to ask Rm that question for weeks. And knew if I did it on Wiki, I'd automatically be accused of something. I'm not trying to go behind anyone's back. It's not me trying to go behind someone's back or cause commotion. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure you can really backtrack now Musicfreak - Rm also made it clear it was a soap opera matter, more so the layout - two seconds after you challenged two editors over soap opera layouts - general questions are not normally returned with suggestions of AIV, blocking and reverting edits - you replied with a message concerning small text, the style you delivered the reply was a continuation of what had been said in the email. Maybe there was more to it though, maybe there was other things you needed to say offline - so I'm going to assume good faith and believe that you were making a general query and not attempting anything else. okay?RaintheOne ^BAM 18:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That is all I'm saying. It was a general query. Nothing more, nothing less. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

i accept your apology Musicfreak and I'm sorry for whatever you have been offended for. I think i will just drop the Taylor Hayes page because i really don't think i can make it better. So you can continue with it and do whatever you would like sorry for the inconvenience. Happy Editing! SoapJar21 (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Also musicfreak, you said you've been finding sources but i haven't seen any..it would be great :). And im not even dwelling on the fact you reverted my edits - You mislabeled me as a vandal and called me UNNEEDED here and you are not acknowledging THAT but you seem to be dwelling on how I'm not forgiving you for undoing my edits. You see? Thanks anyway...good luck with the Taylor Hayes article SoapJar21 (talk) 05:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Taylor's picture

Hey music freak... :) Sorry i may have over-reacted before. But i was really wondering..could i change the pictures for Taylor and Steffy's pages? I have two screen shots (they are decent qaulity, and represent the articles extremely well as they are very recent, however the ones current are somewhat outdated by 3-4 years) and i spent time uploading them and i was hoping if it was okay with you if they could be used as pictures for these pages? If you need to see them, here they are Steffy [2] Taylor [3] [4] [5] (there are multiple, you can choose one if you like). Sorry it's just more recent (and they are recent, from October this year) pictures seem better for the articles. I hope you do agree (And please actually consider and look at these images, i know you like to use fancy promotional images but these are decent screen shots). Sorry for all of the misunderstandings before. PLEASE do consider this. Thankyou so much. SoapJar21 (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to say no, and here's why: I don't feel they'll bring the same quality of work to the soap characters' pages as promotional photos do and have. I will have to continually think about it, because as of right now, I am saying no. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

In your view - and in line with policy - why do you chose promo images over screen-shots?RaintheOne ^BAM 18:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel screencaps bring the ut-most high quality to a character. The image was fine until SoapJar came in to want to change it. Yes, that's harsh, but it's the truth. The cold-hard truth. Sorry if it burns. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay..But you are aware that your promotional pictures are outdated and some way or another these characters should be represented by a recent picture right? SoapJar21 (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Also i think it doesn't matter - and that the most recent image (if it is of decent quality) should be used. Raintheone uses screen caps for all of the articles they have edited and it does not detract anything, and every article they work on is Amazing. And what's the point of waiting around for new promotional pics (which could be in 2013 - god only knows) when you could use recent pictures of the character etc. You get what i am saying? Also why don't you feel the screen caps bring out "ut-most high quality to a character?". I kind of think when people go to a Wikipedia article they want to see a recent picture. SoapJar21 (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see any problem with my photos, and no one else did until you came alone. I don't find the images you've picked to be of the best quality, especially compared to those I have put up. That's my honest opinion, and I'm sticking to it. I don't dispute they're outdated, but it's not like they're outdated by decades. It's not like a put a photograph from the 1980's or 1990's up. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You are both giving poor arguements for either image. At the end of the day Musicfreak - if you are using promotional images because they are of higher quality that a screen cap - then a screenshot would be considered the "lesser of two evils" as so to speak. With non-free content you have to use a portion of a image, an image that is of inferior quality so no one can further or benefit from it's use. Outdated is a bad arguement aswell - the image is meant to represent the subject in the best way possible. If Taylor was, say, most notable for one period of her storyline or any stage of appearance gained real world coverage - it is fair to say that the image should represent that. So there is no need to keep updating the images everytime the character changes their hair style, but rather find one that suits the whole of the characters tenure and best fits the text. After all, that is what you are illustrating - not just including it as part of a character profile. (I do not always use screenshots - but when I do use promotional images or support them - like Vanessa Gold - there is real world notability alongside the characters attire.)RaintheOne ^BAM 18:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

And that's what I did with the promotional images, I used a portion of them. I did not use the whole thing, because there was more more to each promotional photo, a whole body in fact. I feel like changing Steffy's image totally makes it look LQ. It looks horrific. I don't think it brings the same quality my image did, and no one disputed until SoapJar came in, and that's what upsets me. One person comes walking in, and changes everything that everyone else has been doing for months/years. It's unfair. I feel like you're showing favouritism to SoapJar, when I don't believe you should. They've been attacking me for things I've apologized for. It's become a bidding war, and it makes me not want to be an editor here at Wikipedia anymore, which is sad because I have contributed a lot to this site, beyond soaps. And I feel like by this happening, I'm being pushed aside. The image I had of Steffy represented her fine, as a whole, did not need to be up-to-date as SoapJar believes, it did a fine job. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't feel you need to leave MusicFreak - that is not a positive outcome. You have to understand though, that these articles are on Wikipedia - which means anyone is welcome to contribute. So it is fair to give contibutors an equal run and discuss what works best. I do not know why no one has said anything before - but I know in the past US editors in this division have created a bloackade agaisnt the guidelines. No disputed it before - but they are now. There is no deadline with Wikipedia, change happens in life all the time, these articles are in bad shape, someone wants to improve them. I'm not favouriting any really - I like the theory behind Soaapjar's thought that the articles need improving. I made it clear I supported neither of your reasons for keeping either image above.RaintheOne ^BAM 19:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's how I feel RTO. I do understand, I do. But I don't see things like you two are. I feel like now I'm being gained up on, for doing what I've been doing for months and then to have someone come in and want it a different way, and being the only one who seems to have an issue with something, and whoop, it's changed to their way. It's how I feel, and I can't keep continuing to feel like this. The image was fine as it was, it represented Steffy fine. Steffy is continually changing, and I feel my image was of a higher quality than SoapJar's. I'm not going to sit here, twiddle my thumbs and act like I'm happy/okay with all of this, I'm not. I don't feel welcomed or wanted anymore, even after all of the work I've been doing. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I regret that you are taking it to heart, I really do. I'm following the guidelines when it comes to most of the suggestions I have given through the past two days. It is just with the aim of article improvement. It is good that you have a passion for editing soap opera articles - I just wish you had the same amount for Wikipedia's guidelines. Just think what you could do with those articles - You could promote some to GA, you could get DYK's and have them on the main page, some satisfaction that you made a difference on here. I know it won't be the same for everyone - but I exhaust every source possible, keep going until I think - "Someone is going to have one interesting read before" - I love adding things people may not know - I love giving in the best way possible. I don't want you to feel unwanted here, I want you to feel as happy editing as I do. Yeah, at times, things do not go how you want them on here - but you have to find the middle ground. It is unrealistic to have everything your own road on an encyclopedia for the people. We certainly didn't change everything you did - just three articles so far? Out of 700 US Soap opera articles? Not that big of a change, right?RaintheOne ^BAM 19:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm just tired of always feeling like I'm fighting for what I believe in, it gets tiring and starts to eat at you. Especially when you're as dedicated as someone like me, who dedicates HOURS to soap operas per week, and discusses nothing but soap operas, and writes their own online soap opera, and then to come here and be told "No, no it needs to be ABC not XYZ because XYZ is more current and how it should be, etc." It just hurts. You know what I mean? I'm trying to defend the articles and things I don't feel should be changed, because they're silly things to change. What may seem silly to me, may seem serious to you. And vice-versa. You know? Musicfreak7676 (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not your edits that need to be changed...It's the pages. You say there is nothing wrong and they're silly things to change. No they aren't. If you have a skim over the pages they ARE silly. There are subheadings like these "Liam and Steffy Get Married" on people like Katie's pages! That's stupid. How is that extremely relevant to her?.. Whatever forget the pictures then. And you don't think its hurtful to try and change pages and add pictures but to be constantly turned down by others who keep reverting my edits (its not just you who did, a few others). Stop being dramatic it can be fixed no need to go on and on. Also, i haven't just "jumped" in and wanted things my way. How is making the story line less-detailed and doing some good for the page "my way"? It's for the benefit of the pages but obviously you don't see that. You're a soap fan? Well so am I. I don't dwell on that. Stop using the word hurtful. If you are an adult which i presume can we just talk it through? If that image of Steffy looks terrible, i have HUNDREDS more. You should be grateful that i tried to reach out to you in particular about the pictures (and it was obvious you would stick by the outdated pictures which i get). Also Raintheone i didn't want the picture updated because she changed her hairstyle for one episode - its just that all of Taylor's pictures are from that same photo shoot. Whatever, keep it the same. If you are so dedicated to soap Operas etc how come i haven't seen you try to help me find one source? Because I suck at that and you say you find sources but i haven't seen that yet :(. And to clarify that this pages ARE SUFFERING i am removing all sub-headings from pages because they are full of fan cruft and ridiculous subheadings (which you suggest is right). And how do you feel unwanted? I tried to make changes to pages (for the better) that have been reverted etc. and even been said "my edits are unneeded" (aren't you similar with that statement) and i certainly feel unwanted. Thankyou . SoapJar21 (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay i will leave it at that - i don't want to argue. But something else i will say suffering to the picture, are that the articles are very inconsistent (some have promotional images, some have pictures of the actors etc) which is why using screen shots would be good as the articles would be more consistent, if you get my point? (which will be viewed as invalid to you) SoapJar21 (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't tell me what will and won't be valid or invalid to me. The Taylor picture was and still is the best out there. I have photoshoots from 80s/90s and early 2000's in various hairstyles, and mine fits her to a T minus her horrific bangs. You obviously didn't listen to a WORD I said, I'm not talking about damn sub-headings, I could give two hoots about sub-heading, they're sub-heading big whoop. You make me feel unwanted and all of this from the past week makes me feel unwanted. Before, I looked forward to coming to Wikipedia, to make amazing changes. Now, because of your entrance, I DREAD coming here. So thank you, for ruining Wikipedia for me. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You are very dramatic aren't you? :p you seriously don't listen to the comments i write and what they are directed to. You implied these pages are fine. You are very wrong. Oh please, grow up. Im an adult and you are too; (and i presume you are too if you are a soap-addict) so just act like it. One user can't ruin it for you. If i distinctly remember, me starting off on these pages a few days prior to this was stopped by a user complaining over and over and also reverted all of my edits (more then once) - seem familiar? :P You don't even see what i said about the consistency but whatever. Sorry to break it to you but that's certainly NOT the best image out there (there have been way better). Stop conducting yourself with such an attitude which will garner sympathy from other people. [Do not reply to this - if you want to reply to this, write on my Talk page as i will not make an effort to come back to such a negative paragraph (i have returned you with positive comments, but i don't get that back). Grow up please. Thanks. And the picture remains the same, so stop arguing your point and i have changed Steffy's picture back. :p Would you drop this NOW? urgh. SoapJar21 (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

82.55.119.97

Unfortunately he hadn't been warned, so I did not feel we could block him (He has been warned now).

To save yourself some work in the future when someone makes multiple edits and you don't have rollback, what you should do is, from the history page, click on the link to the last version before that sequence of edits started (this one, in this case) and then click on edit. You'll be warned that saving it will wipe out all intervening edits. In this case, of course, that's what you want to do, so just write something like "rv to last good version" in the edit summary and hit save. Daniel Case (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I tried doing such and it wouldn't work. I've always tried to do that and it's simply never worked. I will try if such happens again. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It should work. It always did for me before I was an admin. Daniel Case (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It worked! Thank you, Happy Holidays! Musicfreak7676 (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Watch what you undo MusicFreak

Hi there...i notice that you never really left. That's really nice. We got off on the wrong foot however i know we won't be able to co-exist without an amount of argument. But can we not? If you see something I've done before reverting it (for little reasoning) lets talk it out on my talk page. There is no point obsessing over the info box colors etc. If you want to help make the pages really good finding sources and cleaning them up would be better. My reasoning for changing the color is that B&B and Y&R are sister soap operas and they have multiple characters which do not belong to either (e.g Deacon Sharpe, who is set to return to B&B in 2012 after his 2 year stint on Y&R) so it only makes sense. Am i harming the pages or disrupting further edits? So please have careful consideration when changing the edits - how come you don't change others when they change the infobox colors from Red to Black, or Light Blue to Darkred (these changes happened farely recently)? I could only assume this is personal for you. SoapJar21 ^{Talk To Me} 06:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Also this is not the initiation of another argument (you might assume that). And if you don't really get the above comment ... i won't respond to your reply. SoapJar21 ^{Talk To Me} 14:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not personal. I try and do my best. The Y&R color is darkred, and whenever I notice it changed, I change it back. I don't look at something and go "OMG XXX CHANGED IT. I BETTER CHANGE IT BACK" I just fix what I see should be fixed. Deacon is remaining on Y&R, MAB rehired him a day after his firing. The Y&R color is darkred, so if they're on Y&R, it should be darkred. It shouldn't matter if they're sister soaps or not. The colors have always been separate until you've come into this place and said "Well, it's changed" and gave me no real proof as to why it should be changed. Y&R is OLDER than B&B, so if anything, Y&R's color should be adopted. There no proof that he's coming back to B&B, he's still with Y&R into Spring. And by-the-by, the F in my name isn't capitalized. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, i didn't want to argue with you. But no - i won't accept this. You are persistent. The only thing you do is upload pictures and obsess over info-boxes...how bout find some information to add to pages and do something constructive. Also - i was the person who originally helped change the scheme to darkred earlier with a different profile - so you really aren't getting to me. Of course i know it's older, i've invested years of research and have been watching these shows for a very long time. What's your problem? Is this harmful to your edits? can you give ME PROOF that changing the color is wrong? This is stupid i won't continue this. I viewed my edits on Sharon (And others) pages as constructive and steps towards making them better but yours aren't they are further causing more friction. Also, i don't care i will address you with musicfreakwhatever then if you are annoyed by the slightest thing - being smart doesn't work. What do you have against the colors? unless you explain i will take action. These decisions aren't for me (but i have contributed significantly to three articles and i think i should have the right to say what the info box colors should be). Also if you are being smart with me, i will be smart with you. It's by the-WAY not by-the-by that doesn't make sense. Please do not respond to this message. SoapJar21 ^{Talk To Me} 18:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll respond to whatever message I want. And there is an expression of by-the-by. Just cause YOU think because you've contributed to pages mean you get to decide on the colours, be effing deal. I don't change your edits anymore because then I'm assumed of stuff and even if I apologize, it is NEVER good enough for you. I do more than put up images/info box. I've done a lot for the soap pages to bring some things in. And referring to me as "musicfreakwhatever" is RUDE. You are RUDE. I wasn't being persistent in an argument, I was being respectful. You're reading it as an argument, which it is not. I'm done trying to respect you and try and make this thing work. We're not going to get along. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm very kind - you consistently are complaining. No, i try not to view it as an argument. You were just rude in your statement of "be effing deal" while i assume you meant big. You have displayed efforts of being respectful - no. You haven't. Do i ever say "effing" or using capital letters to emphasize my anger? no. You are not respecting me. I would like you to know HOW changing the info box color is arming either you or the topic. Otherwise i come to the conclusion that you consistently reverting the changes as vandalism. PLEASE tell me why it is harmful - or i will continue to do it. If you come up with fair reasoning (without assistance from somebody else; that is just unfair and is weak) on your own of why this is, i will leave the format as it is. I NEVER said i would "decide" no - but you seem to think you can decide don't you? You haven't tried to make this work (otherwise you wouldn't have consistently changed the info box color). You certainly seem to think i make decisions? Who rejected the idea of giving everyone screen shots due to the lack of balance in articles (Some having screenshots, some having promotional images)? You. I am acting civilized okay? musicfreak7676. What do you mean "your done trying to respect me" - sorry. This is impossible has you haven't try - you want things done your way to the tea (Pictures, this that etc) And all i have done is add content which is sourced and changed the info box colors and you are so very threatened. Happy Holidays. NOW STOP BEING RUDE, ACT LIKE AN ADULT (ARE YOU A CHILD?) AND TALK THIS OUT INSTEAD OF CHANGING EVERY EDIT I MAKE ON THE PLANET. ITS SO RUDE, DISRESPECTFUL, CHILDISH AND EDITING WARS SHOULD NOT TAKE PLACE (THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE CREATING) IF YOU READ WP:DEW SoapJar21 ^{Talk To Me} 18:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah yeah yeah. I'm done with this and you. Go your way, I'll go mine. I don't have the time for this anymore. You seriously make this place no fun. Have fun ruining pages. Goodbye. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

PLOT

Please see WP:PLOT on how to write summaries for articles. I have reverted your edits to Will Horton because day to day summaries as such are not necessary in the character history. Also, please do not add plot spoilers to articles such as saying that Will confessed to Marlena about EJ and Sami. That has not happened yet, and unsourced spoilers do not belong in articles. Hope this helps. Rm994 (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I thought it had happened. And most of it, someone else wrote so I merely edited it to make it sound better, as the original edits were horribly written. Once again, sorry about the "spoiler" thing, I thought it happened in my mind, gets me excited. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I can certainly understand that! I believe it was previewed this week, and may have happened by now, as I haven't seen today's ep. We just have to be careful, that's all :) Rm994 (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It happens tomorrow; beyond excited!! It's all coming together. And yeah, sometimes I think something happened in my head and it hadn't. That's what I get for watching previews that include Will, aha. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Till I Go Home (talk) 08:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:JB Carly.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:JB Carly.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

US Soaps

Hey Musicfreak7676 - could you keep an eye on User Oltlfan2011 - they are cluttering infoboxes up claiming that certain characters are related to each other multiple amounts of times. Like claiming that Jessica Buchanan is Natalie's half-sister/adoptive sister/twin - obviously you cannot be twins if they were adopted lol - So I just reverted everything on the basis they are going against what was decided at WP:SOAPS. You are likely to know their true relation, so if you can help me with that one. lolRain the 1 05:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

From what I can collect, Jessica and Natalie are biologically twins. Because I know Natalie came to town and claimed she was Viki's daughter, and it came out that they were twins. But I notice this user, and another user making some unneeded edits to soap pages. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up Musicfreak7676. They are also changing date formats too, but they need a source - besides if they cannot decide who is actually related in the correct way, I doubt they're right about the dates. (do you have a nick name or is Musicfreak7676 fine? lol)Rain the 1 03:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I know that there are a couple of other members trying to control things, and make unnecessary changes. I think we need to find a way to ban IPs from changing pages at all-- that's where TONS of bad edits direct from. And depends on the nickname, ahah. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

We can always request page protection if it keeps happening all the time - Which looking at a few, there is a high volume of unconstructive edits from IP's. And your nickname is whatever you'd like. :pRain the 1 17:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Aha. I am always reverting edits from IPs who totally destroy pages. It's quite annoying. And I dunno, call me MF7676? I dunno. =/ Musicfreak7676 (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll call you MF ^_^Rain the 1 18:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Ahah, okie dokie RT1. Ahaha. Hope you have a happy, safe NYE!! Musicfreak7676 (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Most call me Richie :) Happy new year to you too.Rain the 1 22:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Aha, ok Richie!!!! Stay safe and responsible tonight!Musicfreak7676 (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The Young and the Restless

Hi there. I noticed that you cut out most of the actors from the "Starring" box on The Young and the Restless. It is informational for a majority of the current cast to be there, and I don't appreciate you cutting out most of it. Please don't do that again. Thank you. Creativity97 (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to post every single person from the cast, it's supposed to be for brief information. I don't appreciate you cluttering it up. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, maybe you're right, there's no real need to post every current cast member. But I at least listed everyone who appears in the opening credits at the beginning of episodes. I'm glad we could compromise. Creativity97 (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I think only the longest running actors should get the roll call for the info box, because some series have every, single actor in the main box and that's too much. Longest running actors, maybe Top Five to Six should get the call. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

We have been really cleaver and included everyone - in the shortest way possible - Eastenders - Neighbours - Hollyoaks - Look at how we did it, could you do it for those? Then you wouldn't be favouriting anyone - after all, the longest serving cast members might be less notable than new ones looking at it from the real world perspective.Rain the 1 03:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that could work! It'd settle everyone from disputing. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Why are you once again adding the whole cast?!

I know I'm not welcome on this talk page. But i added a link just leading the starring section to a list of Cast Members on a different page. It does look some what cluttered however there is no point only writing the senior cast members as lets say Ashley's actress for instant isn't actually very relevant right now compared to characters like Sharon (and Sharon's actress has had the same total amount of years). So just leave the simple link, but don't only write a few people down. SORRY for posting here. Happy New Years!! SoapJar21 ^{Talk To Me} 07:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CM Will.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CM Will.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The image was removed and I have since put it back on the page. Thank you. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SharonCase.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SharonCase.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

"Editing Wars"

Your recent editing history at File:DP Will.png shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Please take it to the talk page. Eeekster (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm edited it back, and did take it to the talk page. But if it continues to be reverted to another edit without being discussed, I will continue to revert. Sorry but I'm not going to play games ATM. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Why are you making this into an edit war? Eeekster (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'M NOT! Hence why there's a discussion before; another user told me to stop, so I did. I'm trying to discuss this out with another user to settle the disputes. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)