User talk:MaryPoppins878

Welcome!

Hello, MaryPoppins878, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Linking Question

Check the sandbox again, I hope I awnsered your question. Have a good day! bigdawgs9 20:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Days cast members

We do not remove Andre from Thaao's name or Gina from Kristian's name. We list them next to their portrayer. Kristian is still a cast member therefore her roles and the date she played them remain next to her name. Thank you for trying, but this was a decision made long ago. Also, please do not remove hidden tags. We have those there for a reason. Thank you. IrishLass0128 18:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comments regarding "most" people agreeing as your reason for removal. Generally when weighing consensus and it's only a user IP address agreeing with one other person, we don't consider that "most people" or a majority consensus. See, I could log out and go agree with myself, log back in and thank that anonymous person. We also talk about things in other areas, like the project page. I understand you're trying to help, but when a project member reverts your changes, it could be because they've been working on these pages for a long time. CelticGreen 18:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers

We don't put spoilers in articles. This includes putting speculation as to if/which baby of Sami's might be EJ's. It could be either, it could be both, it could be neither. We don't know, the show has not given us any verifiable reason to assume anything conclusive. At this point Sami had a DNA test while pregnant that showed Lucas to be the father. This is how it stands until further ON AIR reveal. Thank you. IrishLass0128 15:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Increasingly suspicious

I've had run ins in the past with an editor who made nearly exact edits as you are doing, including trashing the retcon on the Santo DiMera page. While you may very well be new, the changes you insist on making, including spoilers after repetitive warnings, and being non-compliant with consensus, are increasingly suspicious. If you would like to learn, do so by observing, not by rewriting articles that have been written based on what has been seen, not assumptions. And do not continue to add spoilers, that can be considered vandalism. IrishLass0128 12:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have no idea what you are talking about. I am sorry if I have done something wrong. Anyway is there anyway to change the color of my talk page and user page? PS I hope that I signed right. MaryPoppins878 14:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are constantly adding ages, against the guidelines. Just because someone has an age one day doesn't mean it's the same the next. Chelsea went from being 18 to 21 in less than three months. Age is not definitive and you are using the same style as a blocked user did. Your actions mirror those of that user and your behaviour the same. You cannot do things "because you think they are right" you have to do things per Wikipedia. You cannot just rewrite retcon passages because of your assumptions. You cannot add spoilers, opinion, personal points of view wording; you cannot remove agreed upon content because "so and so isn't there, no one should be" ~ that's vandalism. If you feel something should be included and it's not, talk about it but don't vandalize the pages. Do not take it upon yourself to change long standing styles of pages without discussion. I am far from convinced that you are not a previous user, too many coincidences. And while I originally assumed good faith, your actions of late are making it increasingly harder. IrishLass0128 16:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone reported this user? It's obvious that this is a sockpuppet account. I'll be more than happy to report it if it hasn't been. CelticGreen 01:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Days cast list

Do not change the formatting of articles/lists without consensus decisions or without asking. We have things formatted in certain ways for a reason. The reason someone is "recurring" is because they appear periodically and are not on contract. We made a decision long ago not to add dates to recurring cast members. Do not change layouts without discussion. Thank you. Doing so again will result in a formal vandalism warning. IrishLass0128 13:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formal warning

Do not vandalize the Days of our Lives cast member list as you did by removing characters with articles here on Wikipedia. Further such vandalism will be reported and your account will be blocked. IrishLass0128 15:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second warning

Stop vandalizing the Days of our Lives cast member list. Unless you are sure how to move information around, do not do it. Do not add rumours to pages either. Adding rumours constitutes vandalism. Stop. IrishLass0128 18:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI ~ regarding soaps.com. Their "parent" company is a forum host [1] which means fansite, which means not encyclopedic in research and reliability. Anything that encourages you to "join" is not considered verifiable reliable sourcing. ADDITIONALLY, when you do not know how to do something, try playing in the sandbox and not with the articles or ask. IrishLass0128 18:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

I'll be reporting you and M-townboy as it is too coincidental that you "back up" one another's edits within minutes of each other. Do not continue to vandalize the Days of our Lives cast member list as you continually insist on doing. IrishLass0128 16:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the concept difficult?

Current charcters are listed under the actor's name with a start year and a - (hyphen) until their last day. At that time they are moved to the former character list with their tenure years of service. With the writers strike, end dates and start dates can and likely will change. Marcus is still filming and is, therefore, a CURRENT cast member. Even small edits like the one you made on the Days cast page are considered vandalism when you've been repeatedly warned. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball do not continue making edits that are future happenings. IrishLass0128 17:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Stephanie Johnson and other ages

She was over 21 when she first appeared with Kayla back in 2006. She was seen drinking and she was a race car driver. You need to stop adding ages per fiction guidelines. That includes Chelsea Brady and the SORAS comments you added. You need to stop. IrishLass seems like she's right, you do seem to be a sockpuppet of another banned user with the same habits. CelticGreen 02:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC) Repeating the advise and warning you -- STOP putting ages in soap articles unless they are born onscreen, fictional characters DO NOT have ages. Check Wikipedia guidelines before adding ages again. Your actions are bordering on vandalism as you are going against project and Wikipedia guidelines. IrishLass0128 18:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summary Request

I have noted that you edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky or even vandalizing. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! -- Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 15:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final, final warning

Your continued disruption to pages has been noted. Your questioning of consensus data and your constant disruptions have resulted in a need for you to be further investigated. The original admin is unable to continue with the investigation, this is being moved to another admin for further investigation into your behaviour. Irish Lass 17:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your last edit

Your last edit to the Days of our Lives cast list was blatant vandalism. You will now have a second and separate warning along with a Sockpuppet case opened against you. Irish Lass 17:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does a sockpuppet case mean??? By the way I was not aware that mother Superior and the lady in black were different characters. Sorry for my mistake. MaryPoppins878 17:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find out, as if you don't already know. You are repeatedly violating the soap project guidelines, do not make us continue to warn you repeatedly. Irish Lass 17:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep vandalizing the pages, it only helps the case against you. Will was a contract cast member only recently moved to recurring status. He's been there for many years and is a core character. Your continued behaviour goes above and beyond vandalism. Interesting the behaviour heightens when your case is made formal. Irish Lass 17:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

November 2007

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Los Angeles, California in The Bold and the Beautiful, you will be blocked from editing. Mayalld 17:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on List of Days of our Lives cast members

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. --Hu12 18:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She's not reverting, she's taking something out differently every time and messing with the page just to mess with it. Please, this is blatant vandalism, not an edit war. Irish Lass 18:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem

Hi. I seem to be having a problem each time that I try and edit. It says something about a source or something and then mentions a "sockpuppet" of Grant Chuggle. Could somene please tell me if they have been having similar problems when trying to edit. Thanks for all your help. Oh, well I must go back out into the hot Namibian sun and help my mother in the garden. Thanks for hearing me out. MaryPoppins878 13:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've been permanently blocked again, Grant. I am impressed with the innocent act although I am far from buying it. You will no longer be able to edit Wikipedia as it has been determined this account is just another account in the long string of accounts used by Grant Chuggle. The evidence was strong and the actions were swift by the administrators. Thank you admin team!! Have fun in the garden. Irish Lass 14:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you feel that I have done something wrong. Is there anyway that I can prove to you that I am not this "Grant" person. My name is certainly not Grant, it is Sarah Halford and I really want to be able to prove to you all that I am innocent. PS: It is difficult to enjoy working in the garden when you have my mom's whatful eye on you. MaryPoppins878 14:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly unconvincing! Whatever your name may be in "Real Life", it is beyond doubt that you are the self-same person who used to edit as "Grant Chuggle", and in multiple other guises. Even your protestations of innocence, and claims to be unaware of what is going on are the same. Mayalld 14:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Mayalld. Evidence was presented and a case was made. The evidence was so overwhelming it didn't take long for the administration to believe you were yet another sockpuppet of Grant. Your feins of innocence are convincing no one. They are actually only helping to convince us more that you are indeed Grant. Take a look at the case, the evidence is undeniable. IrishLass 14:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are they serious? We're supposed to believe this story? I believe in coincidence, but not two editors using the exact same edit summaries both being from South Africa editing the exact same articles and rewriting the exact same passages (the Santo Retcon section). Some things are too coincidental. CelticGreen 00:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I am not from South Africa. And glad not to be. MaryPoppins878 09:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the reason that I was blocked because I had an "edit war" with you about the Days cast members. I know that maybe I made a few mistakes but I don't feel that this is reason enough to be blocked. I think that someone must have blocked my account by mistake instead of this Grant. Is there someone that I can contact about correcting this mistake. Thanks. MaryPoppins878 09:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your protestations of innocence are very amusing, but totally unconvincing. You weren't blocked because you engaged in an edit war (although a short term block might have been applied for that alone). You were blocked because the manner in which you went about that edit war is identical to the manner in which you went about you edit wars when you used the Grant Chuggle userID, and to the manner in which all your previous sockpuppets have gone about it. Nobody has made a mistake in blocking this ID instead of Grant Chuggle. The Grant Chuggle ID was already blocked, and you have been blocked because there is overwhelming evidence that the same person operated both accounts. Mayalld 11:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the EJ and Sami page from your talk page. They exist on Wikipedia, you can look at them there. The act/game you are playing isn't working. You were accused, a case was filed, evidence presented, and a decision made. This shouldn't be difficult for you to understand and your act of "I don't get it" is only serving to further prove you are Grant and this ID most certainly deserves blocking. Edit wars, they only confirmed you were who we suspected. Your overall behavior is what sealed the deal. There is no mistake. Accept it and move on to a message board or something where disruptions don't affect so many. IrishLass 13:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

This user has been blocked indefinitely.
Suspected sockpuppet evidence has determined that this account is being used abusively;
the address has been blocked to prevent further abuse.
If you are a registered user and are seeing this message, please post {{unblock|reason for unblock here}} on your talk page, with a note
referencing this message. Please be sure to include the IP address (which should appear at the bottom of the block message).
Administrators: Please consult with the blocking administrator who placed the block before unblocking.

"Your" talk page

Yes, it is "your" page, but inappropriate content can be removed. Unless you can provide a valid reason why you want the EJ Wells page and the Sami Brady page on your page, which could be confusing to new users as a search would point them here, they will continued to be removed and your actions will, once again, be noted as vandalism. Just because it's "yours" doesn't mean you can violated the rules. IrishLass 14:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:User page#Copies of other pages

Abuse of unblock

You are not to abuse your unblock on this page any more than you are to use it on your Grant Chuggle page. Your edits have been removed and you're being reported to the admin which blocked you previously so that this page can be blocked too. As for Crystal, her contract is only for a recurring status, not full cast member. That's the prize awarded. IrishLass (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Forrester Creations

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Forrester Creations. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forrester Creations. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]