User talk:Soapdeity

March 2008

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Your edits to Chloe Lane have been reverted as false information and the repeated addition of inaccurate information is bordering on sever vandalism. Please discontinue this behavior. KellyAna (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know who you think you are labeling me a vandal. I did nothing of the sort. I contributed useful information about a Days of Lives character. The information I contributed clarified that Chloe did NOT think her biological parents had died in a car accident. What happened was that Chloe's adoptive parents, an older couple, had died in a car accident (this information was confirmed on air December 6, 1999). Elgart (1999). "Monday December 6, 1999". SoapCentral. Retrieved 2008-03-15. Chloe never knew anything about her biological parents until Nancy showed up and revealed she was her biological mother. The fact that the entire Chloe Lane article appeared to have been a direct copy from SoapCentral makes me question your integrity. The fact that people are not allowed to contribute to 'your work' also makes me question what your purpose on this site is. Please discontinue spreading your inappropriate behavior and inaccurate information. Soapdeity (talk) 07:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the name calling and false accusations and look at the article. All copyright vio info has been removed MANY, MANY days ago. Further comments will be reported as uncivil. KellyAna (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What name calling? All I did was question you, your integrity, and behavior, that is not name calling. Though, I can understand it might make someone upset. You are the one making false accusations. Accusing me of being a vandal and even uncivil. So what if the copyright violations had 'been removed MANY, MANY days ago' that doesn't erase the fact that it still occured and that everytime I edited the page you fixed it back to exactly what SoapCentral had on their Chloe Lane bio page. If anyone should be reported as having been uncivil it is you. All I tried to do was clarify a rather important detail and for some reason that was not okay with you. You completely removed it, labeled it false information and basically told me I was a vandal. Do you truly believe the information I added was false? Do you truly not believe that there is a difference for someone to think their biological parents died in a car accident versus knowing that their adoptive parents had died in a car accident? That is a significant point in Chloe's history that needed clarification. All I did was try to provide that clarification. Soapdeity (talk) 06:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling into question someone's integrity is fully uncivil where as I've explained to you that the article is corrected yet not only do you dwell on the past, you make comments that are uncivil. Do so again and you will be reported. How was I to know that the article was directly taken from SoapCentral? Did it say it on the page? No, it did not. When I realized it was, I corrected the problem and followed protocol, something you did not and are still not doing. Please move on before the need to report you escalates. KellyAna (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will concede that calling into question your integrity can be considered offensive. The way you handled my edits was uncivil. You labeling me a vandal, labeling (and removing) information I provided as 'inaccurate,' was uncivil. I did not vandalize anything (to be a vandal a person needs malicious intent; I had no such intent). Wikipedia states and I quote: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. [...] Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism." I don't think even you could give a good argument that the edits I made amounted to vandalism (as you have previously stated they were bordering on severe vandalism). You never answered my questions. Why was making that clarification not okay with you? Why did you label it as false and remove it? Do you truly believe the information I added to be false? Check SoapCentral Days archives for December 6, 1999 or even watch it for yourself on YouTube (search under 'days 12.06.99'). All I did was add clarification to a significant part of Chloe Lane's history. I do not understand why you felt the need to label me a vandal or even not to check out the validity of my edits before you labeled them false. Maybe, if you could explain that to me I would be able to understand. Soapdeity (talk) 05:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize you are arguing a NON-issue since the information has been removed because the article was a copyright violation? Yes, that's what you're arguing. As for ANYTHING from SoapCentral when it comes to recaps, toss that baby out with the bath water. Those recaps are not official and are written by fans. They've already been decided as unreliable as far as sources go. I'm really working on where I "labeled you as a vandal." I don't see a neon sign that says anything about vandal on your user page. I said your edits, repeatedly changing long standing facts with unsourced information, was bordering on vandalism. I suggest you figure out the difference or you're going to go around with a large chip on your shoulder for a long time. KellyAna (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, you are using one source to denounce it's own information. When you first added the information, I glanced at SoapCentral and removed your addition because it conflicted with what is there on her brief bio. Now you are trying to use soap central to prove soap central is wrong and right. That's why SoapCentral is not a valid source for content history and why their information is almost always removed. KellyAna (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first message you left has vandal1 in it with a message telling me to stop because you thought I was bordering on 'sever[e] vandalism.' That is what has upset me because I did not vandalize anything nor was I bordering on severe vandalism. I don't see why you had any more of a right to continue removing my edits than I did to edit the page. I hadn't seen Chloe's 'brief bio' before I used SoapCentral recaps as a source so I did not realize it contradicted itself, until the entire article had been removed. Again, if you use the search words I gave you 'days 12.06.99' and key them in YouTube you can watch the actual scene for yourself. Or, if you're so inclined, which I doubt, you may purchase the teen edits online for $7. Many sources used by Wikipedia are not 'offical,' are written by fans and are still accepted especially when there is no other more 'offical' source out there. Soapdeity (talk) 05:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

vandal1 is a template, it's just a short cut, it doesn't mean anything. You could stand to learn some things about Wikipedia before jumping to conclusions. You should be aware that the soaps have many, many people that vandalize the articles and add original research. You would do well to take a deep breath and realize you are going on and on about a non-issue. As for purchasing "teen edits." I'm past my teens, I don't purchase anything for myself labeled "teen." And you are, further, severely wrong if you believe "fans" are the sources for Wikipedia. Look at the resources available explaining how Wikipedia works, you'll see that's just not true. Go to the List of Supercouples page and look at the talk and you'll find that the statement Many sources used by Wikipedia are not 'offical,' are written by fans and are still accepted especially when there is no other more 'offical' source out there. is extremely false.

Welcome!

Hello, Soapdeity, 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! KellyAna (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:711IcyDrinkCup.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]