Talk:Cassie Newman

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an effort to build consistent guidelines for and improve articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion.Soap OperasWikipedia:WikiProject Soap OperasTemplate:WikiProject Soap Operassoap opera articles

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Duration[edit]

Listing the first half of the character's duration as "1997-2010" is ludicrous. She appeared continuously from 1997 to 2005; after her death, she made 4 guest appearances in 2005, and 3 in 2006(ending in May 2006, according to Soap Central). Her next appearance was (according to the same website) in June 2007, so how can we not add a break in between 2006 and 2007, when a full year past (unless I am wrong, please correct me if I am), and considering she only made one guest appearance in 2007? Appearances after this - May 6, 2009; March 15, 2010. So how on earth can we say she was on the show from 1997-2010? That's extremely misleading. I have reverted the duration once, however, as the editor who reverted my edits correcting the duration is known to edit war, I think It's best to just discuss this here, even though it's an extremely small matter.

So can we agree or not to write the duration as "1997-2006, 2007, 2009-10 (or just 2009, 2010, as she only made one appearance per year and saying she was on from 2009-10 is misleading), 2013-14"? — Ar re 06:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Livelikemusic:, @JuneGloom07:, @Raintheone:, @Creativity97:, @Cebr1979: - if any of you could weigh in, I'd appreciate it.

Arre9, I am very confused by your new change of heart. Do you want breaks noted in the infobox or not? Which is it you want to have done? Yes? Or no? Because (I don't really want to as it's time consuming but...) I will go get all the conversations where you have chased me around being adamant that we NOT note breaks when the character appeared in consecutive years and... all of a sudden... today... after finally getting all of us on the same page... you've just decided that now only some pages need to follow the consensus but, this one Cassie Newman page doesn't. What makes sense about that? You and I just had this conversation where I laid it all out to you and you specifically shot it down (even going so far as to use the word "crap" when referring to breaks being in the infobox and now you're saying the exact opposite and that breaks not being noted is "ludicrous"). Do you want to follow my idea and start noting breaks or not? Because doing it for some pages but, not others, is ludicrous. Absolutely. @5 albert square:: what do you think? You're the admin that was brought into one of the last conversations... Do you think we should now start noting breaks in the infobox (as I've always said and was overruled) or should we agree with Arre9 now and start it doing it the way I always wanted to? I'm curious to know.Cebr1979 (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about breaks in the duration parameter, not how you wanted to clutter the duration next to an actor's names; they are two different things. You are getting confused there. You have now reverted the duration to 1997-2010 again, even though she only appeared once in 2007 (after a year-gap following her 2006 appearance), no appearances in 2008, and one appearance each in 2009 and 2010. That's extremely misleading, IMO. I don't want to revert you again, because you have shown a history of edit warring. — Ar re 08:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you have shown a history of owning. Fine, I will go get all the other conversations because dates in the infobox (whether in the duration or anywhere else) is something you've always been against. It's just weird that, as I pointed out, we all finally get on the same page and you decide to change it to the way you've never wanted it. I'll compile that tomorrow, though. The Walking Dead is about to start.Cebr1979 (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you shouldn't have reverted it the first time. You were going against consensus. I just showed you that on your talk page (although you already knew).Cebr1979 (talk) 08:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A history of owning? Please leave your unfounded attacks out of this discussion. You have constantly accused others of bullying, owning, vandalism, etc to prove a point, enough already. Please check my response to your message on my talk, and leave things that are not relevant to this specific matter out of this. I just want to see what others feel about this character's duration being misleading - especially because there is no detailed casting section yet, so anyone reading will think she's appeared any number of times from 2005 to 2010. Thanks. — Ar re 08:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arre9: GROW UP! I'm going to say that only once to you and I'm going to say it now. You have a history of owning. I'm not the only one who has noticed it. And I only ever mention it to you after say things to me like, "You have a history of edit warring." Leave your attacks out of discussions or expect them from others. Otherwise, you're just being childish. And wikipedia's not a playground.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The duration should read "1996–2007, 2009–10, 2013–14", and the continued accusations being made against editors is uncivil. Making accusations is not appropriate nor acceptable on Wikipedia by any editor. And may I point out what vandalism actually is and what it is not. Cebr1979, as someone who has read this discussion, your tone is very pointed and not in a civil manner, which does not create a cohesive discussion. We're passionate as soap viewers, but to constantly be irate and attack editors is not what Wikipedia is about, and I say this as someone who doesn't wish to see anyone blocked for being passionate about a subject like soaps. And, again, avoid personal attacks, and calling people "childish" and telling them to grow up violates said-policy. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being irate, I've been calm throughout this entire conversation... Until I told her to grow up, which she needed to be told. I've been civil. She's deliberately baiting with her snide comments. And that is childish. Now, we can try and go back to reasonable conversation or we can continue going back and forth about Arre9 and her baiting. Which would you like to do? I vote for the former.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just stating, the tone is coming off very harsh, especially telling another editor to "grow up" in all capital letters. Again, as someone who just came into this discussion a matter of moments ago, it seems as if you are acting in a professional manner and you're taking it below the belt by making personal attacks, which is not acceptable. Yes, Arre could've handled herself in a better manner, but at the same time, I refuse to be part of a discussion of below-the-belt name-calling and childish behavior; it makes me dislike editing on this website, and it's why I've been so absent lately. I'm over the bullshit drama between the editors on this website; Wikipedia is meant to be a fun little thing to do, not as serious as people are making it. I do not see snide comments from Arre; I see her trying to make her point, and you telling her she's "owning" a page and being told to grow up, which is not acceptable. Be a bigger person and walk away from a discussion to let things cool off, instead of fueling fires. Arre is a fantastic editor who has helped multiple pages on Wikipedia grow to becoming a more reliable piece of fictional notability. And I feel you could provide the same, but as someone who's been on both sides of the fence with you, it's tiring to constantly feel like we're in a war with an editor. And I am choosing to no longer be apart of that kind of editing. Be the bigger person and just walk away for a moment, and let things settle, instead of resorting to name-calling, because I know for myself, I won't involve myself in that kind of editing any longer. I don't put up with it in real life, and won't be putting up with it online, either. To me, that's borderline bullying, as someone who was severely bullied in my offline life, I won't standby and let it openly happen. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So clearly you chose the latter. Have fun with that.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cebr, now you are accusing me of baiting. Add that on to owning, bullying, vandalism. That in itself is baiting. But whatever. Can we just keep the discussion on this article? Anyway. I guess "1996–2007, 2009–10, 2013–14" would be appropriate then. It's a little misleading, but not as misleading as "1997-2010" considering she never appeared in 2008. I would still like to see what a couple of others think given how this character only made one-episode guest appearances per year for several years; it's not like she had month-long stints or anything. — Ar re 01:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]