User:IrishLass0128/Archive 2

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Joshasroman.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Joshasroman.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Johnblack2007.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Johnblack2007.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Kate Roberts.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Kate Roberts.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you bot, now, BYE BYE BYE! IrishLass0128 13:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

West Garden Grove page
I removed content from a banned user per guidelines. If you would like to find and source and reword the information about the government, feel free, but do not restore comments by banned members. Any banned member using a sockpuppet is not allowed to contribute to Wikipedia and their edits are justifiably removed. Thank you for understanding why this was done. If you can find and source the removed information, feel free to add it in, again, in your own words.`IrishLass0128 13:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * After the text had been removed, after the user had been blocked, the material was reviewed, verified and reinserted. Sources were added documenting the information added. If you have any question about the sources or the material added, I have already taken full responsibility to ensure that the content is reliably and verifiably sourced. Any further removal of sourced content (and this is not the first time) will be treated appropriately as vandalism. I can have no issue with efforts to improve the article, but I will not tolerate playing games whose only goal is to diminish the quality of the article. Alansohn 16:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Kindly verify you FACTS before making accusations. I removed one link that was broken a while back, nominated the article for deletion, added a period, changed "middle" to "intermediate", and removed the banned users contributes once.  I have NOT removed sourced materials other than that of a banned user, per guidelines.  Please check the edit summary before making such accusations. I only removed the content this morning because it was put in the document by a banned user.  So check your facts before being uncivil without cause. IrishLass0128 16:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I had already checked my facts. The advantage I have here is that my facts actually have sources. This is not the first time that you have removed sourced material. The link you have claimed was "broken" was to an article where the supporting text is available without fee; the link was never broken, nor was any fee ever required as claimed, yet you have removed the link on multiple occasions. There is no guideline whatsoever that requires removal of any and all content added by a banned user; it does not exist. The material removed was reinserted with reliable and verifiable sources, and was removed by you for a second time. I have checked every fact before I inserted information, and I rechecked every fact before I reinserted it after your vandalistic deletions which were entirely unjustified and without cause. I will warn you again that any further efforts to disrupt this article will be dealt with appropriate severity, as mandated by Wikipedia policy. Now that I have established the facts here, a little opinion; it seems that above and beyond your efforts to deny notability in the AfD, that you have been rather aggressive in trying to remove content from the article that would further establish such notability. This hardly seems WP:CIVIL on your part. If you are operating on on good faith, I would hope that you would be a bit more accepting of continuing efforts to satisfy the Notability standard. Alansohn 16:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, please refer to the edit summary and what I did. Please do not accuse me of doing things that I have not done.  Because of the conflict of interest I have done very little on that page.  The only two things I ever removed was a link I clicked on that went to a page that did not exist and then this morning.  If you look at the edit summary, you will see it was User:CelticGreen who removed content, not I.  That's where I ask you to check your facts.  This is twice now you've made accusations toward me that should be leveled against another user.  Thank you so much. This, is the ONLY link I ever removed  and at the time, it didn't work so I removed it.  That's all I've ever removed.  Please check the edit summary of the page before making further false accusations. [User:IrishLass0128|IrishLass0128]] 16:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material on West Garden Grove
Have a gander at this edit of yours with the edit summary "Per AdF the user adding information is a banned sockpuppet. Rm'd only the information he added without citation. It can be added with citation." The material in question was reviewed word for word, verified as accurate and reinserted with reliable and verifiable sources added. You removed all of the material, despite (and including) the citations, in contradiction to the claim in your edit summary. As to your later edit summary that claims that "If you're going to cite sources, don't make a mess of the page", the citations were added in the format specified by WP:CITE, the relevant Wikipedia policy; That the page appears to you to be a "mess" after adding citations is not justification to reformat them to fit your aesthetic sense, and has been reverted. Alansohn 17:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, HELLO, I said I had done that this morning per the AdF and then I left you a message. I admitted to doing just that one thing because I had been told by DanielCase that it is customary to remove content added by banned users, that's why I did it and then asked you to take responsibility.  Yes, I removed it, YES, I admitted in the edit summary that I removed it based on the comments in the AdF.  Yes, I LEFT YOU A MESSAGE ABOUT IT.  Why is it so difficult for you to get that I ADMITTED REMOVING THAT PASSAGE BECAUSE OF THE PREVIOUS USER?  You said I've done it "a number of times" when in fact I hadn't.  Fact, other projects list references in a cleaner manner, I was just doing that.  Do what EVER you want with the article and leave me the hell alone.  I don't care any more.  I'll be archiving this in 5 minutes. IrishLass0128 17:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * After further review I really want to know why you are being so nasty about this? I removed one passage with a very nice edit summary and gave you a courtesy note telling you what I did.  You immediately called me a vandal even though I did an edit summary and advised you of why I did what I did.  Rather than show good faith, you've jumped on my case and made false accusations:  I had already checked my facts. The advantage I have here is that my facts actually have sources. This is not the first time that you have removed sourced material. The link you have claimed was "broken" was to an article where the supporting text is available without fee; the link was never broken, nor was any fee ever required as claimed, yet you have removed the link on multiple occasions.  As I proved, I only removed the link to the WGG Citizens webpage, and then this morning.  Where do you get the I had already checked my facts. The advantage I have here is that my facts actually have sources. This is not the first time that you have removed sourced material. The link you have claimed was "broken" was to an article where the supporting text is available without fee; the link was never broken, nor was any fee ever required as claimed, yet you have removed the link on multiple occasions. accusations toward me?  Where is your reference and "facts" that I removed the same link multiple times.  I made one error based on what an admin had previously told me to do and you accuse me of vandalism and multiple times removing links.  I have done no such thing.  Please apologize. Here is the page before I removed the only other link I've ever removed  check the link to the home owners association and see where it goes. IrishLass0128 17:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

re report at AIV
Do you feel this report requires removing? AIV is backlogged and I don't think an admin will block at this time - I won't, seeing as there is a history. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 21:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The report was still up at AIV at 21:56 - so I was WP:BOLD and removed it. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 22:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I had gone home by the time you left this message. It wasn't me who started it though, so I wouldn't have removed it, not my place to remove others' reports. Just glad they are blocked indefinitely for now.  Makes my day easier. IrishLass 14:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Redirects to Children of Salem
Good morning ~ or afternoon where ever you may be. I'd like to explain what is going on and let you know that while I assume your edits were made in good faith, they were misguided. The Children of Salem page is just starting. I'm working on it as quickly as I can but it is far FAR FAR away from being ready to have redirects to it. Please, I will take care of adding the redirects when the time comes. Prematurely redirecting from an article with necessary information that I need to finish the COS page, to the COS page is only going to cause more work. While I see you are anxious to help, let's get everything in place before moving forward with redirects and total obliteration of articles. I'm on top of this and have asked TAnthony and CelticGreen (and soon maybe Flyer22) to help. I just don't want premature redirects to the page yet. Several more characters have to be added and the table sorted and the like. The page is less than 24 hours old. Let me get it actually started. I do have a question though. How did you even find it? I've not advertised that it's available or linked anything to it. Just curious. And I do want you to know, that I do know you were trying to help, it's just not at that stage yet. Thank you for understanding. IrishLass 13:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize for making any premature changes. I realize how much effort and work is put into a page like that, as was my experience with Children of The Young and the Restless. I was merely trying to help. As for finding the page, it is (and was) listed in Category:Days of our Lives for public viewing, which is where I found access. Again, I apologize if my changes caused more work for you. I will stand on the sidelines for now regarding the page until everything is squared away. I do wish you good luck though. :) It's off to an amazing start! —Evaglow 02:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The order of events of the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article
A new editor to this article (an IP address-editor) recently added more plot summary to it, which I had to return to present tense per Wikipedia policy for plot summaries. I also left a message on that editor's talk page about that. But I need you or CelticGreen (though I've come to you about this) to make sure that that article is in correct order of events. I know that the character John Black recently died, so a few things in that article are out of order at this moment. Flyer22 07:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, I'm going to ask CelticGreen about this matter, since I see that she's actively on Wikipedia today. Flyer22 20:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that the IP User insists on her/his version of the article and doesn't understand that the article is about EJ and Sami and not about EJ's supposed nefarious deeds. I love it when you get people who are convinced they've seen something that hasn't/didn't happen.  Thanks for fixing this.  I'll keep an eye out when I can.IrishLass0128 18:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

On west GG and El Modena
I saw your comment on Alanraywiki's talk page, and saw the mention on El Modena.

I'd have to say that if you put it in there, I'd probably cast a keep and clean up, but only because it has some sort of distinctive history as a former city that was annexxed into Orange. Another local (to you, at any rate) case in point would be Atwood, which is now part of Placentia, or as I pointed out in the WGG AFD, Eastgate and Factoria, down a bit south of me in Bellevue. Then again, an AfD nomination has occasionally been known to help clean up an article. =^_^= At any rate, check out WP:LOCAL - which El Mo seems to pass, but WGG apparently doesn't. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 23:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The article definitely needs to be expanded then. It's a stub if there ever was one.  I just think adding it to the OC list as a distinct community and then linking it to a current article is a disservice.  The article needs some major expansion.  The problem as it reads now references the high school by the name, not the real information.  IrishLass0128 15:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Saw the nomination. I'll revisit in a month and re-nom it; I'll just have to make sure I keep that link and remind myself. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 18:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If you take a gander (as I was told this morning) at my archived talk page, you'll see the beratement I received for mistakenly removing sourced materials.  I thought I was removing the banned editors content.  I've never been brought to tears by another Wikipedian. IrishLass0128 18:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Testing something IrishLass 16:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Testing

 * Yeah, this looks great! &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 18:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Kate Roberts.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Kate Roberts.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 17:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The image isn't actually being used in the article. &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 17:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I added it, so the bot should't tag it again for that reason. &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 17:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It was on the article.  I can't figure out what happened.  So confused. Irish Lass 18:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Las Vegas
You wanted the episodes removed, they're removed. No one will believe me when I say "last minute" so until Friday they are gone. Once "I Could Eat a Horse" airs I'll put it as this week's episode.
 * You've now vandalized the page, you're being reported. Irish Lass 19:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Good, maybe then next time you'll realize what "last minute" means. Other site are probably not aware of the changes since they occured over the weekend.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinepowell (talk • contribs) 19:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, the main NBC Las Vegas page and three other sites disagree with your tirade. You've now vandalized the page.  You've been reported for three revert and I could report you for vandalism if you'd like. As to "other sites", DirecTV is the actual broadcaster of the show, they have a feed that tells them what is being shown.  Four verifiable sources to your one.  Irish Lass 19:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * IrishLass, I told YOU (but you chose to ignore it) that Spoilerfix states NBC as their source AND I gave you their weekly listings. That's a different problem and yes these Smallville episode will be filmed.  TV Guide said they would and I believe them since Ausiello goes straight to the source.  Here's the link: http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Ausiello-Report/Updated-Strike-Chart/800026937?start=45&#msg800312767


 * I guess we'll see Friday at 9:00 pm ET Robinepowell 02:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What I did was not "ignore" what was said, what I did was go by policy. As Bignole also told you, spoilerfix is not reliable. I did love what he said to you, it's so true.  As for filming, I didn't say they wouldn't be filmed, I said they weren't filmed and the filming is delayed.  You do have some issues with these lists that people have tried to help you with.  Unfortunately, you seem to ignore all guidance.  Sure, we'll see on Friday, but as of today, all sources still say "My Uncle's a Gas" including one section, the main LAS VEGAS section of NBC, say MUAG is the ep to be aired.  IrishLass 13:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * ARe you actually reading what I type? Because I don't think you are.  Forget Spoilerfix (who stated NBC as their SOURCE)  Since you won't do as I suggest and leave it blank, read this: http://www.nbc.com/Schedule/  NBC says "I Could Eat a Horse" is on tomorrow, so that's what I'm going with.
 * Robin, everyone including myself, Bignole, Paul, and I'm sure IrishLass, are reading what you write, it's that we have seen that you will not listen to directions, you will not do as Wikipedia says you should. One source verses four is not good enough for you to change the page.  You've been told these things by many people.  Wikipedia is not about your "feelings" it's about fact, verifiability, and reliability.  Wikipedia has rules, you would do well to abide by them.  You can "go with" what you want, doesn't mean it's what's going to happen.  And I'm the one that returned the eps, not IrishLass.  Pay attention to who you are arguing with. CelticGreen 01:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * All good things come to those that wait. As of this morning, NBC says My Uncle's a Gas!!  Life is good for those that listen and play by the rules.

Friday, November 16 8:00 PM 7:00 PM	Deal Or No Deal EPISODE 313 All New 9:00 PM 8:00 PM Friday Night Lights PANTHERAMA! All New HDTV 10:00 PM 9:00 PM	Las Vegas MY UNCLE'S A GAS All New HDTV 11:34 PM 10:34 PM	The Tonight Show With Jay Leno 3420 - SETH ROGEN, JULES SYLVESTER, HOT HOT HEAT HDTV 12:37 AM 11:37 PM	Late Night with Conan O'Brien 2471 - MARY-KATE OLSEN, WAYNE BRADY, LYLE LOVETT HDTV 1:36 AM 12:36 AM	Last Call with Carson Daly 832 - LESLIE BIBB, HURRICANE CHRIS
 * Totally worth messing my talk page upIrishLass 16:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes it was. I kept saying "NBC" and you kept repeating "Spoilerfix is not reliable".  I e-mailed them about the episodes and they told me it was information straight from NBC, so you should stop pointing the finger at them and instead point it at NBC.  They've messed up "My Name is Earl" a few times as well this season.  I checked NBC since everyone hear "claims" that Spoilefix isn't reliable, even though I still don't know why. Robinepowell (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Why don't you leave people alone, Robin, you were wrong. You kept saying NBC's schedule and were informed that NBC also said My Uncle's a Gas, along with three other sites said MUAG.  You were wrong, spoilerfix was wrong which you DID try and use to back up your section of NBC.  You're a menace; leave people alone.  And stop messing up their pages.  If you don't know how to format a reply, don't bother replying.  And leave IrishLass alone over this.  It's done, it's over, you were wrong. CelticGreen (talk) 14:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to get you to move on from Spoilefix. They were wrong because NBC gave them wrong information.  Stop bashing the site.  I STOPPED saying Spolefix, long before the last new episode aired on NBC.  I kept saying NBC's WEEKLY SCHEDULE said "MUAC" wasn't on but another episode.  Can I help it if NBC has a mixed schedule lately?  They of all people should know their schedule but apparently don't.


 * Now that said, how is that vandalizing someone's page? Robinepowell (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 01:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Robinepowell (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Robinepowell (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you get that you aren't replying to IrishLass and that she hasn't said a word in a week? You are a pain. CelticGreen (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Charmed character box
I assume you are referring to Infobox Charmed Character. If so, I'm not sure about what you mean regarding it being bigger than other infoboxes...wider?...longer? Doesn't quite seem that way to me. Zythe originally created it, but that doesn't mean anything. If there are concerns, let me know and I'll try to exact a fix. -- Huntster  T • @ • C 23:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My concern is it is very big compared to other infoboxes. It is the only one that takes up a quarter to a third of my screen when I open a page.  I mostly work with soap and the box for soaps and other fictional characters is much thiner, not so wide, left to right.  I just wondered if there was a page for discussion.  I have a "healthy" size screen and it's relatively huge on this screen.  Just trying to contribute. IrishLass 14:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Example here where you can see the difference: Infobox soap character.  You'll see it's not as wide and fits comfortably on the page. IrishLass 14:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ashley Abbott infobox
Hi! I just noticed on the Ashley Abbott article some recent changes, and I noticed the comment about the infobox being implemented incorrectly. I'm just wondering, I've been implementing them on all The Young and the Restless characters since joining using TAnthony's template. What was done incorrectly so that I can resolve the problem on the other articles? Thank you. —Evaglow 01:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think perhaps IrishLass believes the parameters need to be in the "order" that appears on the template page to display correctly? But no matter the order they are listed in the coding, they will display the correct way in the box. However, I agree it would probably be helpful to future editors to update the article if the parameters were in something close to a standardized order. &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 03:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't order, as I explained to Evaglow, it's that the Family field in a regular character infobox conflicts with the soap character box. Nothing about order, just actual fields.  I had the same freak out.  In the old box the family field included everyone.  In the current soapbox family is separate by parents, siblings, et al.  The only field it doesn't have that I wish it had was a "niece/nephew field", I put those under other relatives.  CelticGreen 03:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The Family field doesn't conflict, it just lists last in the box; I designed it this way so info in the old box would still display until it could be split up properly. I was going to add nieces/nephews but I think it makes the box too wide. &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 05:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So TAnthony has joined our group of "snoops" ~ I love it!! Actually, IMO it does conflict.  Which I think I've said before.  I never just add "soaps" to the already existing box because IMO it sets it up to not work the way the soap infobox has been designed to work.  So if it doesn't work, to me that's conflicting.  Here's how I think the boxes should work, when you implement them, all the fields should show up so you can fill them in, but it doesn't work that way so I copy and paste.  The only thing it does when you add soap is make it look like it's going to work but you have a bigger mess to fix than if you just copy and paste the new box.  That's my preferred method.  It's how I told CelticGreen to do it when she asked, it's how I tell everyone to do it.  Adding the word soap, as you know TAnthony, is definitely not my preferred method.  Personally, I agree it "conflicts."  And thanks everyone for working this out.  I hate living where there isn't a strong enough satelite signal to work my laptop. And I do know that order isn't the issue, you could put the fiels in any order and they'll show in the order predesignated by the infobox.  I did know that.  Irish Lass 13:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Your comment
Hi. I am sorry you feel that I violated your trust. I did not mean to do so. I was merely trying to make a point and your comments helped me make it. Further, the comments on my talk page are pretty much public to the whole wide world and anyone at all can see them. If you wanted something private, you could have emailed me. I mean, all these articles and comments ARE public. I really did appreciate your help and would like it in the future. Your choice of course. I did not mean to offend you in any way. I merely meant to make a point regarding wikipedia articles in general. -- Char leen mer ced  Talk  21:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

car5ly858
she one of my friends. I want to make sure that she's okay. she's was trying to help. her life is getting very hard because of her family. why are you getting involed than? are you montering her site too? --Alexis3453 (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Grant Chuggle
No Irishlass I think that you are the one that needs to stop harassing people. YOU DO NOT OWN WIKIPEDIA. By the way don't you ever work. Or are you just an old middle aged woman who is obsessed with Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.73.254 (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Next time, kindly format your comments correctly and sign your messages. Thank you. IrishLass (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the sprit Irishlass. Don't you feel much better now that you said "kindly" and "thank you". You see it is not so difficult to treat others with respect 41.241.73.254 (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's sarcasm, not respect. Stay off my page, you are a banned user who has no business making any edits or comments to people. IrishLass (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, know and you were doing so well Irishlass. Oh well some people are slow learners. But at least you are honest enough to admit that you have zero respect for other editors. I admire that honesty. 41.241.73.254 (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I have no respect for someone who uses sockpuppets to constantly evade a block he knows he's not supposed to be evading. I respect other editors, I just don't respect vandals. IrishLass (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

41.241.73.254 now blocked for 24 hours for harassment. Tonywalton Talk 14:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm going to archive this mess so I can move on.  IrishLass (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * An' it harm not Wikipedia, do as thou wilt &#9786; Tonywalton Talk 14:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Kristen Renton Days Status
Oh, I am terribly sorry. Well, the information has officially been sourced on dayscafe.com. Kristen Renton (Morgan Hollingsworth) is an OFFICIAL contract actress on Days of our Lives. Thank you so very very much!71.255.62.199 20:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad I was sitting in a low chair when I read this. Dayscafe.com is the single worst source for reliable information on the internet.  NO, it is not official.  Soap Opera Weekly, NBC, Sony, or Soap Opera Digest are all that pass for reliable.  Everyone has a contract of some sort, it's a matter of status and you have no verifiable information regarding that status. IrishLass 20:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever, I don't care to read your sarcastic posts any longer.71.255.62.199 20:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Who cares what its called, posts or not, don't bash me with your sarcastic POSTS anymore! And if you have anything more to say to me, please take it over to the discussion board, not my user page. Thank you so very very much. 71.255.62.199 20:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No one is bashing you. Please do not behave in an uncivil manner or leave such messages on talk pages.  Talk pages are for constructive instruction, not childish behavior such as this. IrishLass 21:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well hello there IrishLass. Listen, don't ever remove a discussion from someone's discussion page again. You know who I am. I am 71.255.62.199, with an account. Try harassing me now. Also, get a life and stop acting so childish, immature, sarcastic, rude, and as if you own the wikipedia. Thank you so very much. I look forward to doing this again sometime.BetterThanIrishLass (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good! I seriously don't care! Thanks for all the wasted time!BetterThanIrishLass (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You
How is you and other wikians say to ask questions etc... and when I do it's "rambling". I find that find when you go and say things like "OH MY GOD".

You're the one rambling on and on about Spoilerfix, not me. ;-) Robinepowell (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You really need to stop harassing people. IrishLass (talk) 14:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Percentages and CelticGreen.
While I can agree that the contribution was less civil than it should have been, this was not really the intention. There really is a serious gap in his understanding of the concept of percentages. And this is a serious problem if he works with percentages daily. My message was not left to cause problems, although I agree that the message could have been unwritten.

"FYI, to factor a percentage is easy. You take the lower number and divide it by the higher number." This is wrong, for two reasons. First the method given gives the proportion, not the percentage. To obtain the percentage you also need to multiply by 100. Per Percentage;
 * "For example, 45% (read as "forty-five percent") is equal to 45 / 100, or 0.45"
 * "For example, an increase of $ 0.15 on a price of $ 2.50 is an increase by a fraction of 0.15 / 2.50 = 0.06. Expressed as a percentage, this is therefore a 6% increase."

Secondly, it's not necesarrily the lower number divided by the higher. If a price rises from 100 to 200 that's a 200% rise. Taemyr (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the laugh and continuing to incite problems. Your calculations are misguided, but that's fine.  My suggestions were to stop causing problems.  I see that is not your goal.  Sigh!!  Moving on. IrishLass (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OMG I can't believe you actually tried to use Wikipedia as a source to your argument. That's funny. You know you can't do that, right?IrishLass (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I was trying to show a point. 10/10=1, but 10 is not 1% of 10, its 100%. And yes, when wikipedia I refer to wikipedia when discussing things with wikipedians.  If you think wikipedia is wrong I suggest you fix it.Taemyr (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You are obviously here to cause problems. I'm closing this by archiving it. IrishLass (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:
I wasn't telling someone i "think" they're wrong, I was pointing out a mathematical error and doing so in a civil way. And what business is it of yours? —Random832 15:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand what talk pages are for, or what the civility guideline actually says.—Random832 15:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to go away now or I'll actually say what I'm thinking of what type of human you are not. IrishLass (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. —Random832 16:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Passions supercouples
Hey, on the Supercouple talk page, as you've probably noticed, there's been past talk of whether or not to include Ethan and Theresa and Luis and Sheridan on the main soap opera supercouples list. It was talk of the fact that Luis and Sheridan shouldn't be on the main soap opera supercoupes list because Ethan and Theresa are more popular than them, but I also remember talk in the edit summary of the Supercouple article that both couples are supercouples due to how Passions treats them and their popularity. This is also why that mention of how they are supercouples by Passions standards was added to the Supercouples today section of the Supercouple article. Do you have a pretty good idea on which of these two couples is more popular? What do you think of this matter as a whole? Should either be titled a supercouple? Should either or both go on the main soap opera supercouples list? I'm mainly asking you this because, having seen you edit Passions-related articles, I know that you are more familiar with these two couples than I am. Viper10803 titled Ethan and Theresa as the signature supercouple on Passions, in their article, and I want to know your feelings on that matter as well. Flyer22 (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * IMO neither couple is a true supercouple. A true supercouple, i.e. Luke and Laura, John and Marlena, Bo and Hope, can't be broken up and gain large fan bases.  Ethan and Theresa both have fan bases that want them with other people.  Therox fans wanted Theresa and Fox when Justin Hartley was still Fox Crane.  Ethan has a large fanbase that wants him with Gwen.  And truth be told, they've really rarely been a couple.  Ethan's been married to Gwen for a majority share of the running time of the show.  Supercouple?  No.  They've never even been legally married.  As for Luis and SheriDONE, they are in the same position.  They were together years ago, but for a lot of fans, they are pretty much over and done.  Right now Sheridan is a stalker and after Luis rather than the two of them fighting to be with each other.  There is a large following that wants Luis with Fancy, including Galen's wife.  It's the same reason Lucas and Sami aren't a supercouple.  There's never been full support of their relationship.  There have always been people who want Sami with someone else...Austin, Brandon, EJ, etc.  A supercouple endures all.  Bo and Hope, Kayla and Steve, nothing has kept them apart (when their respective portrayers have been on the show).  The audience has never been truly swayed to accept the individuals in the pair to be with someone else.  Against all odds, they go back to each other time and again.  Most of the time Passions has been on, Ethan has been rejecting Theresa and she's been chasing him.  Sheridan married another man and Luis moved on.  That's not supercouple, that's super over.  Ethan and Theresa may be a signature COUPLE, but there's no super involved by definition.  Hope that helps.  Maybe I'll copy this over to the talk page. IrishLass (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all that information, IrishLass. Have I mentioned how much I love you? Anyway, yes, you should probably copy and paste this to the Supercouple talk page. I'll probably add something to the top of that talk page soon about supercouple criteria, then I'll later use what you stated as an example as well. Also, we should move the super part from both of these couples introductions in their articles, which I'll go do right now. Flyer22 (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! I put it in a section on the talk page.  It's right below me telling off that person that thought you had TMI on gay and lesbian couples.  Did I mention how much that pissed me off yesterday?  I so hate prejudice from people that hide behind an IP address. Glad I could help!18:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL. Thanks again. Flyer22 (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, yes, we've talked about whether or not to list the above Passions couples on the main soap opera supercouples list, but don't you think that since Eve and Julian are listed there now, the other two couples should be listed there as well? From what I've heard (or rather read), those two couples are the most popular couples on Passions. I mean, I don't even watch Passions (though I have watched a little, but not much) and even I know of those two couples. The Supercouple article alludes to them being the two most popular couples on Passions as well. I'm pointing out that it looks a little off to not have them listed up there on the main soap opera supercouples list with Eve and Julian, given all of this. While they may not be true and blue supercouples, the Supercouple article suggests (or rather outright says) that by Passions standards, they are. Flyer22 (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I admit, I added Eve and Julian because of that one article that named them specifically a supercouple. Eve and Julian were at least written as having a long history.  Theresa and Ethan are barely a couple, although I suspect before the show goes off air permanently they will be one.  If you put Sheridan and Luis, you'd have to put an end date of a couple of years ago since they haven't been together.  I only put E&J because of the one source.  If sources can be found, I guess you could move the other two.  Tough call to be honest.  I wouldn't but if you've got sources, then you have legitimate backing to move them.  My issue is, now, that for soap couples, not that you would have to list two sources, but there should be a couple of sources per soap couple because there is bias out there.  IrishLass (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. And Luis and Sheridan aren't together romantic-wise at this time? Well, we need to fix their listing in the Notable wave section, since it says that they are currently together. Whichever section we have them in, their Years of reign listing should be correct. Flyer22 (talk) 03:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Currently Sheridan is stalking Luis so, NO, not romantic. She married another guy, Chris, two years ago and they haven't been together since.  I would put 1999-2005.  Luis left the show for a while in 2005 and when he came back Sheridan was married to Chris.  Since then she's been married, he's been with others, and when Chris died/left she started stalking Luis.  So they really aren't a couple at all right now.  IrishLass (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Alex Olanov
Thanks for that copyright catch with Alex Olanov; your friend Car5ly858 did it! &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 17:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I know and I wanted her to get a warning for it. I just put a deletion tag on it instead.  There's no reason for the article to really exist. IrishLass (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Grant Chuggle IP
I blocked it. It's plain from the editing and the IP address pattern that this is the same user. I agree he hasn't been malicious with this IP but that doesn't make endless block evasion okay. Mango juice talk 16:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I re-blocked that IP for a week. The thing is, there's no point indef-blocking these IPs as it's clear that Grant gets a new IP address every few days.  I've opened a thread at WP:ANI about the possibility of a rangeblock, which would give us some real respite.  Mango juice talk 14:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
You say their is a discussion going on. Do you mean the debate on the delete the list of creatures from Primeval page or is their some other discussion going on elsewhere? Nubula (talk) 13:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Compromise discussion
I am reluctant to post over at the Village Pump (Policy), so I'll just say it here, since you seem to be in a compromising mood. As you may have noticed, the upshot of the discussion is that my reliable-source tags are legit, but the sudden concentration of tags on one category are alarming to people with less Wikipedia experience. As a result, I suggested I take a break from any reliable-sources tagging for period of time, to allow for an assessment of the efficacy of the reliable-source tags. I am currently taking this break. If or when I start tagging again, I will make certain changes.
 * I will explain better what I am doing in the edit summary, and perhaps on the talk pages.
 * I will avoid blitzing categories for specific shows, and instead use categories like Category:Fictional character stubs which will spread out the effect somewhat. Besides, as stubs, they hold less "value" to concerned editors, right?
 * Unless somebody begins to "stalk" my edits and undo all my tags, I won't retag any articles. Since stalking somebody's edits will get editors banned from Wikipedia, I reserve my right to file a report with the Admins if such behavior occurs.
 * When I'm not tagging, I will make non-tagging contributions. I would do this anyway, but I would ask that they be taken into consideration should somebody complain that all I am doing is reliable-source tagging.

How's that sound? AnteaterZot (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a great idea. Yes, you are correct about the stubs being less contentious, although I would have to say that tagging a stub is redundant -- almost by definition stubs do not have references.  By the way, my apologies if I was "uncivil" - I was indeed in high dudgeon.  In any case, thanks for your consideration, Madman (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Making a change on a stub is a way to discover if it has been forgotten about. I don't mind people expressing themselves, so don't sweat it. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll say here some of what I'm going to say over there. Compromise is good.  I was looking at the ever talked about Edith Bunker article and the original tag has caused almost more harm than good.  Now it's been tagged, untagged, retagged, tagged differently, tag disputed, and is going round and round.  This was, of course, a concern.  But at this moment my main concern was the level of rude and uncivil comments occurring so I've asked that that discussion be closed to further comment.  With that said, let's talk compromise.
 * The blitz is definitely what is causing issue. People see 100 articles move up on their watch list with the exact same edit summary within minutes, it tends to "freak them out" a bit.  It can also piss some people off.  My second concern, and it's not just about you, is the way in which people are Googling.  This example  in the Ava and Olivia White AfD is a prime example of how to purposefully narrow your search so that you get no hits.  There are many ways to Google search, more than one extremely limited search should be performed.  In the case of Ava and Olivia, the article puts them together and they should be Googled as such.  This was not done and the article was erroneously nominated.
 * Working on the stubs is good, but then again, they are already tagged as stubs. Maybe go to the start articles instead.  If they qualify as start, they should have references.  That's probably a better place to start.
 * Make this less about an experiment and work toward an actual goal and don't appear to be targeting only fiction. That's got a lot of people upset.  Personally, I find the golden rule for me to be if it didn't originate in the country I'm from, I leave it alone.  I would never touch and East Enders article because I just don't know.  I think Wikipedia forces those from other countries away with our rapid deletion of things from other countries.  I have seen it a few times.  Stick with what you know and go from there.  That's the thoughts for now.  I'm sure I'll come up with more. IrishLass (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me add my two cents here: don't tag stubs. Stubs need improvement of all sorts and it is always clear this is the case, there is no need to mark them up for specific concerns.  That only really makes sense on an otherwise good article with specific problems.  Mango juice talk 17:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll be careful. I'm off doing other stuff for a while. If I don't tag stubs later, I might—might—find another, more selective way to search for articles that results in a more diffuse tagging. By they way, I don't only go after fiction, I'm looking at concert tours, elementary schools and genes (for genes, see User talk:AndrewGNF). AnteaterZot (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't want to creep you out....but
You need to see this. It's usually me who makes the enemies. CelticGreen (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Note on AWB
Given the amount of editing you do, you might want to look into AWB yourself. It's a very valuable tool for maintaining articles.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Requested, we'll see if I use it.IrishLass (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Article content on talk pages
Just so you are aware, Template:2ndchance is occasionally offered to blocked users and requests that they copy content to their user talk page. It's not used very often but if extended, we would permit an article and even, very temporarily, fair-use images (or at least, would not consider this a deliberate violation of WP:IUP), on the user talk page until the unblock request had been reviewed. --Yamla (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. He's been in trouble several SEVERAL (emphasis) times for evading his block again and again and again with a new account and then by IP address.  Most I wouldn't come down on, but Grant has more than proven he is not worthy of trust.  I would likely never say to 99.9% of the editors here what I said to Grant, but he's proven AGF is not possible.  Thanks for the note. IrishLass (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeap, I think I was the last admin to block him. And nobody has extended that template to him, so you were well within your rights to remove the content which had nothing to do with an unblock request.  --Yamla (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good to know. Thank you again.  Always good to learn new things.  IrishLass (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Olive branch
"and for being a good person"


 * Good person? Me? BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAaaa... Err, excuse me. Sorry about that. :-)
 * In any case, no need to withdraw your request: just because you won't be using it for a while doesn't mean you shouldn't be approved so you don't have to wait when you do need it. And feel free to start off with a run through my contribution history, just so you can see what happens. :-)--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 17:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Returned the favor
You had a personal attack on your page (warning was issued by another editor). It's in your edit history but I removed it since it was an outright personal attack. KellyAna (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox television
That's not a guideline, that's a year old discussion between three users. Jorja Fox is no longer a main character and all you will gain by adding her to the infobox will be to edit war with anons until she's back. I actually think they should all be removed from the infobox (see FA Lost (tv series)), but hey, if you want to add her, go for it.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 19:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The fiction being in present tense IS a guideline. The additional information is what is considered a consensus when you don't have opponents to it.  It is not an archived discussion and it is relevant to the infoboxes.  Unless there is a policy you can find that shows fiction is not in present tense, then she should be there just as all starring characters are there for other shows and certainly for shows no longer on the air.  Present tense is key with fiction.  IrishLass (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see why this should be discussed here and not in Talk:CSI: Crime Scene Investigation.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 20:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Because I was addressing your revert, not the fact that the article tense is a huge mess. IrishLass (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I told you on my first comment that if you wanted to add Fox to the list i wouldn't fight you for it. You chose to keep on discussing so in total good faith i thought why not invite all the other CSI editors and have more opinions that could also benefit other articles.
 * It was NOT ok calling me problematic just because i wanted to have some other opinions on this matter, besides, talk pages are not private you know. Suit yourself, add Fox, or don't, that changes nothing really, the only thing i want is to improve the article in real ways. If you feel that this is worth an edit war with anons that won't even notice when you point out that old discussion, be my guest.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 20:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But I didn't call you problematic, I called what you did problematic. You moved comments from my talk page to an article talk page with no consideration of my feelings.  And the manner in which you did it, making it appear as though I started the conversation there when I clearly did not and using my signatured comments is further an issue.  I contacted you as a courtesy because I reverted your revert, that's all.  IrishLass (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Jorja Fox should not be in the infobox, as she is a former star. The info box should going contain current stars of the show. If the show were to go off air, or stop making new episodes, then you would name ALL stars former and current. Other shows, such as ER, Law and Order series, Grey's Anotomy, Brothers and Sister and much more only contain current stars. There is no mention of former stars in their infobox. Irishlass, this follows our dispute with the Las Vegas infobox dispute. As you can see, your the only one under this "present tense' theory. User:DJS24 (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't see the issues you were having. I addressed it sort of, but then again.  It's a Donna and you know what that means. Have a good one!!KellyAna (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Easily taken care of. IrishLass (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I know, but it's almost the exact same problem. --Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 14:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless, it doesn't belong there. IrishLass (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not? i don't think that user is wrong and since you don't want this taken to CSI's talk page i might as well discuss it over there. Go and ask an admin, i can participate in any discussion i like. --Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 14:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Take her flippen name out ~ I DON'T CARE!!! But I do think butting in on something and causing more issues than before, including leveling false accusations, is a problem.IrishLass (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you think people are accusing you of but I commented out of good faith because I was asked to. I didn't accuse you of anything, if you read my post. Redfarmer (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Redfarmer, not you. I've been accused of "stalking" the CSI page because it's on my watchlist with the thought indicated that I'm watching it "to add her name back in the minute it's removed."  False, I put every page I edit on my watchlist so I remember what I've edited.  I've been accused of forcing Jorja's name into the CSI box.  I've been accused of being the only one who wants the complete cast of Las Vegas in the infobox.  The liteny goes on.  KellyAna's been accused of getting someone blocked because they were reverting and re-reverting and being a general menace.  So you, Redfarmer, did nothing.  Thank you. IrishLass (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, i never used the word "stalk" nor i thought i had implied it.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 14:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You did, however, indicate I was watching it for the sole purpose of changing it if my change was reverted. The worst part of all of this is Redfarmer had nothing to do with it and got caught up for no reason.  I feel bad for him. IrishLass (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You've been Warned
I've posted an alert for your name, please addressed at the following site.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts. Mangojuice, I thank You for stepping into the issue, someone needed to. Best Regards CARS! --CarsGm5 (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)