User talk:Amyanda2000

Guiding Light: Can anyone help?
I am a lifelong fan of Guiding Light. I was dismayed that their were so very few articles about the Bauer Family and Rick Bauer (Dr. Fredrick "Rick" Bauer") so I created them. However, now thay are tagged for deletion because notability has not been established. Perhaps somebody with more time and resources than me can establish nobability and save these articles. If the Bauer's are not notable, how can any soap character be notable? They were created to be the premiere family to the first soap and longest running program in broadcast history. I know that Guiding Light is strugging right now, but it is a show with a glorious history- the forerunner to the genre. Please help if you can! amyanda (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Matth e w UND (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Current Project: Beth Raines from Guiding Light
Part of wikiproject: soap operas - Trying to make this a good article, establishing notability for this long time Guiding Light character, and make a well rounded character with both a proper character history AND attention to other sections of the article. I spent a lot of time trying to build this up, and I know it still needs a lot of work. I would really appreciate some participation both on the article and the talk page. I'm feeling kind of lonely and I know I can't do this on my own. 208.53.116.182 (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)amyanda2000
 * Beth Spaulding Bauer
 * see my user page for more info
 * feel free to discuss here

Jennifer Rhodes
I added an entry to Talk:Jennifer Rhodes that you may want to respond to. &mdash; ApolloCreed (comment) (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

re: talk page
Well, you found my talk page. ;) Welcome to Wikipedia! I'd be happy to help you with any questions you have. You can edit my talk page or yours, and we'll have a little conversation. :) (I've replied on both your talk page and mine, by the way, to make sure you see my answer.) Hbackman 06:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been very active in editing in quite some time. I am sorry because I'm having a hard time remembering how this convo started. Can you refresh my memory?

Five Pillars
Some Wikipedians believe that all of Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines are based on five pillars that define Wikipedia's character:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, a collection of primary source documents, a soapbox, a newspaper, a free host, a webspace provider, a series of vanity articles, a memorial collection, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a grouping of links (whether internal or external). It is also not the place to insert your own opinions, experiences, or arguments — all editors must follow our no original research policy. All editors must strive for accuracy. Wikipedia uses the neutral point-of-view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view." It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises as to which version is the most neutral, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed; hammer out details on the talk page and follow dispute resolution. Wikipedia is free content, so all text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and may be distributed or linked accordingly. Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community. Do not submit copyright infringements or works licensed in a way incompatible with the GFDL. Wikipedia follows the writers' rules of engagement: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations. Stay cool when the editing gets hot; avoid lame edit wars by following the three-revert rule; remember that there are 1,128,610 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith by never disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume that others do the same in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary. Don't use sockpuppets to do wrong or circumvent policy. Be open, welcoming, and inclusive. Wikipedia doesn't have firm rules besides the five general principles elucidated here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles, because the joy of editing is that although it should be aimed for, perfection isn't required. And don't worry about messing up. All prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content. But remember — whatever you write here may be preserved for posterity.

German Wiki
German Wiki

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:L%C3%B6schkandidaten/24._September_2006#Kategorie:Wikipedian_unterst.C3.BCtzt_Lesben-_und_Schwulenbewegung_.28gel.C3.B6scht.29

Some people try to delete category:Wikipedian support gay community: please help GLGerman 14:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies
Hello! I noticed that your userpage mentions that you are interested in LGBT issues. Would you be interested in joining WikiProject LGBT studies? The WikiProject's been a bit inactive recently and some of us are trying to get it going again. We'd love to have you on board! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

On Cupid
I'd say BE BOLD and start working on the article in your user space (if you need help, just ask me :)) and we'll see if we can move it into the wiki. CaveatLectorTalk 19:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

To start an article in your namespace, you would edit it under User:Amyanda2000/(name)  so you'd create the page User:Amyanda2000/Cupid (holiday character) and then edit it up there before moving it to Cupid (holiday character). Hope this helps :) CaveatLectorTalk 19:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello ^_^


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hey! I was just wandering around, and dropped in to leave a note. Have a wonderful day! Saber girl08 01:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Tough Titty: An article that never had a chance.
"Tough Titty" is a phrase used to convey refusal to a request; condolences for a person in unfortunate circumstances; or most commonly, to quiet someone who is beginning to complain.

For example, "I don't feel like writing the article about 'tough titty.'" A nearby acquaintance may aptly respond, "tough titty."

In a different context: "I need to go home this weekend because my great grandmother died." Response: "Tough titty." (Note that tough titty would not be an appropriate response for the death of a relative any closer than a great grandmother.)

And in the first mentioned context: "Hey, big O, you want to play beer pong at my place?" -"Yeah sure." -"Tough titty. You're not allowed over."

The phrase is said, by some, to originate from the saying, "'Tough titty,' said the kitty, 'but the milk's still good,'" notably said by the infamous Robert Doob in the film Eye for an Eye.[1]

"Tough Titty" was exclaimed in the cartoon show, The Boondocks, by Ed Wuncler in the episode where he "kidnaps the wrong kid." It goes: Ed- "That's your only freebie. You want me to kidnap anybody else, you payin' top dollar." Reilly- "That's not fair you grabbed the wrong kid." Ed- "Tough Titty." [2]

Tough titty is synonymous with phrases such as "too bad," "tough shit," or "tough luck." However, it is much funnier than most alternatives.

AfD nomination of List of lakes in Michigan
An editor has nominated List of lakes in Michigan, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. 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 "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 by adding your comments at and 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. Thank you. Marcusmax ( speak ) 03:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the things to learn is that articles need sources. See WP:V and WP:RS. Also, you can create and edit articles unmolested in your user space. Just create a link User:Amyanda2000/like this and edit away. When the article is ready for introduction into the encyclopedia, you can move it there. And as for being a deletionist - I am following the guidelines about what should and should not be in the encyclopedia. A list of 2 lakes for a state with numerous great lakes looked like less than a half-hearted start. If you have much to contribute, and I truly hope that you do, when you start such an article, do so in user space until you have the time and expend the effort to muster a little more content or you can expect someone to nominate it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the advice which is usefull and helpful but not manditory. Here is a quote from "Ignore all Rules"

You do not need to read any rules before contributing to Wikipedia. If you do what seems sensible, it will usually be right, and if it's not right, don't worry. Even the worst mistakes are easy to correct: older versions of a page remain in the revision history and can be restored. If we disagree with your changes, we'll talk about it thoughtfully and politely, and we'll figure out what to do. So don't worry. Be bold, and enjoy helping to build this free encyclopedia.


 * You are not required to learn the rules before contributing. Yes, we already said that, but it is worth repeating.
 * Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit. (See also Wikipedia:Use common sense.)
 * Rules derive their power to compel not from being written down on a page labeled "guideline" or "policy", but from being a reflection of the shared opinions and practices of many editors. (See also Wikipedia:Consensus.)
 * Most rules are ultimately descriptive, not prescriptive; they describe existing current practice. They sometimes lag behind the practices they describe. (See also Wikipedia:Product, process, policy.)
 * WikiLawyering doesn't work. Loopholes and technicalities do not exist on the Wiki. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; not moot court, nor nomic, nor Mao.
 * The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored. (See also Wikipedia:The rules are principles.)
 * Following the rules is less important than using good judgment and being thoughtful and considerate, always bearing in mind that good judgment is not displayed only by those who agree with you. (See also Wikipedia:Civility.)

Personally, I don't think that the spirit of the rule is to delete articles before they have a chance, or articles that are created as stubs or even articles that are created by inexperienced, clumsy, or even inept contributers. The ineptitude of the contributer does not automatically speak to the encyclopedic nature or lack thereof of an article created by said inept editor. (assume good faith) Perhaps my article was was less than half-heartedly started, and I did very little except get the ball rolling, but what a fantastic ball it has become! Other editors have done an excellent job with it. If I had put it in my sandbox until I had more complete information and sources, it might never have gotten going. As it was, other people had the sources and were able to contribute and improve the article vastly, with just the smallest push in the right direction. Since the deletion was snowballed, I would think that you could see that you where in too much of a hurry to delete at least one article because it was not (as yet) up to standard. As I said, wikipedia is a collaborative effort. In my view that means that we compensate for each others shortcomings. I guess we all chose the rules that we most value and follow. In my case, I chose Be Bold (the first one that I was introduced to upon coming here) and I believe in improving substandard articles rather than deleting them. amyanda (talk) 03:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced POV
Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. The content has been removed. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Ward3001 (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Ward3001 (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This webpage that you cited as a source has nothing about themes and symbols. Please do not add the information again without a proper source. Continuing to add it without a proper source is considered vandalism. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is the quote from the page:

"In this New York Times bestseller, a young girl's search for the truth about her mother leads her to three beekeeping sisters who take her into their mesmerizing world of bees and honey and of a mysterious Black Madonna. A novel about mothers and daughters and the women in our lives who become our true mothers. A story about the divine power of women and the transforming power of love."

Although the webpage does not explicitly use the words THEMES and SYMBOLS it states that this is what the book is about. A theme of a book is a larger idea expressed ("A novel about mothers and daughters... A story about the transforming power of love"). The quote also showes some of the symbols used to express the theme: bees, honey, Black Madonna.

It is not an incorrect summery to express and summerized this information as "themes and symbols". Personally, I think you are being overly pedantic, but would it prevent you from deleting the material if I changed the heading to "See Also"?

I have to admit, I am frustrated. It is not original reserch. It is not commentary. Saying "One of the themes of this story is motherhood using bees as symbolism" is another way of saying, "This is a story about motherhood and involving bees." Original reserch or commentary would be if I started writing about my own ideas of what the bees were symbols for. The fact that they were the tools that the author used to tell a story about motherhood is clear from the source. amyanda (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is synthesis of research to reach your own conclusions, also not allowed. If you find published reliable sources that discuss themes and symbols, you might be able to summarize that in the article. But you are taking a few bits and pieces of information and imposing your own interpretation. That, indeed, is original research. It's one thing for you to state that the author describes the book as being about "motherhood and involving bees". It's quite another thing for you to come to your own conclusion that the novel has "themes" or "symbols" of motherhood or bees; then it becomes your own conclusions. I also saw little or nothing about some of the "themes" or "symbols" you identified, making the stretch into your own interpretations even more pronounced. To state a book is "about" something is not equivalent to stating that those things are "themes" or "symbols". I could come up with a dozen or so different "themes and symbols". For example, I could use the fact that a jail is discussed at least twice in the book and then add my own interpretion that novel has a theme of "the atrocities of our penal system", but then I have stepped over the line into my own interpretion. Other editors might come up with hundreds more. If we allowed that the article would be nothing more than an overbloated list of "themes and symbols", all of it original or synthesized research. Now, if I find a reliable source that discusses how a theme in the novel relates to our penal system, then it might be appropriate to summarize that.
 * Sorry you're frustrated, but we have rules and guidelines. Wikipedia has no professional editorial oversight. It relies on editors to maintain its policies. Without that, this would not be an encyclopedia; it would be a huge mess of opinions. I have had to fight this battle many times on different articles. It is based on clear and unequivocal Wikipedia policy. If you disagree, I suggest that you raise the issues on the article's talk page, but don't add the information again without a clear consensus to do so, or with some solid, reliable sources that are unambiguous so that you don't add your own interpretations. For ideas on how to use published research to write about themes, look at articles identified as good articles on books or films. An example that comes to mind is Pulp Fiction (film); there are others. Ward3001 (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I could have used the word "subjects" instead of themes in order to eliminate confusion, however:

theme THēm/ noun 1. the subject of a talk, a piece of writing, a person's thoughts, or an exhibition; a topic. "the theme of the sermon was reverence" synonyms:	subject, topic, subject matter, matter, thesis, argument, text, burden, concern, thrust, message; More 2. amyanda (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)amyamda2000

Survey
Hi Amy!

I have put together a survey for female editors of Wikipedia (and related projects) in order to explore, in greater detail, women's experiences and roles within the Wikimedia movement. It'd be wonderful if you could participate!

It's an independent survey, done by me, as a fellow volunteer Wikimedian. It is not being done on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope you'll participate!

Just click this link to participate in this survey, via Google!

Any questions or concerns, feel free to email me or stop by my user talk page. Also, feel free to share this any other female Wikimedians you may know. It is in English, but any language Wikimedia participants are encouraged to participate. I appreciate your contributions - to the survey and to Wikipedia! Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Bauer family (Guiding Light) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bauer family (Guiding Light) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Bauer family (Guiding Light) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ava Peralta


The article Ava Peralta has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Fails WP:GNG."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)