User talk:AusSoaps

Bold and the Beautiful edits by Network Ten
Network Ten is the reliable source. I have had conversations (verbal and written) with them regarding the edits. They admit to the editing. Also view any episode on Ten, you will see the opening and closing credits are cut,. Compare Ten's episodes to the episodes uploaded on the official The Bold and the Beautiful' YouTube page and you will see Ten's scissors are working in overdrive. I think the paragraph is relevant in the article, I think you should not remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boldtalk (talk • contribs) 23:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm not sure what I need to do to get the required citations, could you perhaps assist obtaining what is needed? Whatever is required to have the paragraph remain, because I do think it is relevant to have people informed on how Network Ten mistreats the show. Do you watch the show by the way? Thanks Boldtalk (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, thanks for the response. I will give you the back story to the 'timing' edits. Note these timing edits are separate to the classification edits. Every single episode since 23 February 2012 has been editied to remove the credits. The start and end point of scenes are also trimmed back (latest example, last Friday's episode had about 10seconds trimmed after coming out of an Ad break - the cut dialogue wasn't a classification issue as I viewed the US broadcast to do a comparison to Ten's broadcast). Since said date above, Ten has not allowed episodes run longer than 20½ minutes (for reference you can find the duration listed beside each episode on Ten's website http://tenplay.com.au/channel-ten/the-bold-and-the-beautiful/episodes ). Previous to the date mentioned above episodes would have run to their true original runtime (usually around 22mins), only classification edits would be applied. Why did the unnecessary 'timing' edits start on said date I hear you ask, well, that was the date the failed 'Breakfast' show debuted which resulted in the children's programming being moved into the 4pm timeslot immediately before B&B. How did this change affect B&B I hear you ask, well, prior to the children's programming going into the 4pm slot it was vacated by cooking shows and B&B would have always started around 4.27pm or 4.28pm. However ACMA law states C classification programming (children's) must fill the full half hour, therefore Ten could no longer get away with starting B&B those 2 or 3mins before 4.30pm - hence why the timing edits commenced. However, the children's programming was moved permanently to Eleven in November 2013 and the cooking shows returned to the 4pm timeslot, B&B also began commencing at 4.28pm or 4.29pm again, but to date the timing edits still continue. It's as though someone has forgotten to tell the editing people at Ten there is no longer a need to do the timing edits now that the children's programming is no longer an issue. I have spoken to Ten programming dept. about 3 times and they insist the editing team do not edit for timing whatsoever, they claim: "the editing guys only insert the ad points and do classification edits if required". I feel like banging my head against a wall as it's very frustrating that we see the blatent editing onscreen, yet Ten dont appear to know what the left and right hand is doing. I feel I need to draw them a picture to explain. I'm not sure if the programming dept are covering up the editing, or they are simply not aware what the editing team is doing. If you feel like throwing your weight behind this issue and perhaps contacting Ten (Sydney) that would be good - the more who point out the problem, the more chances we have of getting this issue resolved. To get back to your question around what episodes Ten have aired which support the paragraph, well it's been every single episodes since Feb 2012. How could we cite that? Days of our lives fan...you must be happy it's back on Australian TV then :-) Sorry for the long message. Cheers Boldtalk (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on how to add citations. I've added the paragraph back into the article with your suggested citation formatting. Please let me know if I've done anything incorrectly. Happy for you to make edits if I've made errors. Cheers mate. Boldtalk (talk) 09:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Kristen DiMera
I cannot thank you enough for your work on the Kristen DiMera page!!! It's been confirmed that Susan Banks, Kristen's doppelganger from back in the day, will be returning Friday, 26 September 2014. All the info on Susan's page was deleted a few years ago. Can you help in some way giving it a brief summary of the character's story? I'm already trying to work on it a bit myself. I don't want to do anything too long, too involved, but just something so that the people who see her on-screen for the first time will know who she is. I'm not saying that it has to be posted in two weeks, or anything. Kristen is on until November anyway. People will want to go back and try to find Susan's story when she's mentioned again in Kristen's 2014 story summary. Susan hasn't been properly on in 16 years! Anyway, again, thanks for all your hard work!!! Cheers! Partyclams (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Partyclams, I'm happy to help with the Kristen article. I don't know Susan Banks' storylines because I didn't watch the show back then. But I might help out with her 2014 storylines once she returns. Take care. AusSoaps (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Redirects
Hi. Just a quick note to say that there was no need to "fix" this link – – as it redirects to the right page. I am probably guilty of "fixing" a few redirects in my time too, but WP:NOTBROKEN is a useful read. - JuneGloom07    Talk  14:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Toadfish Rebecchi
Hello,

Please be careful when doing reverts. Your reversion here inserted vandalism into the article. Any questions, feel free to ask.--5 albert square (talk) 23:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, I was supposed to revert this but it stuffed up. Vandals are so annoying. AusSoaps (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Stonefish
Have you got an issue number and/or page number for this ref ? - JuneGloom07    Talk  01:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I knew I forgot something. It's been a while since I used cite journal. AusSoaps (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The template has changed a bit, you no longer need to add the accessdate either (it won't show up if you do). Now I've seen what the issue was, I just realised that I've messed up the numbers for other TWSE sources. It reset to 1 in January, while I just continued adding up. So I thought 3–16 Sept was Issue 30, not 19. Doh! That'll teach me for not looking closely. - JuneGloom07    Talk  01:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Just going to put this here. Do you think it's worth asking for Summer Bay to be protected because of this editor ? - JuneGloom07    Talk  01:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it needs to be protected yet. It's only 1 IP user. We can handle 1 IP lol. AusSoaps (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

H&A
The episode on the 2000 eps Video is misadvertised as first-ever ep. I own it and it's the first half hour episode not the pilot. Conquistador2k6 6 September 2015 14:11 (UTC)
 * You're right. The Amazon source doesn't mention the pilot is the first episode and the Back to the Bay fansite says the video includes the first 30-minute episode. I thought the pilot was first episode. AusSoaps (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2014 TV Week Cover.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:2014 TV Week Cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Soap operas in Australia
Template:Soap operas in Australia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2016 TV Week Cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:2016 TV Week Cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:2014 TV Week Soap Extra Cover.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:2014 TV Week Soap Extra Cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)