User talk:Kelly Marie 0812/Archive 1

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you very much for your counter-vandalism help in identifying 's vandalism edits. I hope you like the place and decide to stay and become a Wikipedian. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, check out Questions, or ask your question on this page and then place help me before the question. Again, welcome! :) Noom  talk stalk 01:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you!

Hint for sourcing.
Hey Kelly, when sourcing for the "date" portion, don't use "April 24, 1999" for example, do "1999-08-24". Just because it keeps it uniform with the formatting of citings. Thanks!  Musicfreak7676  my talk page! 14:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay - thank you!! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Anytime! How's editing going, alright? And only do the shortened one for the "date" not "accessdate" I know it can be confusing!!!  Musicfreak7676  my talk page! 15:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been going well - it's been interesting reading these old articles! So the date the article was published would be the shorter date (1999-08-24) and the access date would be August 26, 2012? Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the date of the article that you list under "date" should be the shorter one, and the "accessdate" or the date you add the article under the site should be the longer one.  Musicfreak7676  my talk page! 15:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for your help! Feel free to send hints/corrections my way anytime. Take care! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's no problem Kelly. I'm happy you didn't take it as an insult or anything like that, etc.  Musicfreak7676  my talk page! 16:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "List of General Hospital cast members". Thank you! EarwigBot  operator /  talk  18:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
Hey Kelly, I'm glad you're helping to reach consensus at the Dispute Resolution noticeboard. I was just dropping by to give you a link to WP:RfC which gives an explanation of the process that Dmitrij D. Czarkoff is suggesting. If an RfC is started, I'd also recommend that the RfC be discussed at WT:NOT rather than at WP:SOAPS, as a clarification of policy might be required. Thanks, Noom  talk stalk 17:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link Noommos that was helpful to look through. Is that something I have to start or is it TheRedPenofDoom's responsibility to start it since they are the ones wanting the content removed? Thanks for your help! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See how the DR thread goes for now, and see if Redpen, Musicfreak or one of the volunteers have any more comments. A volunteer may close the thread as the dispute is over an extended set of articles. Noom  talk stalk 18:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A volunteer at DRN has opened an RfC here based on feedback from SGCM and myself and closed the Dispute Resolution noticeboard thread. The case is now a little broader than it was before, but the RfC will attract the attention of more editors to hopefully reach a decision. Noom  (t) (c) 17:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Noommos!!! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Jessie Brewer
File:Jessie Brewer General Hospital.jpg Took care of it for you ;-) We hope (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you!! Out of curiosity - is this something you do within Wiki or do you download, edit, and reupload? Thanks so much! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Since these are public domain photos, I upload at the Commons. Any non-free photos must be uploaded here, as there are only public domain, free-use images at Commons.  With the GH photos, I uploaded them without cropping as no one seemed to need them at the moment. When you wanted one of the photos, I downloaded the uncropped block of 4, cropped Jessie Brewer, then re-uploaded that photo using the same information used for the first upload, because the new photo is a "part" of the original upload.  Also because of that, I linked the new photo to the original upload so it can be seen where the Jessie Brewer photo was derived from. When I get hold of cast photos where there are multiple individual photos, I upload the whole photo sheet uncut at first, so anyone who wants or needs them has access to them.  If I want or need a photo or photos from it, I then do just as I did with Jessie Brewer. ;)  HTH! We hope (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation! :) Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Spinelli Maxie Non Wedding.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Spinelli Maxie Non Wedding.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 12:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

65.32.171.92
Hi Kelly, could you please check 65.32.171.92's recent edits? Although most of the contributions appear to be the same edits that led to their previous two blocks, their edits to Cole Thornhart look like they were attempting to improve some of the storyline sections. Thanks, Noom   (t)  23:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Noommos. I'm not 100% familiar with OLTL but I am pretty sure Cole and Hope were never married, and some google searching seems to confirm that. I also can't find any record of those child actors. Sneaky edits, they did almost look real! Thanks for catching them! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking, I've reverted their dubious edits again and they've been re-blocked. They seem determined to make those changes! Noom   (t)  00:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit questions
Hi Kelly, you look like you're a new editor too and I have just kindled an interest in it without actually having done any yet. I have a question regarding editing the General Hospital characters page and I thought I'd ask someone who's done a lot. I've read a lot of the Wikipedia: edit pages and to be honest sometimes I just get confused, especially when it's late at night like this! I've been reading the page and noticed some "actor unknowns" and some characters and their information just not included. I have literally hundreds of Soap Opera Digests in my possession dating back to the late 1980s that include a lot of that info (for other shows too, but I care less about them). My question is, I can just go ahead and add what I can from those magazines, correct, and cite the magazine issues with the edit? I think the answer's "yes" but I just wanted to make sure before I spent a lot of time with it. If you have any suggestions that would be great. Inhan Lagur (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup! The citation templates page has detail on the types of citation templates you can use. Or you can use the link/cite button when you're editing. The dates can be confusing, I've been told to write them out on the access date (September 19, 2012) but keep them short on the article date (2012-09-19). I've mostly only cited online stuff myself but there are SODs cited throughout the articles you could look at to copy the formatting if that helps. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 04:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Lindze Letherman as Georgie Jones dying.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Lindze Letherman as Georgie Jones dying.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 within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added commentary on the photo rationale to clarify its purpose in the article. I then removed the tag as I believe that is what it said to do. Thank you for your help. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hollyoaks
What are you doing with Hollyoaks redirect talk pages with the project banners? You are removing them after it took ages to tag them all. Rain  the 1  17:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been going through the redirect list of soaps pages, and for those that are different names of a character, and redirect to a full character page under the commonname, I've been redirecting the talk page to the talk page of that main page. If the redirect was to a list of characters, I left it. I thought that was the point of the category? Redirects to lists could eventually be expanded, but redirects that are different versions of a character's name are just convenience? Some don't even have talk pages? If there's value in having them I'm happy to stop but I didn't see why there should be multiple talk pages for the same character? Thanks Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess the way WP:HO tagged them - which I helped with - the talk page is to discuss the redirect, not the article on the character. Rain  the 1  17:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree, just figured any that were just different name versions of the same character would never change/be discussed? Do you want me to stop? I'm just cleaning up some of the category lists in the soaps page. Some are incorrectly labeled. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I spent ages, along with Rain and other users, adding these banners. They are there for a reason, because the page is a redirect and the talk page reflects that. I am reverting your changes. You should not have made these changes without a discussion, if you want to make these changes you will have to start a discussion on the soap wikiproject page to discuss these. D4nnyw14 (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've only removed them from talk pages that I've linked to direct to the main character page, in instances where the redirect is only for multiple versions of the characters name. This makes the redirect list more manageable and just those characters that are redirecting to lists, and therefore could be expanded upon. Isn't that the point of the category? It's been maybe a handful of characters - I haven't just gone and started removing random banners. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also - please see that my attempt was in good faith and to clean up the category lists. I've also found some that have updated articles but forgot to update the category and have fixed accordingly. And I've assessed all the unassessed articles. I'm just trying to clean up the list so it's better for everyone. Can someone explain the value of the redirect banner on talk pages that the main page redirects to a full character article? Wouldn't you want any an all comments going to the main talk page? Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean, the point of the category is to wholly list the redirects, nothing to do with expanding the article. The comments on the redirect page would be to talk about the redirect, such as if it will be searched by people or if it will be surplus and can be deleted. I don't doubt that it was in good faith, i know you weren't purposefully trying to disrupt pages, sorry if i seemed abrupt. D4nnyw14 (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing here - redirects to character lists I've left alone. I'm only talking about redirects such as "Jonathan Smith" redirects to "John Smith," so I redirected "Talk:Jonathan Smith" to "Talk: John Smith." As is the practice I've seen before (or some don't have talk pages at all). I've left a comment at WP:SOAPS if you'd rather finish discussing there. Thanks! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also - please confirm if you are going to revert you are only going to revert the specific articles in question you'd like taken back? I've spent a ton of time today cleaning up class lists so just want to make sure. Thanks Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, i understand what you mean, but i don't see how that affects it, it should have the banners so it appears as part of the project and is listed as part of the list of redirects, even if they are only characters. Yep, i am only going to revert the removal of the redirect class banners and i am not going to revert the edits you have made that updated classifications or added tags to pages etc. D4nnyw14 (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I still think it's clearer to have the talk pages redirect to the same article the main page is, but don't want to mess with your project. Here are some examples of why I thought it was the way everyone did this - do you think these pages should have the banners too? I've asked at SOAPS but sometimes don't get much feedback there. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Carly Jacks, Carly Benson and Carly Alcazar(no talk pages)
 * 2) Brenda Corinthos talk page redirects to Brenda Barrett talk
 * 3) Felicia Scorpio, Felicia Cummings Jones (no talk pages)
 * 4) Robin Drake (no talk page)
 * 5) there are others but I think you get the point
 * The project is as much your project as it is mine, it is a group project and i don't want you to feel that i think i have some sort of ownership over the project. The banners i added were all for Hollyoaks as i mostly edit the Hollyoaks Wikiproject, i think if we get a consensus that decides we should have banners for redirects then we should go through all soap articles that redirect and add the banners to the page. I hadn't saw the discussion for on the Wikiproject Soap page, i will comment on it in a minute, i'm sure some other users will also comment too. D4nnyw14 (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * sorry -meant your project as in the Hollyoakes project. you guys are much more organized it seems than the soaps project in general. Most of the banners I found to remove were Hollyoaks or Neighbours, and most all I've come across while editing US soaps don't have talk pages at all, or redirect. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh good, i get you. We are more organised because there are fewer editors :P when i updated the Hollyoaks wikiproject page and changed the layout of the wikiproject page i decided to go through all the pages and add banners to redirects, categories, files etc. that had previously been uncategorised. US soaps seem to have fewer dedicated editors and the pages seem much less organised, it is good that you are helping to organise the pages and clean them up. D4nnyw14 (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Your unsourced tags
Hi. I've seen that you've added various unsourced tags to soap opera articles that mostly consist of plot. But, if you don't already know, plot summaries usually don't have to have citations. See where this is addressed in the WP:SOAPS guideline, and this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas/Archive 5. 220.255.2.100 (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, be careful to always use an "Additional references" tag, not an unsourced one, when an article has at least one citation. 220.255.2.125 (talk) 04:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Plot summaries do not need references, but articles in general do. An article cannot consist of solely plot, and must have sources. So, just because an article currently only has plot information, doesn't mean it doesn't have to have sources. Articles in those states are subject to deletion tags. This is basic WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS etc, which WP:SOAPS covers. I use both unsourced and refimprove tags, but if the sole source was unreliable, I used "unsourced." Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 05:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * [Same person higher in this section; just a different IP] When deciding to add a plot tag, you should also keep in mind that soap opera plot summaries (that is daytime dramas, which usually debut a new episode every day of the week) are naturally going to be longer than television or film plot summaries, which has also been discussed at WP:SOAPS. And it's quite useless to add an over-quotation tag to an article just because an article has a lot of quotes; a lot of WP:GA and WP:FA articles, not just soap opera articles, have a lot of quotes, including Pauline Fowler. So it's difficult to gauge what article deserves an over-quotation tag. 202.127.28.67 (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If a section is nothing but a WP:QUOTEFARM, that's easier to tag, although Reception sections are usually going to be full of quotes. 202.127.28.67 (talk) 01:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Re:plots, WP:SOAPS clearly discusses brief plot summaries and inclusion of real-world context. I do not see where it is mentioned that daytime dramas should have longer summaries. This should be discussed at WP:SOAPS and not directed just to me.
 * Re: quotes - I used one quote tag on one article where it was my opinion that it was using too many quotes, as more sentences had quotes than those that didn't. Calling it useless on my talk page is unnecessary, and better discussed at the article page if you feel it warrants discussion rather than simply changing it back if you know that to be the consensus. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I mentioned that the plot issue was already discussed at WP:SOAPS. That is why I directed this at you. You are new to all of this and don't know about it. As for quotes, I stand by what I stated previously about that. As for talk pages, for these soap operas, there's no use in taking most matters to the article talk pages since most people who add tags to articles move on and never look back at the articles after that and most of these article talk pages are very inactive. 202.127.28.67 (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WikiProject_Soap_Operas clearly states "keep summaries brief." They do not need to be sourced, but sourcing is a separate issue as an article cannot be soley plot nor completely unreferenced. I've also done a fair amount of reading into the soaps project archives when looking for answers on various questions and have never come across anything that says serials should have longer plots. If you know otherwise please link the specific text. However, either way this is not an issue to be directed at me, I am not the only person who has tagged excessive storylines and it is a point to be made at an appropriate project or article page for consensus. Please stop making comments here about things I do being "useless" or how "new" I am. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You clearly do not take criticism well. But if you are going to continue to edit here, your edits are going to be criticized at times just as they are at times going to be praised. When I have a problem with an editor's work, I am going to let them know on their talk page. My comments are more relevant here on your talk page than at any article talk page. You state that you haven't come across anything in the archives that discusses that soap operas are going to have longer plots, even though the discussion I pointed you to above addresses it. Not all of these discussions are clear from the headings. I doubt that you read all of those discussions. It was not personal when I stated that adding an over-quotation tag is useless (I included sound reasoning for stating that). Nor was calling you new; you are new, unless you edited here under a different user name. But I'll refrain from discussing this specific issue with you any further, since we've gone over all the points. 202.127.28.67 (talk) 07:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am fine with criticism but do not agree with your methods. The archive discussion you linked regarded the sourcing of plot summaries, which we discussed we agree the guidelines state they do not need sourcing, as they were changed to reflect that after that linked discussion. The guidelines do still state the brevity of storylines. So I do not agree with your other point and think at that point in our disagreement the discussion should have been brought to WP:SOAPS or the article(s) in question that you disagreed with my excessive plot tags, so that others could way in, and so that the conversation could be more productive. I've done a lot of clean up of lists lately which is why I asked for more specific examples than your general comments here. On a separate note, the IP address you chose to comment here hasn't been used for anything but, which I find suspicious. What name/IP address do you edit with? Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * [Same person higher in this section; just a different IP] The archive discussion I linked to still notes the fact that daytime soap opera plot summaries are going to be longer than other type of plot summaries. There can be "brevity of storylines" without having the plot section be as short as a film plot section. Most of these soap opera plot summaries cannot be summarized in such a small way. If you watch soap operas, which it seems that you do, then you should know that. If you ask at WP:SOAPS, see how many agree that soap opera plot summaries should be as short as a film plot summary. I've already explained why bringing this issue to your talk page was appropriate. This discussion is not about one edit you made. This discussion is about various edits you've made. And even if it were about one edit you made, I've already noted that these soap opera talk pages usually are not very active, if active at all. If I'd commented at a soap opera talk page, you would not have seen it unless you are watchlisting every soap opera article you come in contact with. So, indeed, bringing this discussion to your talk page was appropriate. As for my IP address, I change my IP addresses and edit under different ones. 12.151.252.215 (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I never said they had to be any specific length in relation to film articles, I simply tag excessive plot when I feel that to be the case, as in any other tag I place. I haven't used the tag on every article I've edited and can not speak to the situation further without examples or specific article concerns. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:SOAPS says: "Brief" in this context means a plot summary of approximately 500 words for a typical character article, though more may be appropriate for longrunning characters where there has been a great deal of real-world impact.


 * 500 words is too short, and is close to what Manual of Style/Film says: Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction's non-linear storyline, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. (Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range.)


 * The 500 word limit needs to be ammended at WP:SOAPS; no daytime soap opera article follows it, and even the film guideline gives a longer range than that. The soap opera guideline mentions that more may be appropriate for longrunning characters, but it should also mention "Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range." 12.151.252.215 (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Amendments to the guidelines at WP:SOAPS will have to be proposed there. As for discussing longer article lengths, you would need to specify an article. I'm happy to discuss specific examples but would like to please end this discussion on general rules. I'm not following what you are asking of me, or which articles in question that I've tagged with excessive plot that have raised your concerns. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Since you've likely sought to get me blocked, I'm pretty much done commenting here on your talk page. Proxies can be used freely on Wikipedia until they are blocked. See WP:PROXY. I was not misbehaving in any way toward you. I was blocked by a different editor right after I last commented to you with the above IP (12.151.252.215), but I was blocked for vandalism that I didn't even commit. Sighs. That's just the way such IP sharing goes. 162.105.6.107 (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not ask for any blocks, I asked for clarification on sockpuppets as I am not clear on them. I personally do not like getting various comments from various IPs but if it is allowed then it's allowed. I am glad this discussion is over and will be archiving it. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Fictional soap opera characters
Hello! I've noticed that you've been changing the classification of several soap opera character articles to Stub-class. While I don't doubt that these articles need to be expanded, most of these articles are not stubs, and should be tagged with References or Expand article instead. I have reverted some of your edits in good faith, but given the size of these articles in relation to WikiProject Fictional characters, please be a little more conservative about which articles you classify as stubs. Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, if that is the consensus. From reading the assessment scale, it seemed that a requirement of start class was at least one reliable source though? That is what I based it on. If that is the case, then I think the edits I made were correct. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 04:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've gone back to reread it. Start class is defined: An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and may require further reliable sources. The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a very fine line between what is considered Stub-class and what is considered Start-class. Usually any article that is less than 3000 bytes in size is automatically considered a stub. There is a grey area between 3000 - 4000 bytes in size, but any article bigger than that should be considered at least Start-class. And classification can't always be determined by the size of the article, but generally if there is more than a few paragraphs, it can be considered Start-class, especially if there is enough content for a table of contents to be generated. Of course this is all completely arbitrary, but please do not downgrade fictional character articles just because they are lacking sources, when most of them clearly have enough content to be considered Start-class. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If that's the case then the assessment scale description should be adjusted accordingly? The description does not mention size or word count at all but specifically does mention the requirement of sources. The articles without sources are mostly all plot. Is there a place where this has been discussed and described? I've gotten no response at WP:SOAPS. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, part of the misunderstanding might be because you're focusing on WP:SOAPS, and not seeing the bigger picture. Most of the articles in question fall under multiple wikiprojects, and the guidelines that I described above, are more for Wikipedia in general. You might find WP:STUB helpful, which states "Sizable articles are usually not considered stubs, even if they have significant problems or are noticeably incomplete. With these larger articles, a cleanup template is usually added instead of a stub template". I'm not trying to discourage you from classifying articles, because you seem to be editing in good faith. I'm just saying don't be so quick to change the classification of an article, if you're not actually adding or deleting any of the content. Fortdj33 (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that link was helpful and informative. I'm still wondering about the sources though (and it was amount of sources I had been basing ratings on as I went through). While the stub article you linked states that sizable articles are not stubs even if they are noticeably incomplete (which in my opinion "incomplete" is quite vague) the WP:ASSESSMENT (in general, not just soaps) specifically states Start Class as meeting notability and including reliable sources. Is there somewhere that says differently? And yes, I am definitely editing in good faith thank you for noticing. I found many articles classified incorrectly (redirects, etc, obvious ones) which got me started trying to clean up the lists over at wp:soaps. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fortdj33. Also, Kelly, some articles (not just soap opera ones) are rated a certain class, such as B-class instead of C-class, due to WP:Consensus among a group of editors at those articles. The difference between B-class and C-class can be subjective, but I wouldn't downgrade an article to C-class, or from C-class to Start-class, without discussion on the article talk page...unless it is very clear that the article should be downgraded. What is "very clear" can be subjective as well, but taking the time to assess if it's a "very clear" matter is better than nothing. 202.127.28.67 (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As noted above, I have been making a good faith effort to clean up the class lists in the soaps wikiproject, as there are many with obvious incorrect classifications (redirects not categorized as such, B class with zero sources, etc) and some that have obviously not been updated in a very long time. If in my efforts there have been changes as you describe where the article is in fact purposely classified a certain way and the majority of editors feel otherwise, then I'm sure they will quickly change the class back. I agree that B vs. C, C vs. start are subjective. I also feel that tags and classes help to bring editor attention to articles that can be improved, and should not be viewed as disruptive. If there is a strong opinion otherwise, it can be changed. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

GH Comings and Goings
I checked the GH page and someone has reverted the Comings and Goings section back to the old version. Jester66 (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The O.C. as a soap opera and other primetime soap operas
This and other edits like it are wrong. Refer to the Soap opera article. Soap operas are not only daytime dramas, and a lot of WP:Reliable sources call The O.C. a soap opera. At WP:SOAPS, you asked what constitutes a soap opera. I don't understand how you translated not getting a reply into thinking that it's a good idea to delist topics that have been listed as a part of WP:SOAPS for years. 202.127.28.67 (talk) 07:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Now I'm going to have to undo all this delisting you did to The O.C. articles, if you don't undo them yourself. I've already undone a few. 202.127.28.67 (talk) 07:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do not undo "a few." The reason for me delisting the articles you mentioned were that across the board the OC articles were not consistently listed with soaps project or not. If WP:Consensus is met I am happy to change them back as well as add the other articles to the project that did not have the banner. However, we need to find a place to discuss and come to consensus. I disagree that they should be part of the project. My reasons are: 1. I don't disagree that they are a type of soap-opera like show, but I think the scope of the project does not include many other similar shows that should be added as well if this show is included. 2. I noticed the discrepancy when seeing articles delisted by another editor, so this is not just my sole opinion. 3. They are not included on List of soap operas, so all these types of shows should be added to that article. Please do not confuse this as me saying that WP is a source, I just simply think the article should be consistent and came across it while looking into this issue. 4. The OC has their own task force under the TV wikiproject. I will move these comments to WP:SOAPS and request some opinions. Please comment, as I see you have not so far. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 11:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not my plan to undo a few; it is my plan to undo all of them if you don't. But I agree that we should find consensus about this at WP:SOAPS first. Consensus is what I believe you should have sought before you started removing these articles from WP:SOAPS's scope. One thing you could also do is leave a note at WikiProject Television and direct them to the discussion at WP:SOAPS about this. The WikiProject Television/The O.C. task force is extremely inactive, so there's not even a point in bringing that project up. We can go by reliable sources regarding what shows are considered soap operas, but not just random comments by a source's author that a show is a soap opera; rather how often a show is referred to as a soap opera by reliable sources. The O.C. is called a soap opera by many sources, and was even included on SOAPnet as one. 12.151.252.215 (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Using BLPPROD on articles with external links
Hi,

I've noticed that you have placed BLPPROD tags on some articles with external links. BLPPROD cannot be used on an article that has an external link that supports any piece of information in the article. The external link need not be described as a reference or even be to a reliable source to prevent a BLPPROD (the standard for removing a BLPPROD is different than for adding one, as explained at the WP:BLPPROD page). I've removed some of the BLPPRODs you placed, but you might want to consider whether those articles should be tagged with a normal PROD (if you think those people are non-notable). Calathan (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Calathan. I definitely didn't realize that at first. Hopefully my more recent edits are better as I got the hang of it more along the way. Thanks for letting me know! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In answer to your questions on my talk page:
 * I would consider external links a source if the linked site could be used as a reliable source and any of the facts in the article are present in the linked site. I think a lot of people place links in external links whenever they aren't using in-line references, even if the site they are linking to is the source of some of the information in the article.  I also think people add the "unreferenced" tag when they don't see a references section, when actually there often are references presented as external links.  So often I think it is better to use the "refimprove" or "no footnotes" templates rather than the "unreferenced" templates when there are external links that look to actually be sources for the information in the article.
 * Even if the only sources a BLP has are unreliable, it still can't be BLPPRODed. However, if a BLPPROD is placed on an article that had no sources at all, a reliable source is then required to remove the BLPPROD.  As for whether to use a regular PROD, that is based on whether the subject is notable or not.  Before adding a regular PROD, it is a good idea to check if other sources besides what are in the article exist.  If you think a BLP is on a non-notable subject but it has any sort of link to an external site, you should use PROD rather than BLPPROD (though also consider using speedy deletion criterion A7 for completely non-notable people, or AFD for people where you aren't really sure whether they are notable or not). Calathan (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for helping explain! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher Johnson journalist
I just answered a question about your review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher Johnson journalist at the AfC help desk. While the draft certainly has severe problems and is not fit for the mainspace, I don't think it looked like a test edit - it seemed above-average in quality, in fact. If I'm missing something, please reply to the author at the help desk and clarify your decline message. Huon (talk) 07:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for your reply. You have rejected the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Christopher_Johnson_journalist. It is not a test edit intended for the sandbox. It is, in fact, an article intended or posting on Wikipedia. It has 53 references, in accordance with Wikipedia.org policies.

Thus it seems your judgement is mistaken, and perhaps the result of a technical error during the process of submitting the entry.

A Google search for "Christopher Johnson journalist Japan" finds articles about him (not by him) in The Economist, Youtube, BoingBoing, Hoofin, JapanProbe, Debito, Tepido, Quora, GaijinPot, ENENews, Fukushima Diary, Japologism, Groups.Google.com, Inventorspot, Taiji Action Group, Hikosaemon, JapanGlimpsed, and many others. None of these sites (including world famous sites) are associated with Mr. Johnson, or employing Mr. Johnson. As for the point about a "glorified blog", it has more than 125,000 views, and hundreds of articles. Wikipedia.org cites this blog in several famous photos used by Wikipedia.org. Why would Wikipedia.org use several dozen of Mr. Johnson's photos of famous persons (including Kevin Durant, Tony Parker, Andrei Kirilenko, Pau Gasol, Marc Gasol and others; and tennis players Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray, Milos Raonic, Caroline Wozniaki, Agnieszka Radwanska, Vera Zvonareva and others), if Mr. Johnson is not a notable photographer and journalist? In fact, some of these photos are the very first to appear on Google searches for Lionel Messi, Rafael Nadal and others. Clearly, other members of the Wikipedia community find Mr. Johnson to be notable and worthy of an entry. Thanks again. Rollingwagon (talk) 07:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for any misunderstanding here. At the time I reviewed it, the repeated content, lack of section headers, and reference formatting combined led me to believe it was a test and not meant for submission. I will comment there as requested. Thanks, Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ooops! I spent hours poring over that draft and its sources and never noticed it was a copyright violation. Now I feel like an idiot. Good work! Yours, Huon (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kelly Marie 0812. Thanks for your efforts to review this. Huon has kindly reformatted the article to fit Wikipedia style. This is a big help for a newcomer, and it will help me in future submissions. However, I have refuted Huon's claims about reliability of sources. Please consider these main points:

Huon has claimed: "In fact, I don't think there's a single truly reliable source among the bunch that's not written by Johnson himself and covers him in appreciable detail. Huon (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)"

In keeping with Wikipedia's codes of civility, is this not a rather biased and damaging claim from someone who is supposed to be helping a newcomer on the Help Desk? In other words, it seems that an editor is claiming that articles about Johnson by the Committee for the Protection of Journalists, The Economist, Reuters, BoingBoing, Bangkok Books, Amazon.com, and many others are not "truly reliable sources." In fact, Huon has no proof that any of the points in the entry, originally backed by 53 references, are false and factually incorrect. The New York Times have published a number of Johnson's articles. Is the NYT also not a "truly reliable source"? If NYT editors had any doubts about the veracity of Johnson's work, would they put their prestige behind his articles over the past decade?

The article in The Economist, by staff reporter Kenneth N. Cukier, edited by Digital Editor Tom Standage and others in London, is not an "opinion piece" as Huon claims. It's a hard-hitting news story, like thousands of others in The Economist, citing verifiable sources including Amnesty International, Japan's Justice Ministry, diplomatic sources and others. The article was indeed subject to editorial oversight and fact-checking. In fact, the article generated more than 700 comments, thus further evidence that Johnson is notable. If The Economist is not one of the most reliable sources in the world, then what is?

A Google search finds more than 10 pages of articles written about Johnson (not by him). How does this compare to other "notable persons" on Wikipedia? Is their a certain threshold? For example, does there have to be 50 pages on Google searches about a person to be notable? Dozens of articles in The Economist, TIME, and others?

Huon compared my citation of 53 references to finding a "needle in the haystack". I am trying to follow Wikipedia.org policy to cite references. I thus found 53 references to support the points in the article. I could have supplied more than 100. Is it better to use only a few references? I thought it was better to cite every point. Please clarify Wikipedia policy on these matters. I would also like to learn more about the technical matters, for future submissions.

Huon has claimed there is no evidence that Kathy Johnson, who won a Nobel Peace Prize with MSF, is in fact Christopher Johnson's sister. Why would Johnson's publishers (Amazon, Bangkok Books) and other verifiable sources lie about Johnson's family members, who include a musician with more than 500,000 album sales? Is it not preposterous for Huon or any other editor to question such a fact? Is it common for Wikipedia newcomers to lie about family members?

Huon has claimed that the CPJ is an advocacy group, not a news organization, and therefore an unreliable source. In fact, the CPJ is indeed a news organization, with a large number of world class editors and reporters, writing verifiable stories viewed by thousands worldwide. Is Huon suggesting that Johnson and Hamid were not nearly kidnapped in Zamboanga in 2002? The point is not about whether the Philippine military is a reliable source or not. The point is that they, among other sources, reported a kidnapping attempt, which was widely covered by Philippine media, diplomatic sources, the CPJ and others. The Abu Sayyaf have kidnapped hundreds of foreigners and Filipinos. Why would Hamid, Johnson, the Philippine media and military, and the CPJ, lie about such an incident? Does Huon have any evidence to refute that fact?

The same can be said of Huon's comments about well-respected Boing Boing co-editor Cory Doctorow, who wrote an article about Johnson that generated hundreds of comments. What evidence can Huon present to support the claim that Doctorow's work is not reliable? In fact, Doctorow has won these awards: Prometheus Award for Best Novel, Hal Clement Award, John W. Campbell Memorial Award for Best Science Fiction Novel, Sunburst Award, John W. Campbell Award for the Best New Writer, Locus Award for Best First Novel, Sunburst Award -- Young Adult.

What is the relevance of Huon's claim that Boing Boing, "apparently" transforming from a magazine to a blog, as he claims, makes it less reliable? In that case, are Newsweek and the Christian Science Monitor less reliable because they no longer have print editions? Just because The Economist calls Kenneth N Cukier's work a "blog post", does it mean that The Economist suspended its long tradition of fact-checking, accuracy, editorial oversight, and credibility for this particular article, simply because it was published online?

Huon has also not provided evidence to support his claim that Globalite Magazine, which is a collection of work by leading writers, photographers and editors worldwide, is not a reliable blog. Is there not a difference between, say, an amateur blog about pets, and a blog which is a collection of hundreds of articles published in the New York Times, CNN, TIME, The Economist and others, with verifiable information, supported with hundreds of photos as evidence? In order for Globalite Magazine to shoot well-known, widely-distributed photos of athletes such as Messi, Nadal, or Durant (all featured on Wikipedia entries for these athletes), the magazine's photographers would have to apply for, and receive, accreditation with FIFA, the ATP, and FIBA, which are endorsing the credibility, notability, and relevance of Globalite Magazine. In other words, the world's largest governing bodies for sports, which severely restrict the number of accredited journalists at events, have endorsed the reliability and relevance of Globalite Magazine. Thus it should be considered a reliable source.

As for Huon's claims about Reuters, the photos from Lhasa were credited to unnamed "stringers" in order to protect the identities of photographers vulnerable to retribution by authorities in China. This is a common practice in the media when concerning sensitive issues in conflict zones. Does Huon think this somehow makes Reuters a less reliable source of information? Does Huon have verifiable evidence to support the suspicion that Johnson lied about supplying those photos to Reuters? The Washington Post, the Christian Science Monitor, the South China Morning Post and others have confirmed that Johnson was indeed there, and the only person who could have possibly supplied those award-winning images to senior editors in London and New York. It seems preposterous to think that Reuters, the oldest media institution in the world, would list these photos among their Pictures of the Decade if they had any doubts about the veracity and reliability of Johnson as a source.

Having said that, I do very much appreciate Huon's efforts to reformat my submission and explain points about Wikipedia use of sources. Please do send me any comments or advice, since I am a newcomer with hopes of submitting several articles to the Wikipedia community. Thanks! Rollingwagon (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, thanks for your comments. I am trying to rewrite the article, based on your suggestions, but I can't find it. Where did it go? What proof is there of copyright violations? I have another question, concerning a number of damaging claims made in public about the reliability and credibility of senior journalists. Have Wikipedia editors ever been charged with libel, or defaming persons such as journalists? Have they ever been charged with cyber-bullying, harassment, or being disorderly in public? Thanks again Rollingwagon (talk) 03:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)? Thanks again Rollingwagon (talk) 03:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC) Rollingwagon (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Rollingwagon. Your questions on the reliability of sources would best be answered at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where you can search the archives or ask questions about sources you are unsure about or have been told are unreliable but you think otherwise. I do believe Huon's comments were very much in good faith, and I wouldn't take offense to them. I did agree that some of the sources where not reliable under Wikipedia's policies. While some sources may seem reliable, after familiarizing yourself with the policies you'll find that blogs for the most part are not considered reliable, and other sources such as youtube can only be used in certain circumstances. Any site that is user edited is also not considered reliable. Those are some quick notes, but I would always defer to reading the policy behind whichever type of source you're looking to use, and asking questions at the noticeboard when in doubt. In terms of quantity, the more sources the better, but quality is also a factor. If there are 100 sources but 80 are not considered reliable under Wikipedia policy, it's more clutter than helpful. That being said, I did not get very far into looking at the majority of your sources, as the first link to amazon.com's biography of him turned out to be word for word the text of your article. By declining the article as a copyright violation the content is blanked. I believe it is held until an administrator is able to review. If they confirm it to be a copyright violation, it may be deleted. I'm not familiar with any cases of libel, but that is one of the reasons the policy is strict on reliable sources for biographies of living people. I'm not familiar with any cases of cyber bullying, but again I do believe you have misinterpreted Huon's comments. From briefly skimming some of your conversation at your talk page and the help desk, Huon is very well versed in Wikipedia's policies on sources and the links he provided within his comments should be able to further explain some of these questions. Good luck! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 04:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I've raised the issue at WP:AN/I. Comments would be welcome. Huon (talk) 05:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's best to continue the discussion over at ANI instead of here. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree that this discussion should happen here, as the claims you are making are still the same. Also, I have no power to reinstate your article per my comments at ANI. I would like to remove myself from the situation at this point, as I do not feel I have anything else to offer. More experienced editors should take it from here. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

HI. I'm trying to remove my lengthy post from your tidy site. Is this working? If not, go ahead and remove it. Thanks again Rollingwagon (talk) 11:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Zoran Janjetov
Hello. Please, check back Janjetov's entry. I have expanded it with bibliography, references and additional external links. Please, let me know if anything more is needed at the moment. Sincerely. --Stripar (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw you added the references, I think that it's in much better shape. I've been going through the unreferenced biographies of living people trying to clean them up. Thanks for working on it! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It was my pleasure. When time permits, I'll expand his biography (and he is quite star in Europe), properly referencing it. Luckily, I have all key literature on Former Yugoslav comics, both hard and digital copies. Cheers. --Stripar (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI Discussion
Hi. Thanks for your comments and editorial advice. I can't find the comments about my case on the Admin notice board re: copyright/legal issues. Could anyone tell me where to find it, and where to continue the conversation? I was getting good advice there and want to read it again. Thanks Rollingwagon (talk) 06:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks to have been archived here. I would note that archive pages are not considered open discussions so making comments there will most likely not get any response. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 13:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Ward Keeler
Thanks for the reminder it needed some links... still needs work, hope it is sufficiently adequately lifted from prod status... pity most goggle hits about him are for his back list of books (or the english pair, stephen ward and chistine keeler  :)... cheers SatuSuro 23:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The GAN Newsletter (November 2012)
---
 * }
 * Read this newsletter
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 3 November 2012
 * }

Florencia Lozano
Hi there :) Thanks for backing me up about Flo, that was getting really irritating. I should've put her in former, you're right. The issue is that the on-screen credits (NOT Hulu) are reliable and always have been. I've never understood why we can't screencap them and use them as sources. I have never seen anyone claim the credits aren't reliable other than fanatics about certain actors/characters that are trying to prove a point that simply isn't true. I understand the verifiability factor of sourcing websites but the credits are accurate, I just wish there was a way to use them on here as sources. --Alexisfan07 (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never questioned why the credits weren't reliable, I've just assumed they aren't always 100% accurate and relied on finding online sourcing for things I wanted to reference. I did a little searching now since I was curious and didn't find anything super specific but verifiability was mentioned, due to it being a daily serial that isn't easily rewatched like a movie on DVD would be (keeping copyright infringement in mind). I think I'll ask on the talk page, I'd like to see the answer and have the link for when this comes up ALL THE TIME. ha. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion
I have nominated Monsters HD, and Animania HD for deletion. If you would like to join the discussion please do at the nomination pages Articles for deletion/Animania HD,Articles for deletion/Family Room HD, Articles for deletion/Monsters HD.--0pen$0urce (talk) 08:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Mark Roantree
Hello, just letting you know I removed the prod from the above article as it was previously listed at articles for deletion. Thank you. Rotten regard      Softnow  23:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will take to AfD. It seemed to be indirectly included in the previous nomination, with a laundry list of others related to the main nomination, and included at the close of the discussion in a small list the author said was "obscure and could be removed immediately" (in 2006). Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Stevie Vann
Thank you for your vigilance, however, you should please read the text of the BLP PROD template - your application of it to Stevie Vann violated 2 conditions: it had a source (not a good one, but any source prevents a BLP PROD template from being applied) and it was grandfathered in, being created before the date on the BLP PROD template. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have already read the guidelines. It was a mistake not noticing the date. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 06:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Happy editing! --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Deleting of Valy artical
Done, one Reference is placed. --Mannni (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that is enough of a reliable source to remove the BLPPROD template, but feel free to get a second opinion from someone else. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Opinion needed
Hello Kelly. I was wondering, when you get a chance, if you could voice your opinion here please? Thanks!  Creativity  97  22:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Template discussion
Hey! I have started a discussion about soap opera article templates and the unneeded "Romance" section here at WP:Soaps that is of your interest, as an avid contributor to soap opera content on Wikipedia. Please share your thoughts! Ar re   06:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Article for creation
hello Kelly, the page was created as an assignment. I don't really have much to say on this page i created at the time, and don't know much how to re-write the main paragraph. would you have some suggestions ? Could you confirm the intro is ok, and the sources agreeable ? thank you for your suggestions 13:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Amontoya11 (talk)adrien
 * Hello - I suggest visiting the Articles for Creation Help Desk. Right now it reads more like a story than an encyclopedic article, and needs reliable sources added. The help desk should be able to help you out. Good luck! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Robin Mattson as Heather Webber 1980.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Robin Mattson as Heather Webber 1980.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. January ( talk ) 21:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Aw thanks Arre!! I notice your great work as well. So excited you are on the way to a GA for a US soap character! I don't know the storylines of Y&R but if there's anything you think of you could use my help on feel free to ask! :) Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Thankyou too!! Yes hopefully it will eventually be a GA, it will be the first female US soap character and second article. U're great at condensing/trimming sl's.Yes, I will:) Ar  re   02:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Help needed
Can you please help me condense Jack Abbott (The Young and the Restless)'s storylines? I'm doing 2010s. Can u do 1980s or 90s? :) Ar  re   04:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course. I don't know the Y&R history so feel free to fix anything important I change in error. But a proof read should be able to cut down some regardless, I'll take a look. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 04:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

SORAS & soaps (and thanks for the follow)
Hey thanks for following my edit with that wikilink. If I'd realized that the term had grown enough that we were able to create an article on it, I would have just wikilinked it to begin with. :D Was just catching up on the show today (have kept up but not watched regularly since before AMC & OLTL  were cancelled) and was reading up on what I've missed with various characters and figured I'd tweak some poor grammar while I was at it. Millahnna (talk) 08:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No prob! I think you make a good point that the word on its own is not known to a large enough audience. Editors use it quite often on soap articles so I was hoping to preempt any reverts by including "soras aging" - I think that'd be a good change for all mentions of the word. I thought your other note on Michael Corinthos was spot on as well. You should keep proofreading if you have the interest! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, who is your favourite character(s) on GH? They do not have to be on anymore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.204.34 (talk) 20:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (December 2012)
---
 * }
 * Read this newsletter
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 3 December 2012
 * }

AfD
you have no rights to erase my page. give it back — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cruz2x2 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Any user may suggest deletion of a page for good cause. At which point deletion is determined by WP:CONSENSUS and performed by an administrator, not me. Please direct comments at the appropriate group discussions and not at me personally. You may find WP:AFTERDELETE helpful, or the current AfD discussion at Articles_for_deletion/List_of_weddings_on_The_Bold_and_the_Beautiful. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Stub and start articles
I've seen you ask around about the differences and responded, but thought I'd just reply here too. "Stubs" are those which have a very basic description of the topic, usually only one or a few sentences of text but is capable of expansion. "Starts" are developing, but still quite incomplete and, most notably, lack adequate reliable sources. As with any sized article, adequate verifiable sourcing is required. This can mean the difference between the higher C, B, and A grades. For more detailed criteria, click on the "Show" button for each grade at WP:ASSESS. Hope this helps. If you have any questions about certain articles, feel free to ask at my talk page (click Coyote →). — WylieCoyote 01:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Which conversation did you respond at? I'm not sure if you are saying start articles "can" or "can't'" have "any" sources, but my opinion has strengthened since the time I originally asked in that they "can't." My questions were of a specific nature in terms of articles other editors were promoting to start that did not have any sources, but were of length since they included significant if not excessive plot summaries. The WP:ASSESS guidelines state start class articles lack adequate reliable sources, and when you click show, it goes on to say that it meets basic requirements including enough sources to establish verifiabilty. Also, since the time I asked, I came across an essay which I believe helps answer my question in terms of articles containing all plot summary (which the ones in question were)  regardless of the length of the page or the numbers of edits made to it, a page containing only plot summary is still a stub - an incomplete article. Anyway, I gave up helping with the sorting of articles because I was tired of fighting, but stay firm in my belief an article with no sources does not meet the requirements of a start class article per the policy at wp:assess and also supported by the essay I linked. If this is truly not the case, I think the wording at wp:assess should be altered. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it was at WP:TV Assessment's talk page. Everything in the Wikiworld needs sources...at least one. Some patrolling editors are nice enough to suggest further sourcing by adding a template (as you did with 1 Day With), while others AfD it for only having one or none. Adequacy, verifiability, and notability all go hand in hand, in my opinion. You will see pages with Twitters, IMDbs, and other sources as such that I just don't think are "good sources" but others do. Like I said, it depends on who opens that page on a particular day and their Wiki-mood. And yes, I also prefer to see more than just a plot summary in episode/season article and agree that those are "stubs," however savvy editors can remedy that by having the underconstruction tag added, as long as they add more to it within a few days. I learned that the hard way, as I've had my basic articles (which I had given "start" status) AfD'ed within mere hours of starting. Bottom line is: I think the main focus should be on the upper echelons and those wishing for their articles to be GA's or higher. I'll look into your grief with the "gray" areas of stubs-starts. And if anyone harshed on you for inquiring, well, they're idiots and probably do not give early stubs-starts a chance. — WylieCoyote 15:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * (Addendum) I'm an AfC reviewer and have seen book articles trying to pass. AfC is great because we try to help new editors formulate any submission. Book articles are like TV/movie ones. Some only have plots and some reviewing editors deny the article, but there is no reason those articles can't be updated and resubmitted (although we have our 3-strikes rule). Most new editors, and some veterans, create their own and bypass AfC, which leads to the sourcing/notability issue. — WylieCoyote 15:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. I had also asked at wp:stub and wp:assess. When I was running into this problem it wasn't including any AfDs, simply WikiProject assessment. I had been going through articles at WP:SOAPS, and a bunch I changed to stub class due to lack of any sources were reverted. In my opinion an article isn't ready to be moved to start class if it doesn't have any sources. The other editors argued plot does not need to be sourced, which I agree has been decided upon at various wikiprojects such as wp:tv and wp:soaps, but a long page of plot with no sources to real-world context I still feel is a stub, based on what I've read through policy. Additionally, with my experience editing these articles, a long plot needs significant trimming to move its way up the wp:assessment, so a long page of only plot is only going to be shortened, not expanded unless real world sources and info are brought in. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Correct: plots do not need sourcing, if the episode has aired. I've seen summaries for future episodes added to season list articles, which some do not like, but accept when sourced. (Funny, I know) And the only time I usually source plots is when I cite the actual episode in the season articles (note the difference between the two). And yes, lengthy plots, even convoluted ones, should not be longer than 200-500 words. By the way, I looked through the first 30 stubs listed here and I found some redirects, some that would pass these days as maybe C-class and some similar ones that I've seen given start status. It's just up to WP:TV to stay on top of these things and I don't think they are. — WylieCoyote 18:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, cleaning up all the inconsistencies was what I was trying to do at wp:soaps, and still do sometimes but was tired of arguing about stubs and starts. I did clean up most the redirect issues there at the time though. I agree plots don't need sourcing but that doesn't mean a long plot-only article should be considered start class, you know? I do source plots once and a while when the specific plot point is mentioned in a third party source I'm adding, I think that helps when trying to get the article towards GA. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * True, when you are the "outsider" trying to correct someone's article that doesn't think it needs to be done, they do get pissy, which is why merely suggest shortening plots by adding tags. If I take some things out, my inbox gets pretty full. Seems like you know what to do. The fun is in conveying that to others. I picked up things pretty quick at Wiki within my first few months and some still thought of me as a "noob". Take care! — WylieCoyote 19:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Haha, same here. Thanks and take care! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's a brownie...
Aw thanks Wylie! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Soaps
Thanks for the pointers; I've redone the removal of the other relatives, and Michael Corinthos looks substantially better now. Nyttend (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you - sorry for the confusion! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Hi Kelly! I was wondering what was going on with the infoboxes. I saw at Starr Manning you said we're back to Infobox 1 with alterations made. Are we sticking to the original infobox now? Because a majority of Y&R character pages have been changed to Infobox 2. Let me know! Regards,  Creativity  97  18:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi! I felt the consensus at soaps was that box2 on its own wasn't preferred... then we started with all those changes to box1 to incorporate the parts of box2 that people liked. I know it dragged for a while but I requested the rest of the changes yesterday, some of them were already made last week (most the removed parts). I'm not too involved with Y&R articles but reverted Starr's for consistency with GH and OLTL pages. Here is the link to the requested outstanding changes, I think once they are made, box1 will have most of what people like about box2, without the pieces editors had voiced concerns about box2 at soaps... what do you think? Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that is good. In all honesty, I felt that box1 and box2 both had appealing qualities and I wanted to propose to merge them into one entire infobox for all soap articles (of any nationality), but I figure this is better for U.S. soap articles. I don't watch any soaps outside of the U.S. so it doesn't really bother me. Great job!  Creativity  97  18:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks!! I totally agree, especially since a couple UK editors were involved in the discussion and seemed to have the same opinion we do... maybe in the future! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It's me, again!
Hi, Kelly! I'm making my year's end resolution to work daily on the Stub-class designations at WPTV. Most of these just can't be helped and I move on (the goal is to make sure they're Stubs and can't be anything else). Some are able to be made Redirects, like some episode articles that have been Redded to their season articles but nothing was done to the talkpage WPs. I've seen where you Redded some and didn't change the Importance levels. I just thought I'd tell ya that, when you Redirect WPs that have no pages, the "Importance" should be changed to "NA" as per the grading scheme which says "Subject importance is not applicable. Generally applies to non-article pages such as redirects, categories, templates, etc." This is no biggie, but they do go hand in hand. Most times I just overlook the Importances (only changing them when finding Redirects), but details are details.  Merry Christmas , if I don't see ya! P.S. I just now cracked the B's in the Stubs. Am leaving bread crumbs... — WylieCoyote 12:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! I hadn't paid much attention to the importance level before. Take care! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

New code for infobox!!!
Asking that you implement this version of the template into the article. With this kind of design, headers like "Profile" and "Relationships" will not appear if they are not being used. For example, the Claudia Zacchara article does not have any information in the profile section, but it still appears. This version of the template will do away with things like that.--Nk3play2 my buzz 15:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I also like that you included no wraps on the parameters with two words. Your sandbox doesn't have some of the new parameters currently requested, so I've taken a crack at adding to the headers on mine so that they'll only appear if info is underneath them. Do you know if there's anyway to test it? Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, when it comes to testing the sandbox template that I created, I actually took the code from the Infobox 2 template where it was already being implemented and reworked it to fit the parameters of the current Infobox 1 template; I didn't add the new parameters that were discussed because I was hoping we could add the new template design to the article, IMMEDIATELY, and then add the new parameters that the users agreed upon later if some of the "kinks" still needed to worked out.--Nk3play2 my buzz 01:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Does infobox2 hide those headers when they're not filled? As for immediately, either way we have to wait for someone to come do the edit request for the protected page. I added these items to the request already at the template. I think I adjusted the code correctly to hide the headers but keep the way box1 currently has its code set up, just not sure how to test it to make certain. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Infobox2 does hide those headers when the parameters aren't filled. I'm not sure about testing it; however, I think you could make a an actual sandbox version of the template and use it as an actual template in articles; for example, you'd have to name the article, "Template:Infobox soap character/sandbox" and use the template on whatever pages you are using to test the Template.--Nk3play2 my buzz 04:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahaaaa, yes sandbox is working in terms of being able to see a test, but my code however is not :( ha will take a look, maybe it's better to just switch to box2-like code. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Mitch Williams
Thanks for letting me know. I deleted the redirect. Kind regards -- Samir 06:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kelly
Hi Kelly -

I keep deleting "Robert & Anna" in the history of General Hospital from 1980-1989 list of supercouples because Robert & Anna were NOT a supercouple at any time from 1980-1989. Robert & Anna were only recently added by someone to that list. The original list is Robert & Holly, Frisco & Felicia and Duke & Anna. I am RESTORING what was there originally.

Thank you.

OldGHFan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldGHFan (talk • contribs) 22:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reaching out. However, the content is sourced, so they were indeed considered a supercouple by reliable sources. Concerns can be addressed on the talk page of the article if you'd like editors to discuss. However continued removal of sourced content can be viewed as disruptive and edit warring. Thanks! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi again Kelly
Hi Kelly,

But Robert and Anna were NOT a supercouple during the period of 1980-1989. That is what I'm debating. I mean, some people think Jason and Sam are a supercouple but it would not be correct to put them in the supercouple list from 1980-189. Get it? The article was written this way for a long time and someone else (not me) added Robert & Anna. Why can't this be deleted? I really don't see the big deal. Also, while we're at it, can we add Robert & Holly to this supercouple list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Supercouples

I have many articles from the 80s that say Robert & Holly were a supercouple. Would you like me to scan those articles for you? I can. It would be no problem. Let me know.

Please sincerely listen to my request. Again, I just want what the ORIGINAL article said. It's been that way for many years.

Thank you for listening.

Sincerely,

OldGHFan — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldGHFan (talk • contribs) 00:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this should be discussed on the talk page as suggested. Same goes for content you'd like to add to the other article, although I think Robert and Holly are already there, and sourced. But my opinion is that it should stay, it's not saying they were a supercouple of the 1940s, the timeframes are close and intertwined, and I think the point being made is that Luke and Laura spurred the creation of supercouples there after. Whether or not an article "used to be" a certain way doesn't stop new content from being added if it's reliable, sourced, consensus, etc. But again, please discuss on the article talk page, so that editors can weigh in and discuss. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk)

Carol Resnick
You PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL I have restored it, and came here to notify you in case you wanted to consider AfD, but I see I have been anticipated - see WP:Articles for deletion/Carol Resnick. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Promo images
I don't understand the reason to change the images to stills. We have never had an issue before with pictures. Except for the Maxie one that was up before I changed it, every single other shot was done by ABC to represent the character. There is need to change them. I would appreciate some consistency across the images and bonus points (in my opinion) if the images used match the ones featured in the show opening (as long as those are the most recent shots available).--Alexisfan07 (talk) 05:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There have been discussions at WP:SOAPS about preference of stills. The reasoning is that this is the best way to clearly show the character, versus the actor. Most if not all of the UK soap character articles do it this way, which I believe is where the idea came from. Many editors have started switching over to stills, so the consistency will come with time. I don't see a reason why they need to match an opening sequence shot or be from an ABC promo. The reasoning behind showing the actor literally "in character" is seems like a good suggestion moving the articles towards better quality. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The promo shots provided by ABC are HD, clear images. There will be endless fights about the images if they are episodic, about which one is best, etc, since there are hundreds upon thousands to choose from. Having the most recent headshot from ABC used on the articles makes it easier to end debates - there should be no uploading of character promo shots that are older or less clear than the most recent ABC headshot. It is the most accurate, up-to-date, AND clear way to represent the actor and character. Screenshots should 100% be disallowed in my opinion if there are better images (that legally clear) to use and the Todd Manning obsessors haven't let that atrocious photo go when there are so many better ones to use.--Alexisfan07 (talk) 05:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand that's your opinion, but it's not up to me alone so you should voice your concerns at WP:SOAPS. As of now, other editors and myself agree that stills are better for fictional characters. The fact that Todd Manning, Angelina Veneziano and lots of UK soap character good articles use stills is only another reason to keep conforming that way. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Per discussion at WP:Soaps, users have swayed towards screenshots and stills because, firstly, they show the character as they are, not the actor in a photoshoot. Plus, they satisfy WP:FAIRUSE/WP:NFCC guidelines to a higher extent. Not everything depends on if the image is "clear" or not. As long as it is substantially satisfying and does its job, it's fine. There is nothing wrong with using an image of the actual character over a fancy photo-shoot picture. :) Ar  re   19:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Aww Arre I really appreciate that!! I have been working really hard on that one. There is some great info out there and I hope to keep making it better. Thank you :) :) Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! I was just having a bit of a read of it in the last couple of hours and it's very interesting. The 1978–87 is especially good. Ar  re   20:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
I would love that - name the article! Thanks Arre and all the same to you! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Tyler Michaelson character article???
Hey. I started a discussion on whether the character of Tyler Michaelson merits his own article. Your opinion would be greatly appreciated.--Nk3play2 my buzz 21:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy new year!
Hey Kelly! It has been a while, but I'm dropping by to wish you a very happy new years! :) I'm really glad you decided to stay at the English Wikipedia, you truly are one of the nicest Wikipedians I have welcomed to the community and I hope you stay with us . I unfortunately never saw how your RfC ended, I intended to see it through to the end and offer you any advice you may need, but I unfortunately became busy and left before I saw the end to it. Hope this evening is treating you as well as it is me, Noom   (t)  22:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nooommos! There didn't seem to be any official end per se, but I think we made the point enough that they stopped trying to remove the info. We actually ended up changing the format a little and I think it's more encyclopedic-like now, so it actually turned out better in the end. Glad to see you back and hopefully to see more of you! Happy new year!! :) Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations on your 6000th edit!!
Wow, I noticed you just made your 6,000th edit on wikipedia! That really impressive for an editor that has only been editing for 4 months(I should know, I've been editing for a year in a half, and have only made 2,000). I just wanted to let you know that your edits are really helpful, and such a step in the right direction for soap related articles. Your work is much appreciated and hasn't gone unnoticed. Happy new year!Caringtype1 (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Aw thank you! That means a lot. I think we have a great group of soap editors and can make some good progress this year! Happy new year! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year

 * Same to you Arre! Hope your new years is going great! Happy 2013! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (January 2013)
This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)