User talk:KronoKrista

Welcome!

 * }

November 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page EJ DiMera and Samantha Brady has been reverted. Your edit here to EJ DiMera and Samantha Brady was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.facebook.com/pages/EJ-DiMera-and-Sami-Brady-EJami-Fans-Days-of-our-Lives/190183334334032/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to EJ DiMera and Samantha Brady, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.
 * Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: EJ DiMera and Samantha Brady was changed by KronoKrista (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.888063 on 2011-11-16T04:32:31+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

EJ DiMera and Samantha Brady article
As I stated on the article talk page: I want to point out that removing all information about the rape controversy because you don't like it is not how Wikipedia works. Not only was that material properly sourced, it is about the only thing that makes this couple WP:Notable. You could have removed the fluff without removing that material. It doesn't matter if something is the POV of the magazine. You credit the magazine, its editor, or both, and leave the material in. This article has no chance of remaining on Wikipedia without that information. So you either need to add it back, without all the fluff, or I will. Flyer22 (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As also stated on the talk page: I added the material back (without the unsourced commentary), per my statements above. It's a big part of the couple's critical reception, and the only thing making this topic notable...if anything at all does. For you to have removed all of this material, while leaving most of the positive information in, makes me think that you are more of a fan (of the couple) than anything else. If a fictional couple is controversial, and that fictional couple has a Wikipedia article, that should controversy should be in their Wikipedia article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that information was not removed for the reasons that you ascribe. It was removed because, quite frankly, that article is a mess in terms of grammar, structure, and content. The intent was to try to cut the article down to its bare bones and restructure it to make it more readable, cohesive, and concise. Within this larger plan, the sourced material from the existing article was to be added back in at a later date, along with additional sources, as the article became more cohesive and logical. In the end, the sourced pieces of information about the rape controversy would have been reintegrated in one new single summary at the end, so that the controversial elements in this fictional couple's history remained as a prominent feature. Unfortunately, circumstances did not allow for this to be accomplished in a timely manner. (KronoKrista (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC))
 * The sourced information about the rape should not have been removed at all is my point, per my statements above. We have guidelines and policies that we are supposed to follow here at Wikipedia (as shown in the "Welcome!" template higher on your talk page), contrary to the popular belief that everything or most things here are made up by its editors. That information, like I stated, is the only thing providing this article with notability (a core guideline at this site)...if anything at all does. I already made clear that you could have cleaned up this article without removing this material. You did a good job cleaning up things, don't get me wrong. It's just the removal of this content, which can likely be significantly expanded with reliable, WP:Third party sources, that I object(ed) to, and for good reason. Like I stated, if this content is permanently removed, then Wikipedia can most assuredly kiss this article goodbye. I encourage you to keep helping the article. You do a good job of cleaning up, and this article needs a dedicated editor watching out for it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)