User talk:Rocksey/Archive 1

One of the best new editors I've seen!!
Hello, Rocksey. I've been meaning to tell you that you are one of the best new editors I've seen on Wikipedia. Your work on the Erica Kane and Dimitri Marick article, an article you created, has been awesome. You learn Wiki-ways so quickly, and clearly paid/pay attention to my edit summaries where I was/am talking to you. Something else you paid attention to was how I format the soap opera supercouple articles. Well, thank goodness! Newbie editors usually create these articles with only plot summary in mind. But you -- you actually set out to ensure depth for your article, and provide actual notability for it.

I'm really excited to have an editor like you on Wikipedia. Think about joining WikiProject Soap Operas. We always need more help, especially from great new editors like yourself.

You can always contact me through email or on my talk page. Just remember, that when talking on talk pages here at Wikipedia, to sign your user name by typing four tildes ~.

I'll see you around. Flyer22 (talk) 06:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that type of reference style is okay
I didn't notice your follow-up question about that on my talk page until now. Sorry about that. Anyway, the answer is yes, as the title of this section says. Flyer22 (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery nomination closure
I am closing the nomination due to the tremendous and rapid improvements to the article, which are very much yours.


 * That barnstar is very well-deserved. You should show it off on your user page, Rocksey. In fact, go ahead and create a user page, LOL; it does not have to be elaborate.


 * I went ahead and expanded the article further. But I again thank you for initially doing so. Flyer22 (talk) 07:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the barnstar TrackerTV! I will add it to my user page. I guess it's about time I got around to making a user page. Rocksey (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Erica Kane's married names
I'm thinking that that note about Erica Kane always being known as Erica Kane, despite her marriages, was referring to the fact that she was still often called Erica Kane even then (by the show's characters and viewers). I mean, of course, she has been called Mrs. Marick and Mrs. Montgomery before. But, anyway, I'm not against you having removed that, especially since it seems it was not worded the best. Flyer22 (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that Erica is most widely known as Erica Kane. I mainly disagreed with the phrase "It is worth noting, however, that the character of Erica Kane has always, despite her marriages, remained Erica Kane" because she hasn't always remained Erica Kane. The All My Children Scrapbook refers to her as all of her married names (from Martin to Marick) at different points during the recap and in the family sections she's included in the Chandler section and the Marick section, as well as the Kane one. But what made me change the line was that the Soap Opera Book by Manuela Soares refers to her all throughout as Erica Brent despite the fact that it also stats the character has already divorced Phil Brent by the time the book was published and both he and she were in other pairings. The book refers to her as Erica Brent so many times, it almost seems like it was her common name back then.


 * But I see what you mean. By now she's just Erica Kane and that's it. Even when she was married to Jack she was never, as far as I can recall, referred to as Erica Montgomery. So maybe the line can be rewritten so it doesn't say she was never known by her married names but still gives the same message, that she's most notably known as Erica Kane. Rocksey (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. I'm not in a hurry to do that, LOL, but thank you for further explanation. You didn't have to, but thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

My apologies
I'm really sorry about that. I was using Huggle and I didn't realize what you were doing until I looked at the page's history. A suggestion that will help boneheaded users such as myself figure out what you are doing without you having to yell at me for doing it is to use an edit summary when editing articles, especially when you remove a lot of info. Again, my sincere apologies. Thingg &#8853; &#8855; 00:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I should definitely get in the habit of using those summaries more. Thanks for looking out for the page though.Rocksey (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Awesome work yet again. Barnstar!
Brilliant work on the Daniel Romalotti and Lily Winters article. In reading the edit history of that article, you probably know that I was all for that article being deleted (even more more so because the creator of it had titled them a supercouple and the first interracial supercouple of the show; I could not find any sources stating or calling them that, or even calling them popular). At least you found sources recognizing them as having been a popular pairing, and not in a biased way such as only with the second teen/adult actress to portray Lily like the creator of that article did.

On a side note, I feel that once you correct the plot tense of the Dimitri Marick article, you should nominate that article for Good Article status. Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Aw, thanks Flyer!

You really think the Dimitri Marick article is ready for GA? I'll fix the tense on the plot summary right now. I'm not sure what to do with the storyline section. So much of his storyline is already recapped in the rest of the article or in the Dimitri Marick and Erica Kane article. Rocksey (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, I feel that it's ready for GA. Just check for typos, look for weasel wording, make sure that there are not any contractions (such as isn't or he'll), make sure that its punctuation complies with Wikipedia's rule about "logical quotation," and it should be fine for GA. Let me know if you need help nominating it. Yes, I know that you are a quick learner, but I'm offering just in case. Plus, I see that you've already cut down on the plot section, since, like you said, all that is not needed due the reasons you stated above.


 * Also, correct the intro (lead) where it says "was a fictional character"... I mean, just because he's dead does not mean that he is any less a fictional character. By that, of course, I mean that it should be "is a fictional character." I know that you did not put "was" there; I'm just noting it anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tips and the offer, I will probably take you up on it after I work on the article some more.


 * Also, I'm not sure if you know about the Todd Manning and Marty Saybrooke article. As of right now, it's mostly made up of a lot of information that you contributed to the Todd Manning article.Rocksey (talk) 02:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That just pissed me off. I will be nominating it for deletion. Flyer22 (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and thanks for telling me. As I stated on TAnthony's talk page, I am pissed that the editor who created this article literally copied all of my hard work about this subject and pasted it into this new article. Furthermore, it is clear that this article was only created so that Todd and Marty could have a couple article, like popular couples or supercouples. This person did not even include the rest of the bad regarding this couple, such as people considering the sex Todd and Amnesiac Marty had to be the second rape of Marty. Although...it could be that this person felt that they were "holding back" by not copying and pasting everything about this from the Todd Manning article, or that he or she just has not yet thought to update it with my work again.


 * Right now, I am about to redirect it. If this editor fights me on this, I will nominate it for deletion. We do not need this article when the Todd Manning article relays all of this. And, no, I am not about to cut all of this out of the Todd Manning article just so this article can exist. 04:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Carly and Jax
I revert the divorced part for you. --M42380 (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I also restored the sources I added since such a big deal was made of the issue.Rocksey (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * there was no issue expect for that blocked IP address. but thanks. I hope that we can work together in the future. --M42380 (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Chloe Mitchell Ashby
I have a screenshot of the show's credits where she is referred to as "Chloe Ashby" http://www.flickr.com/photos/30805106@N00/3224173473/ is the screenshot, if that doesn't work my account on flickr.com is ryinthesky9... the screen shot is the only upload. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.153.241 (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Neil Winters
While some of the points you made may be valid, Neil's status as the longest-running African-American character on The Young and the Restless does not require a citation, anymore than comments about Jill's status as the only original character remaining on Y&R, or the many references to the Katherine-Jill feud. ABCxyz (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Supercouple and List of fictional supercouples articles
Rocksey, will you do me a favor and watch these two articles more closely? These days, I haven't been on Wikipedia as much and need help watching those articles. I know you watch the List of fictional supercouples article often, though, and I thank you for that. It's really just you and me and sometimes AniMate in regards to those two articles.

Anyway, I'll see you around. Flyer22 (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, I can watch them more closely.Rocksey (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the extra help. Flyer22 (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Length of time of Jax and Brenda couple
Rocksey, in their case, shouldn't we further specify their time together, like we have done with a few other couples on the List of fictional supercouples list? I mean, I know that Brenda was "dead" for some years. So shouldn't we put the number of years they were originally together and then the number of years they continued? An example on the list would be Jesse and Angie (though Jesse and Angie were apart much longer).

Also, if you don't already know, to dispose of an image you've uploaded so that it won't come back to you when it's discarded, all you have to do is tag it with the db-author sign. I wanted you to know that, seeing as when I'd discarded your Reese and Bianca image (and you aware that I'd had), it came back to you. Flyer22 (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I completely fudged on the dates for Jax and Brenda. I also added the dates for Sonny and Brenda


 * And thanks for the information on the discarded images. Rocksey (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. One could argue that Tad and Dixie's date of reign should be distinguished as well, since she "died" once before in their union, but it does not seem to fit to distinguish them. She was not "dead" for that long, I mean. Flyer22 (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, but Brenda was not "dead" for that long either was she, just a few years? Still...there's something that does not seem right in distinguishing Tad and Dixie's date of reign. Flyer22 (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I don't think it would be right either because then you would have to distinguish it twice since Tad was presumed dead in 1988 and returned in 1992 and Dixie left the show and Tad twice, once when being presumed dead and another time when returning to her hometown. Cutting up their reign that many times might get complicated. Rocksey (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Want to collaborate on the Luke and Laura article with me?
I'm just wondering if you're up for it. You and I work great together and I feel that it's long overdue for this article to be fixed up. If you'd rather not tackle this, I get it; it's going to be a lot of work. But if you're interested, let me know. We can work out which parts either of us will mainly tackle (like one of us tackles the Writing section; the other starts on the Cultural impact section, etc). Flyer22 (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that would be great. A real world expansion of the Luke and Laura article is long overdue. I have a little bit of information on them right now, but I'll research them some more and see what else I can find. Rocksey (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, great. I'm going to start typing up the Writing section (of course, you can add to it). I'm not sure when I'll be done with the first part of what I type up for the Writing section; I'm busy with other stuff outside of Wikipedia often. I'll get back to you about this soon. Flyer22 (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Why have you deleted my submission? I thought it was a good supercouple? Also I have recently watched Ghost Whisperer, and Melinda and Jim stayed together, even after the latter's death? Isn't that worth noting them in the supercouple list? Just a few questions and I'm looking forward to your answers! Thanks Maatjuhhh (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Present tense
Hi Rocksey! Can you please let me know if it says somewhere in the rules that we need to use present tense on all fiction articles? Because I can't find it and would really like to know for the future. The articles are all weird when in present tense. Dmarex (talk) 08:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey! Yes, plot has to be in present tense according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style and WP:TENSE. As the Soap Opera Project says, some disagree with this where soaps are concerned, but it's generally accepted. Rocksey (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Christian and Olli
I'm talking about this couple: Christian and Oliver from Forbidden Love *originally called Verbotene Liebe*. They've been called a supercouple a few times because they have endured so much, like an homophobic boxer and another things. Just type the words Christian and Olli supercouple on Google, and you will find a few list/articles. And what about Melinda and Jim from Ghost Whisperer? Do you think they are a supercouple? Jim even cheated death after being shot by entering another body who was left empty after the latter's ghost crossed over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maatjuhhh (talk • contribs) 18:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

GAN for Dimitri Marick
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on getting this article to GA status. As I stated to TAnthony and AniMate, "Of course, I wanted the Todd Manning article to be GA (and I still want that), but I know of the work I need to do with that before nominating it again for GA. And there is still some more information and tweaking that I want to do to the Bianca Montgomery article before nominating it for GA. I saw the Dimitri Marick article as a good GA candidate as well (one that needed far less improvement/expansion than the other two), and I quickly let Rocksey know this...


 * I am pleased about this article because it serves as another example of how a good soap opera fictional character article should be (we have few of those). This will be the first American one. And Rocksey has consistently proven herself to be one of the better editors we have working on soap opera articles with us (one of the better editors here in any case). I have been excited about her since the beginning."


 * Just like your barnstars on your user page, you should show off your GA work there as well.


 * I've listed this article as a good example at WP:SOAPS.


 * Peace. Flyer22 (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Flyer! I'm hoping more articles in the project can be brought to GA or FA status too.


 * My user page is so neglected. This might be a good excuse to update it and try to make it more presentable.


 * Also, how far have you gotten with the Luke and Laura article? So far I've found some good information about the subject from magazine articles and books. Rocksey (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still tweaking the Writing section in my Word document. I sometimes get sidetracked with things I said I would do here. If I take too long, let me know. You might be reminding me, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, no I'm not trying to rush you on it. I was just taking the opportunity to check in, so to speak. I'll start in on the casting and maybe cutting down the plot. Rocksey (talk) 06:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"We wanted a really exciting love triangle", said Broderick.

In the source for that line from Broderick, it has the comma outside of the quote? Flyer22 (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, there's no comma in the quote so it would have to go after the quotation. Rocksey (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Rocksey, do you mean that that quote's comma is on the outside? Or do you mean that it has no comma at all? If it has no comma at all, then I'm sure that's a misprint. Also, if that's the case (no comma at all), it actually would have to go inside of the quotation, per Wikipedia. Wikipedia complies with regular American punctuation when it comes to statements like that, as you know. If it were worded as Broderick said "we wanted a really exciting love triangle," then the comma or period would go outside of the quote. Flyer22 (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, it could be a misprint. I'll put it back. Rocksey (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS, the website
I'm not familiar with this site. While it is a valid source when it is reporting itself, do you know whether or not a person can simply create a page like this Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone one and lie about stuff? I mean, I know that fan pages can be created there to help raise money, but I need to know if this Bianca and Maggie one is legit.

For example, the SOAP-A-THON: Battle of the ABC Daytime "Power Couples" does not list Bianca and Maggie in their lineup, but they do list Reese and Bianca. Of course, this is for 2009, and started in late 2008 (which I assume is the only time frame this type of competition has been done). Flyer22 (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I have no idea. I'm not familiar with that site at all. Rocksey (talk) 05:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All right. Thanks, anyway. I'll ask TAnthony about this. I'll also tweak the addition I made about it to the Bianca and Maggie article just in case my fear about that first link is correct. I mean, I wouldn't think it would be possible to lie on that site which is responsible for doing so much important good stuff for the HIV/AIDS community, and which the soap opera community seems to respect as well (also displayed on their site with pictures of soap opera stars at their soap opera event), but I have to know. Flyer22 (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Soap Opera Central/Character ages
Hey, are you completely against using Soap Opera Central now? Or just for its character ages? As I stated to AniMate a month ago, WP:SOAPS already concluded that Soap Opera Central is a reliable source for soap opera news...because the site's creator (who has valid soap opera connections) writes the news articles, not contributors of the site. Sometimes actors even do interviews at Soap Opera Central. Well, at least Kristen Alderson has been known to. In addition to being allowed for soap opera news, WP:SOAPS said that using its character biographies for information not all that contested is okay.

Do you now feel that there should be another discussion/debate about the use of Soap Opera Central? Such as the way we have it listed at WP:SOAPS as being an allowed source? Does this mean that you feel that Soap Opera Central should not be used to source things such as character ages, as is done in the Erica Kane article, and you want this to be discussed/debated again at WP:SOAPS or rather at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard (where it was also taken to before)? If so, my immediate thoughts about that are that we all know there are not that many valid sources for soap opera plots by Wikipedia standards, even when aspects of the plot are notable. ABC.com and Soap Opera Central are heavily relied upon for stuff like that here, and Soap Opera Central is fairly reliable even for plot information.

As for using it for plot summaries and character ages, I simply do not see the big deal. The site picks its contributors and it cannot be edited like Wikipedia is edited. I am not big on plot summaries being sourced, anyway. The best film articles (and other good articles in general having to do with fiction) on Wikipedia do not have sourced plot summaries, and I really do not see why any other plot summaries should be sourced (unless it is in real-world style) if film plot summaries do not have to be. Yes, I get that the public has easier access to films to know what is true or not than they have to soap opera episodes, but still... Most soap opera fans would correct something in the plot if they saw it as wrong, regardless, just as viewers of films would and do.

I do not mind too much if you are against using Soap Opera Central in whatever way (as long as you discuss it over with me before removing the source from any articles I have significantly worked on; communication beforehand is best in cases like these); I was simply relaying to you the history of debating this site at WP:SOAPS. Flyer22 (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know very much about SoapCentral as whole since I don't use the site very often. It might be reliable for news and things like that, but what I'm talking about right now are all the inaccuracies in the Erica Kane article on that site. It's wrong about her age at the time of All My Children's debut. It's also wrong about the dates of some of her marriages and divorces. Her maladies and hospitalizations aren't complete and the date for her drug addiction is off. Since there are so many things wrong on the page, including the part the source is supposed to be supporting, I just don't see how we can use it as a reliable source. Rocksey (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How is it wrong about Erica's age at the time she and All My Children debuted? I mean, either way, it is true that Erica would be in her late 40s right now due to the changes done to her children's ages (most notably Kendall's, as even that other reference I added talks about that major deSORASing; though that reference is off on the exact dates). Flyer22 (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's wrong because it says the character is 16 when the show debuts, but she was 15. That combined with all of the other mistakes makes it unreliable. How do we know they're not wrong about the rest of it when it get so many other dates wrong? Rocksey (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That source you have in the Character development section says she was 15. But how do we know that that is not an error on that source's part? As demonstrated by the other source I added to her age, book sources can often be wrong about the exact dates when it comes to shows (especially soap operas).


 * Going on pure fan talk, almost every "old school" fan of this series says that Erica was 16 when this show debuted. Either all their memories are very foggy on that or they have all read Soap Opera Central about that which stuck with them. Flyer22 (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In that source it was Susan Lucci who said the character was 15. I believe she said it in the book Worlds Without End too.Rocksey (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what to make of this. Lucci could be wrong as well. A simple error. I'm going to look for more sources (considered valid by Wikipedia, of course) talking about Erica's age at her debut. I will do this to see what most sources say (if I find them), and just how many conflicting sources there are out there about her age at that time. If it is true that she was 15 when the show debuted, then do we change Erica's age to having been born in 1963 (based on how we previously believed that her age was altered from 16)? I would have to change the Kendall Hart Slater SORAS section for sure. Flyer22 (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I just found the page in the Worlds Without End. Lucci does refer to Erica as fifteen in a round about way by saying the rape happened a year before the show debuted when the character was fourteen. I'll remove the source until we can get a more reliable one that doesn't have so many errors. Rocksey (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Her stating it in a "round about way" is exactly what I mean. I cannot go on that alone that Erica was definitely 15 at the time when I've come across so many books with tiny errors similar to that for other shows or characters and when most "old school" fans (in my experience) say that she was 16. I will see if TAnthony can help us with this while I'm trying to solve the problem. Flyer22 (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In the source I used for that part, she didn't say it in a round about way. She said, "I love playing her. I enjoyed playing her when she was a 15-year-old high school girl, the naughty girl in town, and I enjoy playing her now, when she's still the naughty girl, but she's broadened her area of operation to include the entire world. It's just one of those amazing parts that come along once in a lifetime." It's only in the book that she strongly implies fifteen. She also named that age specifically in this source . Rocksey (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Before you stated that, I was going to ask what year the Worlds Without End soap opera book was published in. Because, if written before 1993 (the year Erica's age was changed from having been 16 at the time of her debut), that would further show that Lucci was a little off...since she would then be saying that Erica was raped at 15. But now I see that that book was published in 1997. Sigh. I'm off to search, like I said above.


 * I'm still not convinced that Erica was 15 at the time of her debut. Flyer22 (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Soap Central is definitely not a reliable source for "facts" like this. For news items, absolutely, but not for character profiles. Just like us, they often get things wrong. I think rather than debating the validity of Soap Central, perhaps it's time to rethink our character infoboxes. A character's age is fairly trivial information when it comes to a soap character's profile. We have to rely on primary sources for the most part, and they always change. In fact, I would argue the only time a character's age would be relevant is when a reliable source discusses it in terms of SORAS. I'm going to start a discussion at WP:Soaps. AniMate  talk  21:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Solution/Resolution:

Too many books for me to go through, and the ones I came across do not mention Erica's age in 1970. Plus, regular non-Google Books searches about this turn up nothing about it either. I'm not really for removing all character ages either. In the cases of Kendall and Erica, it is significant.

Okay, let's remove the Soap Opera Central reference about age from the Erica, Kendall, Bianca, and Josh articles. It does not really change Erica's age or theirs, anyway, since Erica's age is easily calculated by the fact that the show changed Kendall's birth year to 1976 in 2002 and said that Erica was raped at age 14.

The Soap Opera Central reference basically says: "When All My Children debuted in 1970, Erica was 16 years old, putting her birthdate at 1954. In 1993, this was retconned to 1956, as Erica was said to be 14 years old when she had daughter Kendall Hart, who was herself 23 at the time. In 2002, Kendall's birthdate was established as 1976, putting Erica's birth year at 1962."

All we have to do is change the "Erica was 16 years old, putting her birthdate at 1954" part to "Erica was 15 years old, putting her birthdate at 1955" and attribute that to Lucci having stated the character as 15 when the show debuted...and valid sources (such as the show itself) for validation of Kendall's current age. Flyer22 (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Section break: Erica and Kendall's ages in 1993
One part of the Family section does not make sense. It says that their ages were changed because of the outcry from viewers that it would make Erica too young.

I point out, though, that before they changed Erica and Kendall's ages a second time in 1993, Erica was 38 while Kendall was 16 (since Erica, at that time, was apparently born in 1955). This means that Erica would have only been 22 when she gave birth to Kendall. Thus...how does making Kendall older, aging her to 23, make sense in rectifying the problem, when that would make Erica even younger (15)? Are you sure that whatever source you were reading does not mean that Erica being too old was the problem? After all, Erica being 22 when she gave birth to Kendall is what did not make sense with the timeline once they said that Erica was raped at age 14 in 1969.

Of course, that year (1993) they eventually changed Erica's birth year to 1956 when they made Kendall 23, but that is besides the point. Flyer22 (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and changed the above issue, as you'd know anyway from your watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Erica wouldn't have been 22 at the age of Kendall's birth. Where did you hear that she was? Based on the sources I've seen (the source I provided for that, All My Children: The Complete Family Scrapbook, and Susan Lucci in Worlds Without End) Erica's age was 14 at the time of the rape. If Erica was 14 when Kendall was born and Kendall was 16 at the present time in the storyline, that would make Erica 30 which is too young. I'm going to switch it back to the right way.Rocksey (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If Erica was born in 1955 (which, at that time, was her birth year) that means Erica was 38 in 1993. Therefore, you have a 38-year-old Erica and a 16-year-old Kendall. How could Erica have been 30 in 1993? If she was, that would mean her birth year was 1963.


 * Even if Erica had been 30 in 1993, how is that too young to have had Kendall? All that would mean is that she was 14 (which complies with the time she was raped). Or do you mean that the audience protested Erica being 14 at the age in which she was impregnated with Kendall? If so, how would making Kendall 23 at that time help that, considering that it would mean Erica was even younger when she had Kendall (unless Erica's birth year was moved much further back)? If Erica was 30 in 1993 and Kendall was later 23, that would make Erica 7 when she had Kendall. That is when the audience would have surely protested about her being too young.


 * It seems that if the audience felt that Erica was too young, it was more so in response to the fact that her birth year was known as 1955 at that time and therefore she would be older than 30 in 1993. This would also mean that the solution in aging Kendall to 23 was that they would be placing Erica at the more likely birth year of 1956 instead of 1963.


 * Either way, given Erica's original birth year of 1955, it would still mean that Kendall was too young to have been Erica's child when she first debuted in 1993 as a 16-year-old. Flyer22 (talk) 06:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right that Erica was probably around 38 at that time in the plot. What the audience had a problem with was that the introduction of a sixteen year old Kendall brought Erica's age down to 30. Like you said, if Erica was fifteen at the time of the show's debut, her birth year would be 1955. That's why it caused such a problem with Kendall being brought on as sixteen while the storyline said Erica had her when she was 14. For Kendall to have been sixteen in 1993, that in effect would bring Erica's age down from 38 to 30 in 1993. Since the audience didn't like that, the show changed Kendall's age to 23 and kept Erica's age at Kendall's conception at 14. That brought Erica's age up.Rocksey (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I figured what you meant by the time I finished typing that response to you, LOL, which it seems you also realized. Of course I knew they moved Erica's birth year of 1955 to 1956 when they aged Kendall to 23, but I was talking about that other stuff and got a little confused in the process.


 * Do you mind if I clarified that (Erica's original age) in that part of the article? For example:


 * By changing "This caused an outcry from viewers of the series since Erica's age at the time of the rape combined with Kendall's age did not make sense within the All My Children timeline and would make Erica too young" to "Due to Erica's original 1955 birth year, this caused an outcry from viewers of the series since Erica's age at the time of the rape combined with Kendall's age did not make sense within the All My Children timeline and would make Erica and Kendall too young."


 * Well, if I changed it to something like that. Would you mind my mentioning Erica's 1955 birth year and both Erica and Kendall as being too young? I know that it is stated at the beginning of the Character development section that Erica was 15 in 1970, but it seems that mentioning her 1955 birth year (regardless of that) in the line I took issue with above would benefit that part. Flyer22 (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a great way to make it more clear.Rocksey (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. Sorry for the hassle. I sometimes get carried away with attention to detail. Flyer22 (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem.Rocksey (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

On an only slightly related note, Flyer, do you think I should put information about the Erica Kane Barbie doll which depicts Erica at her 1993 wedding to Dimitri in the Erica Kane Cultural impact or the Dimitri Marick and Erica Kane Cultural Impact? I just found some information on it and I'm not sure which would be the most appropriate place to put it. Rocksey (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If I may interject: it actually sounds relevant to both. Not every soap character has a Barbie doll, so that's notable. Even fewer soap weddings inspire Barbie dolls, so that's notable for the wedding. I'd put more detail in the couple article, however. AniMate  talk  02:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with AniMate. Flyer22 (talk) 04:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Interject anytime, Animate. I thought it was relevant to both articles as well, but I wasn't sure if adding it to both would be redundant. Thanks for the advice. Rocksey (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Phyllis Summers Newman
I noticed you moved the "Gloria Bardwell" article to "Gloria Fisher". In that case, why didn't you move "Phyllis Summers Newman" back to "Phyllis Summers" seeing as how that it is her common name also?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBanks (talk • contribs) 05:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically, I requested Gloria Fisher be moved away from Gloria Simmons. If you want to move Phyllis Summers Newman back to the character's common name, go ahead.Rocksey (talk) 05:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Quotes
Rocksey, I don't get what you mean about the quotes in the Wardrobe section of the Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery article. I mean, the sentences ending in periods should not prevent adding a comma at the end of it to say "Braun said." It's like when a person says, "I love basketball." Of course, when relaying what that person said (let's say a man in this case), you are going to state, "I love basketball," he said.

I'm not trying to be a bother, of course. You know that I appreciate your work, as well as your battle against vandalism, here. I'm just trying to see where you're coming from on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not bothering me.


 * I'm just trying to keep quotations as much like the original source as possible. Is there anything specific Wikipedia says on that?Rocksey (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has its own rule when comes to punctuation style...such as its "policy" Logical quotation (you already know about that one). But, from what I see, that is the only time a period or comma should be outside of the quote here at Wikipedia. Not like in those quotes by Braun in the Wardrobe section we are discussing. Adding commas in this case is not altering the original quotes. The original quotes still remain the same. Adding a comma within either of the quotes is only to relay what that individual said using grammatically correct formatting. As I said above, if a man were to say he loves basketball, and you reported what he said in the way my example above does, that would not be altering his quote. It would be properly relaying it. You could always switch up the formatting of a quote by putting the "He said" or "She said" part before the quote, of course. For example: Braun said, "Reese loves Bianca." In this way, the quote still has not been altered; it has simply been properly relayed. The comma belongs in front of the quote...just as it would belong after the quote when relaying someone said it if you chose the latter route...unless it is a fragment sentence (as pointed out by Logical quotation, linked above.) Think about it: The "He said" and "She said" parts are added on by editors/reporters/story-tellers. When a person says something, it does not end in a comma. Therefore, in all cases of "He said" or "She said" when relaying quotes, the commas were added on. I admit, though, that the guideline Logical quotation currently having its own article called WP:Logical quotation might be confusing it a bit for people where it talks about commas (considering that it does not elaborate on that).


 * On a side note, do you know how to archive talk pages? I'm wondering if you are ready to archive your talk page and whether you know how to go about doing that. If you do not know how to yet, then I'm sure you'd quickly learn by just looking at how it is done on my talk page. You could always just clear your talk page of the discussions you are done with and never archive your talk page, but that does not seem like something you want to do. It seems as though you would rather have an easy access record of your past talk page discussions. Flyer22 (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't know how to archive my talk page. I should probably learn how pretty soon. Thanks for the information on that, Flyer. Rocksey (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. And the comma placement of the quotes by Braun I'm referring to? You don't mind now if I go alter them so that the commas are within the quotes? Flyer22 (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and of course Wikipedia has a page about archiving talk pages: Help:Archiving a talk page. You can also create pages for drafting articles and practice, per User page, like I'm doing right now with the Stacey Castor article. I was already going to create that article, but someone beat me to it due to my not wanting the article to be a stub or very mediocre. Now I have to significantly improve/expand it, especially to further show its notability. Flyer22 (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, of course. I'm sorry for not making that clear in my last message. If you haven't changed it back by now, I will. Rocksey (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Y&R Gloria
I agree, we can do that. I just don't know because she is credited as "Gloria Bardwell" and but as for what name she's gone by as her common name I thank it should be either "Gloria Fisher Bardwell" or something of that nature. She's never used Gloria Fisher since 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.143.90 (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)