User talk:Sami50421/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikipedia.
Welcome!

Hello, Sami50421, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Chris (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style
 * Any time. I realize you are new to this and I have been in the same boat that you were in four years earlier. It will take time to develop this. Enjoy this while you can considering the US government under our President is doing eveything possible to shut down all of our First Amendment rights in this country. Chris (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing
Just to let you know, I've reverted your edits to Calliope Jones because they were unsourced. If you can find a reliable third party source, you can return them. I realize that she is currently airing on Days of Our Lives, but without a verifiable source, we cannot add that to the article. Reliable sources include soapoperadigest.com and the nbc.com/days site. Per WP:V, fan sites do not count as reliable sources. These are sites like soapoperafan.com, soaps.com, soapcentral.com, etc. Thank you for understanding. Feel free to contact me with any questions. Rm994 (talk) 03:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines
Please take the time to familiarize yourself with the rules of wikipedia. It would probably be a good idea for you to read over WP:V, WP:NOTE, and WP:CRYSTAL. I see you've done much work on Will Horton, that will probably end up being reverted, because of notability issues, etc. Please ask if you have questions. Rm994 (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they do have the maintenance tags, because I have tagged almost all of them. So, in response to your questions, if you read WP:NOTE, there is a pretty good explanatation of what's important for criteria on here. Will Horton was already covered at Children of Days of our Lives, which is why the character did not have a separate entry. The problem with most soap opera related articles is that they are written in an "in-universe" point of view, meaning it's written as if the action is in real-life, and they contain little to no "real-world" affirmations of notability. What that means, basically, is that the subject matter is important enough OUTSIDE the soap opera realm to warrant a separate article. Most of the Days articles are FAR from meeting this criteria, and the only reason they haven't been deleted is because no one has proposed it, and they just haven't been noticed by someone who understands these rules. As a fan myself, I agree with you. The character has been present since 1995, but the sources just don't confirm that the subject is indeed notable. Any addition made to this site must be properly source with RELIABLE third party sources. Soapoperadigest and the NBC site are reliable, but they are not third party sources, as they are directly related to the show. Fan sites are unreliable per WP:V and can't be used as sources. Sorry to be so long winded, I just wanted you to understand why someone may delete things you've worked on. It's not personal, it's just the rules. Please let me know if I can help in any way. Welcome to Wikipedia! Rm994 (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No harm can come from trying to fix it at all. Just be very mindful that you source all your additions with verifiable sources. I see that you used jason47@aol.com as a source. That was deemed unreliable per WP:V, and you should remove any content you added associated with it. I will check over your additions and leave you comments about them when necessary. The biggest way you can help is just by looking for third party reliable sources, which are REALLY hard to come by. Take a look at these articles Todd Manning, Erica Kane, They show you articles about fictional characters should look on this site. Another way to help is by removing any unsourced additions other editors add. I just reverted an IP addition at Calliope Jones because it was unsourced. Yes, I am aware she is back on the show, but we MUST source it with reliable sources to add it. I hope this helps. Rm994 (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Days of our Lives on GA hold
Please see Talk:Days of our Lives/GA1 for more information. Article is on GA hold. Chris (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How far are you along in completing the reviews of this article? Please advise. Chris (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It passed. Good job. Since you are newcomer, I strongly advise to read and follow the information regarding WP:WIAGA and WP:MOS. These will help you in Good Articles in the future. Similar advice was also given for the Passions comments below. You can do it. It will take time though. Chris (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Passions etc
Hi, I'm afraid I've failed Passions as it's not up to GA standard at this time, and has quite a long way to go before it is. I've left some comments at Talk:Passions/GA1. I haven't had another look at the Days of Our Lives review yet, but I will.

I don't know if you've seen WikiProject Soap Operas, but that might be a project that you would enjoy getting involved in. There's also WikiProject Television. Wikiprojects can be very helpful in terms of what is expected of those types of articles. You can also get to know other editors who may want to collaborate on a topic.

I don't know if you had a good look over Good article criteria before nominating the above articles, if not it's worth reading that. To be honest, I think you picked a couple of tricky articles for your first GAs! They're both articles with a long edit history and many editors have worked on them. This can lead to information becoming quite disjointed and unwieldy, and consequently it can be difficult to pull together a decent article. Perhaps you should try working on some articles about individual episodes or smaller topics like those, that would be easier to bring up to the standards. Or find someone that wants to work on an article with you. As I have said in the Passions review, I recommend getting a peer review before nominating an article for GA. That way, you can hopefully iron out any issues, and more experienced editors can point out things you haven't noticed. Actually, this is still true for any editor — it always helps to get more eyes on things. Try and look at some soap opera articles that are already FA or GA to see what you're aiming for.

Just a last note — when you're nominating an article for GA, don't create the review page yourself. You did this with the two above, and stated that you were the reviewer. Just follow the WP:GAN instructions under "How to nominate an article", and the reviewer will do the rest! Feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Regards, -- Beloved Freak  10:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you.  Stwalkerster  [  talk  ]  02:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I wrote something similar in User talk:Sophie; no big deal, but please don't do it again. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  03:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note, but please, don't worry. We all make mistakes, and it's a wiki, so it doesn't matter; anything can be fixed. Just ask for help whenever you need it; you can talk to us live, with this. Don't stop being bold! Thanks again,  Chzz  ►  04:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ooh, I just saw you join, but didn't notice until you'd gone - sorry. You need to type in the white bit at the bottom of the screen. Hope to see you there again.  Chzz  ►  04:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Response
I have noticed all of the great work you have been doing. You seem to be learning well. Most of the tags on articles are put there because of sourcing, tense, and in-universe styles...I see you have been diligently fixing those issues. Keep up the good work, I can tell you though to be careful with how many times you place citations in articles as in Hope Brady. Some of them I think are unnecessary, but it's not wrong to have them...it just flows better when there aren't so many clutterings. One way I would love for you to help, if you want, is to keep checking on articles that you have fixed, and revert vandalisms, unsourced additions, etc. It is hard for me to keep track of so many articles, and plus I don't have as much time I want to put into it. I really feel with you on board we can save the Days articles from being deleted. Keep up the good work! Rm994 (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Days of our Lives
Erm, I know you removed the question, but I'd already written an answer, so I decided to inflict it on you :-)

See reply in User talk:Chzz

Best,  Chzz  ►  02:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for the reply; this is just a quick note to say, no bother at all, and to note that the reply is now archived in User talk:Chzz/Archive_22 - my talk page gets busy, so things are quickly archived.


 * Refs are really really important if you're heading towards FA, so, that definitely would need work. If references are not good RS you'll have to try and find others; if you can't, you may well have to remove information.


 * If you do have any other questions, any time, feel free to ask.  Chzz  ►  11:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Names
It doesn't matter if the credits say that it's Kiriakis, per WP:COMMONNAMES, it should be Alamain. The most common name that a character is referred to is what should be on there. If Vivian changes her name, then it must be sourced with a verifiable source (not fan sites), then it can be changed. Citing the end credits is usually unacceptable as primary sources, although when no other source is available, they are better than nothing. Keep up the good work! Thanks. Rm994 (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Melanie Layton Kiriakis
Please do not continue to re-create the Melanie Layton article. It has already been merged with Minor characters of Days of our Lives. You do not seem to understand the concept of notability. For an article to be listed on this site, it must be notable, meaning that people OUTSIDE the soap opera realm may know who it is. No one outside of Days fans would have a clue who that is. This article has already been deleted many times, and re-creating it is violation of policy. Try reading over WP:NOTE for an explanation of notability. Whomever is driving the storyline on a show has absolutely NOTHING to do with notability. It's not the notability on the show that matters, it is the notability in the "real world". I hope that clears things up. Thanks for all your extremely helpful additions, you have made some WONDERFUL contributions. If you have a chance, might I suggest reading over all the minor characters of Days page and finding verifiable sources for them? That would be a huge undertaking, but would be well worth it when the article comes up for review, which it will again, as most people are questioning its notability. Ahh! It never ends haha. Anyway, thanks for all the great work! Have a great weekend :) Rm994 (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with the way you did it. It's an absolutely perfect article, IF it were notable, which it is not. And Claire should be deleted right away, as a matter of fact, it should be redirected ASAP to Children of Days of our Lives. There have already been TWO discussions about this article and BOTH of them have said it does not belong here. The only reason others haven't been deleted is because no one has proposed their deletion. But please, feel free to redirect minor characters if you wish, and also feel free to merge your additions into the Minor characters of Days of our Lives article, as it needs MUCH work. Your hard work is appreciated, believe me, you have done more in your short time than I have in my 3 years, and I hope you continue, but we can't violate rules. I hope this helps. Rm994 (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully, yes, in time more notability outside the realm of soap operas will be gained. And like I said, it's not because other articles have more notability, it's just that their deletion has not been proposed...someone snuck Stephanie Johnson in and got their way, despite your hard work. Eventually, others will be proposed too. But please, keep up the GREAT work. Rm994 (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Favor
Could I bother you for a small favor? Within the coming weeks, many past faces of Days of Our Lives will be returning to the show, for guest visits. As such, the character pages will start to have additions announcing their return. However, if they are unsourced, or sourced by unreliable fan sites, they must be deleted, ESPECIALLY if they are added BEFORE the character returns, as that violates WP:CRYSTAL. What I would like for you to do, if you have time, is to watch over these few articles, and revert unsourced controversial additions. Obviously, reliable sources announcing returns are acceptable. But if you wouldn't mind: Laura Horton, Bill Horton, Jennifer Deveraux, Mike Horton, Lucas Horton, Marie Horton, Carrie Brady, Austin Reed, Kayla Johnson, Kimberly Brady and Shane Donovan. Thank you! Rm994 (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with info boxes on minor/children characters' pages, but I don't see the harm. Just try it and see if anyone says anything. Also, be mindful of soap opera relationship info box parameters. Redunancies like listing (father) and (mother) ,or (paternal half-sister), etc are unnecessary. You give the relationship under the heading. There isn't the need in adding more of it. Hope this helps :) Rm994 (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Maggie Horton
Hi. I made a few minor changes to the opening, mainly concerning issues with punctuation, tense, and redundancy (I removed "The character is still part of the current storylines," as the following sentence makes that clear, and the phrase itself sort of stood out awkwardly). I have a few suggestions regarding things that could be changed.

". . .as one of the series' original characters."


 * What exactly is meant by "original characters?" I found it confusing because it suggests that she was around when the show debuted in 1965. "Earliest characters," or something along those lines, might be a better choice of words. Also, the 1973 debut is mentioned twice in the first paragraph, which sounds redundant.

"Maggie's marriage to Mickey Horton was central to the character for the first thirty-four years of the program. . ."


 * I'm again confused by this, because it suggests that she's been around since the program's debut in 1965.

"Events happened and the two became extremely close."


 * I'd change "events happened." It sounds awkward and vague.

"Widely read soap opera-related tabloids would routinely publish articles about forthcoming developments in Maggie's storylines."


 * An exact time period in which this occurred ("Throughout the '70s and '80s") would be nice. Of course, a source for that would be needed.

"For her work as Maggie, Rogers has won a Daytime Emmy."


 * Again, a specific date would fit in well here (even though it's the lead section).

"Maggie Horton is one of the best known characters invented by a writer of Days of our Lives. . ."


 * The phrase "invented by a writer" sounds redundant. Maybe I'm confused by your meaning. I'd also replace "invented" with "created."

Best wishes with the article. -- James26 (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. As for your question, it was nothing 'official.' I just thought I'd pass along the recommendations, since I noticed that you, like myself, were going for GA. Take care. -- James26 (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, just to let you know, I've reverted your edits regarding Alice's condition for two reasons. 1) It's a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, meaning it has happened yet. I'm aware that it is forth coming, and may have happened today...but not everyone has seen today's episode of Days yet, It hasn't aired in all areas, so it's technically a plot spoiler, which is not allowed. Also, daytimeconfidential is an unreliable source per WP:V, it's a fan site, and wikipedia does not allow them as sources. When the NBC site talks about the condition, you can add it back AFTER Days is viewed in all areas. Tomorrow would be fine, if you can find the source. Thanks! Hope you are doing well. Rm994 (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I do like the work you've been doing. You've really made some wonderful improvements! Yes, please keep watch on Alice, because the unsourced edits will start pouring in, as well as the other characters. We can only talk about storylines after they have occured on screen. Adding that the character is returning is acceptable, with a source, but that's it. And as far as sources go, pretty much the only reliable ones are soapoperadigest.com and the NBC site itself. Fan site sources are unreliable. Thanks for keeping such a close eye on things. Keep up the great work! Rm994 (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Will2.PNG
Thank you for uploading File:Will2.PNG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Maggies murder.PNG
 Thanks for uploading File:Maggies murder.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Work
Man on man are we going to have our work cut out for us! The unsourced speculative additions keep piling in! I've done some damage control...but it's gonna keep coming. Thanks for all your help. Rm994 (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we can ask for page protections to stop the random IP's from changing them. Rm994 (talk) 06:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Move?
 Chzz  ► 01:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Shaynarose.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Shaynarose.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 08:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Maggie Horton GA review
Hello Sami, (nice userpage design ;) ) I'm afraid I have some concerns about thr GA review of Maggie Horton. I know that's not your fault, someone else reviewed it, but I don't think that the article meets the GA criteria and will be taking it to be reassessed. In the mean time, I listed some links at Talk:Maggie Horton that are being used as sources, I'm not sure how many of them are reliable, so if you could tell me there if you think any of them are, that would be helpful. I originally noticed the article at peer review, and then realised it had been promoted already. I will be happy to give a more comprehensive review to help you out, but I suspect it may be delisted as a GA in it's current state. Thanks, -- Beloved Freak  13:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Maggie Horton GA reassessment
Maggie Horton has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.-- Beloved Freak  01:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Laura Horton
I would love to, but right now I need to rewrite Marie's page because my sources were not good enough (I wanted to use a fansite but Soap Central is not alloed) I will work on it a bit. Thanks for the compliment.Bmf777 (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Well, thank you. I was jsut viewing what you did. Bravo. I'll gladly work on Laura. I saw the shape of the articles and wanted to make sure that at least the five Horton kids were written well (I rewrote Tommy's article last year and Mickey's was already in good shape.) But yeah, I'll look up some stuff and hopefully get it written by Tuesday night. Thanks so much.Bmf777 (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

 Thanks for uploading File:Maggiefindsmickeydead.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Children of Days of our Lives
An article that you have been involved in editing, Children of Days of our Lives, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)