Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:37, 12 November 2007

Archives

1. User:CelticGreen/Archive 1

Who's an admin and who's not

See the official list. That's maintained by the bot. Daniel Case 02:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks.CelticGreen 02:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Trivia sections

It certainly seems annoying, and it's sort of drive-by, but policy is on his/her side. I'd prefer it if people did the hard thing (integrating any trivia that was worth putting elsewhere in the article into prose sections) rather than just tag and feel pleased with themselves, but the fact of the matter is that we are trying to get rid of them.

I'd go to some of the articles and either:

• remove the material if it's unsourced (let's face it; most of it is) or at least

• • tag it with {{fact|date=September 2007}} (Or October, when we get there. There is a bot (SmackBot that takes care of dating these tags, but it's always nice to do it yourself), look through the edit history to see who added it and ask if they have a source, then remove it after a few days if no source is forthcoming. This, IMO, is the good-faith way to do it.

• remove it if it's just so genuinely trivial as to not really rate a mention (a judgement call, true, but a lot of stuff in trivia sections meets this standard) and say so in the edit summary.

• integrate it into the article if it's sourced and relevant (or if it's just relevant, at least. But try to get a source).

Then you can remove the tag. Daniel Case 04:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Episode lists

Could you point me to a specific example you have in mind? Do you mean one with tables?

Thanks for the compliment. And don't worry about homeopathy, I reviewed its GA candidacy a while back so I am familiar with it (failed it, but that's a different story). Daniel Case 02:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I don't have anything in mind. I saw a rather heated debate at the admin report section and it was scary. I did Guy's Big Bite page with ep links and recipe info. Just want Guy's page to be right. It's my fav show beyond Days. CelticGreen 02:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Las Vegas Title Screenshot

Thanks for the heads up. I thought someone "accidentally" removed it or was just being an ass. Any idea why the images keep getting removed? Out of curiosity, what is wrong with the rationale, etc? I basically copied the same format of tagging images from other screenshots on articles, so if it's wrong, ALL my tags are wrong! :/ Pinkadelica 05:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was bit a peeved that the image was removed without explanation. I actually think a editor is removing the images. When images are removed by a bot, they tend to leave you a message about why it was removed, etc. I didn't get one of those. In fact, I got a message about it being orphaned some eight days after someone edited the page. Weird. I'll watch the page as well and see what happens to it. I've seen crappier screenshots on articles with the exact same rationale so I don't see why that one keeps getting deleted. Oh well, another Wiki mystery. Pinkadelica 02:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Did it have a Fair Use Rationale (see WP:FURG)? If not, that's probably your answer right there. Try uploading it again, then, in its description, include a FUR. -- azumanga 22:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it had everything, it's just a odd thing that keeps happening. It's actually managed to stay this time. CelticGreen 23:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Apology

I would like to formally apologize for the conflicts and problems that I have caused you. I acted in a very rude, immature manner, and I showed no respect towards you as well as Misplaced Pages. Please except my apology. Thank you for helping me to realize the indecency of my actions. Roaster101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roaster101 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

A controversial topic...and the help with deletion nomination topic

Hey, I was wondering what you and IrishLass think of this. It's the most controversial topic for deletion that I've ever seen since I have been here at Misplaced Pages.

And on an unrelated note (well, if you ignore that this is about a deletion topic as well), IrishLass seems to be great at nominating topics for deletion. Perhaps IrishLass could perfect your deletion nomination skills better than the page that discusses nominating articles for deletion can. I have never nominated an article for deletion while at Misplaced Pages...yet...so you guys are ahead of me on that front. I feel that I have a pretty good understanding on how to, but if the page about nominating articles isn't helping you get it just right, maybe IrishLass can help out better on that issue. Flyer22 17:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow!! Yes, I am getting the hang of nominating for deletion. Not that I go looking for articles to delete, but some certainly scream DELETE ME. I'm going to take that debate home with me (print it out) and read through the whole thing over the weekend, maybe even hit a wi-fi spot to comment. That is an intense debate. As a mother, the gut reaction is "delete" but that would be POV not logic. Thanks for the heads up. IrishLass0128 17:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know so much about it not being logic. As for nominating topics for deletion, do you feel that you can help CelticGreen out on her skills with that? Flyer22 18:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I will try. Is there a particular topic you want deleted, CelticGreen? The last one I nominated is just going in circles Ashlee Holland, maybe if you (Flyer22) could glance at it, offer an opinion. She won I Want to Be a Soap Star and has done essentially nothing else. I think she lacks notability but the author really seems to be trying and wants the page to stay. IrishLass0128 18:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll pop in over there and see what's up with that. Flyer22 18:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting article and AfD argument. I'm going to look it further, just skimmed it. It's actually kind of creepy in a way but I understand a need for it on some level. BTW Flyer22 thanks for moving that apology to where it's supposed to be. I tried to help the young ?man? but was essentially attacked. I guess he figured out I wasn't attacking him, just trying to help and follow Wiki guidelines. CelticGreen 21:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Civility and No personal attacks

Hi Celtic,

Please do not make personal attacks as you did here ("rather that being a cry baby that can't handle a woman.") Comment on contributions, not the contributor. I went into this hoping that some sort of compromise could be made, but it is clear with your ALLCAPS writing and use of bolding that you are upset. I understand why you would be upset to see your work changed, but that is part of building a collaborative encyclopedia. You have made several misstatements in your messages, but I don't honestly want to reply to you right now in the state you are obviously in. Please calm down, think about how a compromise might be reached, and consider that personal attack won't help the article in any way. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 22:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's get something straight RIGHT OFF. I am upset that my user page was violated, not that my edits were undone. I'm upset that the words "watch it" were used as if I were a 2 year old talking back to my little brother. I'm upset that I asked him to talk and instead he reverted (adding back the trivia section, not considering the word changes, and not following project guidelines, instead putting the entire article back to HIS last edits, ignoring what was done) the article and went crying to an admin rather than him talking to me. But mostly I'm upset being called a MAN. The compromise is he damn well better clean up the article and make it compliant with the projects it's associated with and stay the hell off my talk page. I'm fine with you Firsfron of Ronchester of coming here, because that is your job. But I'm not fine with someone putting things on my talk page after I've archived them and been done with the discussion or asked them to keep it in one place. He cleans up his mess, and stays off my talk page. That's the compromise. You should really look at the last edits I did before you take his side.CelticGreen 22:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, Celtic. It is clear you are a good user who has made excellent contributions to the project. I have looked at all the edits, and I have not taken anyone's side. I have asked you not to make personal attacks as you did a few minutes ago; these will never help the encyclopedia, or the article in question. I can see no sign of Rollosmokes having made any personal attacks, or I would have warned him, too. I did warn him not to violate Misplaced Pages's rule on reverting more than three times. I am asking you again to remain civil with this user; do not make personal attacks and avoid making insults such as "went crying to an admin". Comments like this will never calm down the other party, and will only incite further anger and accusations. You have every right to archive comments on your talk page, and he was incorrect in replacing them, but you cannot make demands about where the comments must be kept if you continue the discussion (as you have been doing). Each user has his or her own style in making talk page comments: many users copy the messages to both pages, while others prefer keeping them on a single page. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's get this completely clear so we both understand, I'M DONE WITH HIM. He can clean up and/or ruin the Drake article to his little smoking heart's content. My opinion is what it is. I don't like him and he needs to stay the heck off my talk page because I will not respond and I will continue to archive any comments. Since your warning, I have not acted incivily toward him. Nor will I again. All comments were made before your warning. I will abide by it, but I will also make sure the unsourced info tag remains on the Drake page until HE fixes the page. CelticGreen 22:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• And I further reitterate, you should look at the last version Rolo reverted because the italics, they were there, the word "it's" was completely replaced, the trivia section was incorporated into the article, and the accurate title of "daytime drama" was added. He reverted all of that which was done by me just because I did it. That's wrong. So look at what I last did before the tags, then tell me my reverts were wrong. I revert and then edit things, might want to look at the final version, not one edit.CelticGreen 23:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Celtic,

At this point, I'm at a loss trying to understand your points of view on this article. Twice now you have accused me of "taking sides" in this dispute. I have not; I've warned both of you not to continue disruptive behavior. You have stated that I need to explain my actions allowing Rollosmokes' edits to stand. I haven't edited the article at all, so my actions have been quite limited up to this point (such as asking you why you removed the correct italics and spelling, and re-inserted redundant wikilinks. You told me you "didn't REVERT squat" but this is untrue: your edit summary here is "Undid revision 165772224 by Rollosmokes (talk)Reverted to CORRECT version." The version you reverted to is not correct: it contains typos and Manual of style problems. You have stated repeatedly that you are done with this dispute. And then you continue to:

a) edit the article, challenging Rollosmokes' work, and

b) leave accusations on editors' talk pages, hours after they have moved onto other things.

What's important here is the article. You have stated repeatedly you're done with it. That's unfortunate (because I was hoping to seek your input on this article), but if you're truly done with the article, then stop editing it and stop leaving accusations on other editors' talk pages. If you really are interested in continuing to edit this article, review the guidelines covering use of italics on titles of television programs, use of possessives, and use of Wikilinks. When you reverted Rollosmokes' changes with the inappropriate edit summary "Reverted to CORRECT version", you were damaging the content of the page (re-introducing spelling errors and such) in a silly edit war that only harmed the article. When you left six consecutive notes on my talk page telling me you were done with the dispute (and then continuing to edit the article and leaving further demanding talk page notes), demanding that talk page comments be left where you put them, and making blatant personal attacks... this is all behavior that worries me. Please go back to editing the encyclopedia and put this dispute behind you. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Semi neutral third party here. Okay, I looked at the Drake Hogestyn page and I see what CelticGreen is saying. Her final edit that Rollosmokes reverted had considerable clean up and incorporated the italics and the bold where they should be but that was never acknowledged while you were scolding her. Yes, she left things that were also visual and "frowned upon" (but not completely unallowed), but she cleaned up a lot and Rollosmokes did just revert to his last change "just because." You need to look beyond the edit summaries to what the final edit was. Yes, these two don't get along, aren't going to in all likelihood, but as an admin, you did appear to take sides by appearing to not truly look at the page. I tried to reach a compromise adding back good changes, such as the removal of the trivia section and leaving the information incorporated into the article. But I also left the citation needed tags because the article sources nothing. That's never good. Some people make an edit, save the page, make another, save the page, see an error, make an edit. You can't be a stickler and count that as "6 edits" when in reality, it's a total process. If I'm on a frequently changing page, like the admin report page, I save a couple of times so the typing I've done isn't lost.

You, Firsfron of Ronchester, and Rollosmokes kept harping on the "it's" verses "its" issue but did either of you notice that in her final edit the sentence read: There is no official word from the show's producer or the production company, NBC/Sony, on the current status of Drake's contract or position with the show.?? I have no computer on the weekends so I've learned to look at the whole and not just a piece. The whole issue in this, it seems to me, is that no one looked at the whole, just the pieces. Enough said, I've cleaned up the page a bit, but, like I said, it needs citations. Many, many citations and references because CelticGreen was right, there aren't any. Place nice now, CG and RS. IrishLass0128 15:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Soap infobox

I just wanted you to know that I appreciate your concern about my mass-implementing the new infobox. I am honestly just trying to "Be Bold" and not sneakily trying to get my way. Sadly, more discussion usually occurs over individual articles than Project-wide issues.
I want to reassure you that when "applying" the new infobox I am simply switching {{Infobox character}} to {{Infobox soap character}} and adding the series name where I can. There is really minimal visual and functional difference between the two templates on a basic level. I will not be removing relationship lists or anything like that on a mass basis, and particularly not in Days articles, which I believe is your area of expertise and not one of the shows I regularly edit.
Also, keep in mind that having our "own" template in the Project gives us more control; so if we decide we want a "step-great-grandchildren" parameter or something, we only have to debate amongst ourselves and not a larger group; the regular character template has to apply to film, television, book and play characters (among others) and so many potential changes are attacked form all sides. — TAnthony 17:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm working on incorporating it into the Days pages. Apparently someone didn't like it because it was deleted from the Sami Brady page all together. I put it back and tried it on the Hope Williams Brady page, which I'm also trying to expand (saw your comments on the other talk page). I also finally added my name to the list of participants in the project. Thanks for the encouragement. CelticGreen 01:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

ANI

Of course he meant thread :) We do move threads to their appropriate places. -- FayssalF - 00:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I had a tough weekend with an aggressive editor and I can be a little too literal sometimes. I had no clue that that talk page existed. I guess you just have to learn what you can the more you come here. CelticGreen 01:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

i understand your situation. There's no need to feel stressed. Just drop me a line if you need help. -- FayssalF - 12:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The order of events of the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article

Here. Flyer22 20:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I hate it when people don't even know EJ's birth name, it was never Elvis DiMera Jr. I would just revert it all back, but having seen these types here before, I know what will happen. I'll look it over and remove some of the crap. CelticGreen 21:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, CelticGreen. Yeah, I've edited the article since then, so I wouldn't revert it all back. But, anyway, thanks again. Flyer22 21:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the biggest problem, the article is now completely false and based on someone's assumption, not fact. It has never been proven that EJ did any of the black glove crimes, yet this person rewrote the entire article to appear as though he was tried and convicted. That's not true. All the black glove information has to come out, it really makes the most sense to just revert the whole thing, but I'll go about it the long way at this time. CelticGreen 21:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

See, this is yet another reason why I am thankful to have you and IrishLass around. I watch Days of our Lives, but as you know, I'm not as familiar with certain things about it as you and IrishLass are...and I haven't watched it as regularly as you two have. If you really need to just revert it all back to before that editor showed up, then go for it. I can re-add my newest edits to it afterwards. Flyer22 22:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I went and grabbed the storyline section from the last edit before the new editor came in and I left them a message. As much as I hate the storyline, I wouldn't have a problem if the crimes were incorporated into the EJ Wells article as "suspected" or "possibily part of" because they keep going back and forth on what he did and what he didn't do. I just watched 5 hours to catch up and all of the sudden EJ didn't shoot John. Okay but that's not what we wanted changed about that episode. We want the "rape" to go away, not "who shot John." The other problem was they adjusted the backstory and included current in the backstory instead of in the current section. They also removed some romantic moments, I guess just because. It does need the section added as to why Sami's marrying EJ, which I do believe will happen, but I think we have to be careful of spoilers. That seems to be a huge problem lately. Thanks for the heads up. I was home today resting up for a long run of 7 day work weeks between tomorrow and the weekend before Thanksgiving. So if you don't see me much, that's why. The advantage is extra money for the holidays. The disadvantage is I may go through computer withdrawal. Thanks again for the heads up on the article. CelticGreen 22:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, about that editor putting the current happenings in the storyline out of order was my biggest concern about those edits at first, as the heading of this section suggests. But now I see there were more problems.

Also, this paragraph... On June 29 2007, EJ is informed that he is the father of Sami Brady's twins. However, during the same episode, it is revealed that the DNA test was never actually done because Kate blackmailed Nick Fallon, the lab tech, who was supposed to run the test. Eventually, Nick had the test run and a current test result indicates Lucas Roberts is the father of the twins, not EJ.

That paragraph belongs before the mention of John being killed, of course.

And thanks for letting me know where you'll be these upcoming days if I don't see you much then. Yes, the money you will get from that will be worth it at least. Flyer22 22:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it does. You know, I think I'm sticking to the soaps. Look above this conversation and see the trouble I get into when I try and branch out. The problem is some are blaming EJ for John's death but Andre did it. Yes, it is a factor in Sami marrying EJ, but EJ didn't do the deed. CelticGreen 23:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Take a look here

Just to let you know...CelticGreen is a she. So you might want to change that pronoun of he. And she really didn't take being called a he too well before. Flyer22 11:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That's kind of cool, and definitely surprising. Yes, I do get a little "bent" when I'm called a guy when it sounds like an insult. I guess, I hadn't thought about the Celtics basketball team when I picked my name. I guess guys think that or something. I should get one of those banner things like from the soap project that say "This user is female" to avoid confusion. Thanks for showing that to me. CelticGreen 00:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Lol. Sorry about that, changing it now...D3av 01:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I now have a little banner thing that says I'm a female to avoid confusion. CelticGreen 02:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You probably read this.

You probably read this, but thanks for what you said in relation to Flyer22/Flyer. --Gen. S.T. Shrink ** 02:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

LISTEN HERE

You obvious do not watch las vegas. Go watch Season 5 Episode 1 the first part on the nbc.com website. BECAUSE HE CLEARLY STAYS he wants to be married to here. NO WHERE DID I SAY ITS EXPECTED HE AND SHE WILL BE MARRIED IN THIS SEASON, that would be expected. BUT IT IS EXPECTED FROM THAT SHE AND HE WILL GET MARRIED> FROM HIS WORDS. GET IT RIGHT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.171.147 (talk) 02:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Your verbal attack will be reported. Please see WP:CIVILITY and WP:CRYSTAL before attacking another editor. And sign your comments next time. CelticGreen 02:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

MYOB

Stop vandalizing Flyer22's page. Your most recent edits ARE vandalism they also border on threatening. You DO NOT change someone else's talk pages unless it's extremely minor like adding and asterisks or a colon to fix formatting. You don't put things like ME and FLY in front of paragraphs. Proper and experienced users followed your threats and behaviour just fine without your additions. FYI ~ Flyer was right and you are wrong. Reverting vandalism isn't a violation of 3:RR. CelticGreen 23:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not vandalising. I was replying. I added me/fly to my post to fly's page as a label. It's flyers page not yours so MYOB. U dont like it?, block me.

You up above talk about verbal attacking, wtf r u doing?

Explaining things to someone is a perfectly acceptable practice on Misplaced Pages. Someone vandalizing another editors page is everyone's business. So I was minding my own business. Next time sign your posts with 4 tildes ~. And while you're at it, try listening and learning and stop assuming and threatening. CelticGreen 23:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Dont threaten me. You're violating the rule of thumb. Dont hurl vandalisation accusations, and MYOB.

No one threatened you. Your actions, however, are violating the WP:CIVILITY rules. CelticGreen 23:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Response

I have responded to the comment you left on my talk page. Alanraywiki 05:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

And I would have looked there without you cluttering my page. CelticGreen 11:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

West GG

I readded it as a comment to the intro. It needs to be there. Also, I have been involved in hundreds of these and never has the intro been so lopsided in presenting the situation. I did not deface the intro, just added my own comment.75.43.195.101 02:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

ALL I ASK IS YOU SHOW ME THE RULE. YOU CANT DO THAT CAN YOU!75.43.195.101 02:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

You've been reported. Go look at EVERY OTHER nomination for deletion. You cannot redo the nomination just because you want to. CelticGreen 02:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Renee Jones

I was just at my local magazine shop and I was reading the latest issue of Soap Opera Weekly which came out on Friday (I believe it had Victor and Nikki from Young and the Restless on the cover) and in the Comings and goings page on the bottom right, it had a blurb saying that Marcus Patrick and Renee Jones were both leaving the show, making Abe the only Carver in Salem. It was in the one that just came out a day ago. It's not mentioned in Soap Opera Digest though. 69.28.232.216 02:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)samusek2

It is rumoured that Lexie is leaving but there is no date and that was based on a tirade Marcus Patrick went on, not a reliable source. Renee's agent has refuted the alligations by Marcus. Please don't add her to the list based on the whining of a big baby with a big ego. CelticGreen 02:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is a thread confirming what I have said. I was reading the actual Comings and Goings section of the latest issue of Soap Opera Weekly, not hearing it from Marcus Patrick himself I understand what you are saying about making sure about the source, but SOW is a pretty reliable source and it was confirmed in the latest issue. Check it out yourself.69.28.232.216 03:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)samusek2

Thread? This is not a message board. Yes, Renee is rumoured to be leaving, but SOW did not have a date and it's going by comments by Marcus, not verifiable sources. As for SOW being reliable, thanks for the laugh, I fell off my chair on that one. SOW reported Joe Mascola was returning 6 months before he was even approached, remember the tent hand? and they were completely wrong. They are far from reliable and with the writers' strike, many things have changed. CelticGreen 03:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Merger Notification

You participated in this AfD on Como West Public School. It has since been proposed that the article be merged into its suburb article per WP:LOCAL and I was wondering if you would be willing to voice your opinion on the merger here. Thanks. Twenty Years 03:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

West Garden Grove

I fixed the Nomination for Deletion page for West Garden Grove. Please dont revert it without discussing it or I will report you for the 3RR. Marinidil 06:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just reverted it back to the original format only to be in compliance with AfD policy. Sorry . . . I know a lot of work was done to sort the comments. Please realize, though, that no information was deleted. It was just reformatted to be in compliance. Alanraywiki 06:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Alan, this is just a registered account for the banned IP user that reordered it in the first place and was banned after being warned three times to stop. I reverted their edits as vandalism and admin agreed. CelticGreen 14:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)