Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:16, 22 March 2008

Welcome to my talk page

• If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page.
• If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will watch it for your response, so please reply there. RESPONSES LEFT HERE WILL BE MOVED TO YOUR PAGE.
• Please sign and date your comments by inserting four tildes (~~~~) at the end.

Credit goes to Pairadox for the big orange banner

Archives

1. Archive 1 August 2007 thru October 2007
2. Archive 2 November to December 31 2007
3. Archive 3 January 2008 to February 2008

Hey KellyAna

I know we ain't on the best terms, but I'd like to change that. Truce?--KingMorpheus (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Supercouples

I won't apologize for following Wikpedia guidelines. I'd also like to point out something at the bottom of every page we see when we edit:

• If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.

That being said, I really don't want you to leave the article. I'm quite sorry you think I'm ruining it, and I'm not doing anything out of spite, nor do I appreciate your characterizations of me. However, you're a valued and appreciated contributor, and hope you will continue to contribute. AniMate 19:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, KellyAna, you bailed on the supercouples list. But you haven't bailed on the Supercouple article, have you? Flyer22 (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I bailed on the list. It was better than me with my temper getting pissed and being more rude than I really should be. AniMate really, really pissed me off over the list, but the article is still on my watch list and I'm still keeping an eye on it. It's just the list and the removal of "notable wave" and "disputed by rivalry" that pushed my last button. BTW, EJami recently made a Supercouple list. I'll have to find it again even though I don't believe they are. KellyAna (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it'll definitely help add to the notability of their article, of course, once you find it. As for the supercouples list, once it's all fixed up in its new format, I hope you consider watching over it again. I'll see you around. Flyer22 (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure I will. I just need to keep away for a while or I'll explode. Hope you understand. I'll find the article that mentions EJami as a supercouple or even and "up and coming supercouple" which is just as good. KellyAna (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of upsetting you, I have a question about your ideas about "fledgling" or "up and coming" suupercouples. What parameters would you put these types of couples in? Would it be popular couples who never quite made it to supercouple status or would it only be couples who could possibly make it to supercouple status in the future? In regards to the Disputed by rivalry removal... I understand the idea behind it, but that's a tough subsection to include. If Jax/Brenda and Sonny/Brenda should be in that subsection, shouldn't Carly/Sonny be there as well? John/Marlena and Roman/Marlena? I just don't see an reason for a special Brenda section, despite the fact that she's one of the best soap characters ever (and yes I fully believe that Brenda deserves that label in addition to most of the characters on Days except for Willow). AniMate 06:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

For Sonny and Carly or John and Marlena, I'd say no...because there are valid sources out there that cite them as supercouples...which seems to be lacking (as in we don't know for sure if they exist) for Sonny and Brenda, Jax and Brenda...and Roman and Marlena. Plus, in the case of John and Marlena, there's no dispute whatsoever on whether they are a supercouple. I know that and I'm not even a big Days of our Lives watcher (though I do watch; haven't been watching for as long as longtime viewers). Flyer22 (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Shawn Brady

(title assumed because editor left random message) I'm a little confused. What was not proper about the changes I made?--Jbrut

Carly Corinthos blocked

Why is the Carly Corinthos page blocked? I have images below (my contributions) that I would like to share. THey are now marked as orphaned. Can you put them in 4 me? --Carly Fan 12 (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Pictures on pages are there for a reason and your pictures are just because you like Carly, not for enhancement of the article. And the page is blocked because people seem to think this is a fan site for Carly and don't understand it's an encyclopedia. KellyAna (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Earl Ratings

I just added what was there, however, I did find sources. --Yankeesrj12 (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That's cool. Just list the source and please fix the font. It's too dang small to read on my screen. KellyAna (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats how the fonts are for every show. --Yankeesrj12 (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Not the ones I deal with. Regardless, just because other stuff exists doesn't mean it's right. It's too small to see. KellyAna (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello and thanks

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For all the work you do reverting vandalism! Avruch 23:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi KellyAna, I've noticed that you do a lot of vandalism reversion and I wanted to drop this barnstar on your page as thanks. I also wanted to say that it seems like in the last few days you've been involved in a few conflicts, and it looks like you've been pretty frustrated. Its tough to assume that other editors contribute in good faith (that is, they mean well and want to help the encyclopedia) when you see a lot of vandalism and editors that don't follow policies like civility and consensus editing. Still, even when dealing with folks you disagree with or don't like its important to stay calm and polite in return. If you find that its hard to do that, generally a little time off is in order. With all of the good work you do, I'd hate to see you end up blocked because someone saw some warnings in your talkpage history and a few frustrated reverts in your contribs. Keep up the good work, and feel free to let me know if you need help with anything. About the banner below... You should ask on the village pump to see if someone can find a way to make sure your banner stays at the bottom, that way people who don't see it and want to talk to you can do it without messing up your page. (I also saw the MOSDATE thing from earlier... Personally, I think project and page consensus stacks up pretty well against MOS guidelines but its generally a good idea not to dismiss MOS out of hand, people get upset!) Avruch 23:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Survivor Task Force

Hey there! User:Shapiros10 began promoting a possible Survivor Task Force today, and I decided to continue spreading the message. I figure this may help us gain a more standard MOS, which can benefit all related articles. As you are a frequent visitor to the Survivor pages, I thought you might want to help. If yes, then follow the link above (or to the left if your screen is really -really- long!) and help us start something great. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 09:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Civility warning

(copying from my talkpage) A comment that makes no sense is nonsensical and I have a right to remove anything from my page that I don't understand the wording of. It is not "uncivil" it is fact. Have people speak in normal English and I'll not remove their comments. Comments that makes no sense will be removed as "nonsensical." KellyAna (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

And how is it I can be called INSANE and that editor doesn't get a warning but I remove a nonsensical comment and I get a civility warning? Double standard much? KellyAna (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that there has been problematic behavior on the part of multiple editors. I am trying to observe everyone's behavior in this dispute, and if rude behavior continues, from anyone, consequences can be expected. If you feel that something has been missed, I encourage you to let me know, with a diff. In general, before I take action though, I like to see that other efforts have taken place, such as a good faith warning from you to any editor that you are in a dispute with, where you formally caution them. If they continue with poor behavior after that, let me know. But in general, I would like to see everyone try to act in a more mature fashion from here on. --Elonka 04:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If you advise TAnthony to stop following me to every editor's page I make a comment on, I'll be more than happy to play nice. I'm just SERIOUSLY tired of being followed everywhere I go by him. It's no wonder I'm "bitchy" (forgive the language, it's just the most accurate definition I can come up with) with him following me EVERYWHERE. KellyAna (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

And his disparaging comments, which is a personal attack here "flying around here on your broom", wasn't reported nor retaliated to but this stalking, which he admitted to, is getting out of hand. If you really look around you'll find many, many personal attacks made against me by TAnthony, I just haven't reported them.KellyAna (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hadn't seen that one, I'd only been looking at the comments over the last 2-3 days, but I agree that it is unacceptable. If there are any future problems of this nature, please let me know. --Elonka 20:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment about recent events

KellyAna, I do want to calmly clear the air with you on a few things. I admit I have been somewhat frustrated with some of your edits and comments lately, but I of course apologize for anything which may be construed as a personal attack. And though I have indeed been watching your talk page and looking in on your contributions (as anyone has a right to do), I have only "interfered" in soap article-related matters. I have had Sami Brady and Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald on my watchlist for awhile, and I started watching TheRhani's talk page before you even commented there (I had left my own comment there previously, after she made her first Sami Brady edits). I'm sorry if you feel "followed," I assure you that is not the case.

My main issue with your edits and behavior lately is what I perceive as you making repeated controversial edits and reverts without discussion and using false and misleading statements to support them (An example: "Soap articles are done this way"). You then seem to dismiss and ignore any and all discussion or criticism of these edits, including citations of policies and guidelines that challenge your edits. This is inappropriate. I don't believe you are purposely misleading; you obviously feel strongly about your practices, but I feel that some of them are incorrect and yet you will not consider this possibility. As I've said elsewhere, my concern is for the articles I believe you are impacting negatively, and also that other impressionable editors may see your edits and practices and mimic them. You yourself sometimes note that you're doing things how you've seen them done in other articles. As an experienced editor, you may be influential to others, and I am uncomfortable with your perpetuating some of these "questionable" practices by advising and admonishing editors when they contradict you or make edits with which you disagree.

I admit that I am guilty of this myself at times, but I feel that you often have an unnecessarily defensive, hostile and combative tone in your edit summaries and comments. I understand the frustration that comes with the constant senseless and incorrect edits to soap articles by IP users, etc. because I go through the same thing, so I do not wish to scold you but rather ask you to take more care in this area, as I will for myself.

I watch a lot of articles and user talk pages. I of course will never fully stop editing and commenting where I feel it is appropriate, but I regularly ignore plenty of edits I disagree with and discussions I could be useful in. You and I are a lot alike in that we are both very opinionated and strong-willed, and it appears very easy for us to goad each other into inappropriate and counterproductive behavior. Despite my dedication to the Project in general, I have little personal interest in the Days of our Lives articles, and will probably now ignore them and let you do whatever you want. I do ask that you try in the future to thoughtfully consider the good faith criticisms of other editors, and respect their opinions enough to sometimes just accept their changes to your work or leave their own edits alone — even if you disagree somewhat. You may also reconsider the way you maintain your talk page, as dismissing/deleting valid comments without acknowledgment can be considered uncivil. I also ask that you take more care with your justifications, and provide links to actual guidelines or precedents when you are asserting questionable practices or those likely to be challenged. — TAnthony

Without commenting on any other posts from TAnthony, the above seems like very reasonable advice and a good blueprint for how editors who like to work in a collegial and harmonious environment should communicate with eachother. KellyAna, I hope you take these comments on board as both an attempt from TAnthony to clear the air and constructive criticism on some recent problems. All of the articles in your area of interest benefit from your presence, but improving the editing environment through some simple adjustments in your communication style will have an even more dramatic effect on these articles. There is a very active admin community out there in the Misplaced Pages ether, full of folks willing to help in various ways to resolve conflicts, and if you should need help with anything feel free to ask any one of them (or myself, though not an admin). Avruch 01:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want you to think I'm ignoring you. I'm not I'm just extremely busy and will comment. I will say thank you and will fully read what you have written. As time is short I would be doing you a disservice if I tried to comment but I would be doing us both a disservice if I didn't acknowledge the post and let you know I will be reading it fully. TAnthony, thanks for understanding my time is tight. I'll get to you this evening. KellyAna (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't feel pressured to actually comment, I basically just wanted to make my case calmly but still end the craziness. And Elonka has kindly pointed out that I still could have been more positive in my comments, so please take them in the constructive spirit in which they were intended and not as any kind of attack or condemnation. I really do just want to move on and get editing! Thanks. — TAnthony 18:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Right now I feel pressured to bite my tongue from what I've seen. So here's the deal, do I disregard comments on pages like John's or do I let it all go? I have a lot to get off my chest including issues with the broom comment. So here we go...

The broom comment started it all. I'm intelligent and was raised by an ignorant bigot, I could say many, many mean things about your sexual orientation but would never. I mean, I can be mean as hell, but I never personally attack you, TAnthony. Not to the heart of that core. The broom comment was "religionist" (aka an attack against my religion) and a round about way of calling me a bitch. That started it and that's what got me to the point I can't deny I'm at.

I've always respected you and this crap this week has been over the top. I read Elonka's comments two days ago and she pissed me off because I thought she was attacking me but I was wrong, her comments were fair and true and she recognized we were both wrong. If she hadn't gotten involved we might not have said "let's back off, let's work this out." We are two mature people, we're both as intelligent as hell. But we are both emotional and we need to stop. Both of us. You seem to be saying you will so I will to. But let's keep this "in the family" between the two of us. Okay. I can't be hit by 27345 sides, I'll just get bitchier. So let's move on, keep it here and work it out.

Elonka, for what it's worth, thanks for getting involved. KellyAna (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Not sure if you're still monitoring the talk page, but I added another set of comments because I don't think the question has yet been answered to the point where it will be useful for the discussion of screencaps-as-proof at Talk:Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald. — TAnthony 18:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

User:John

Thank you for not being upset about my comments there, which I intend to remove. Of course, the admin to whom I was referring was Elonka, and thankfully her interaction has helped us put this behind us. — TAnthony 02:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I replied here and, in my sweetest southern drawl, darling, I really do want to work this out. I know Elonka is trying to help, I'm all for that. I am all for moving along but the broom thing was really personal. I can get pissed off at you but would never attack your personal life. That broom comment, that just crossed..... KellyAna (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean .. are you actually a Wiccan? I would have no way of knowing that, there is nothing on your user page that gives that impression. I was merely (and inappropriately) using the "witch on a broom" cliche in reference to my impression at the time that you were sweeping across various articles and talk pages with harsh comments and edit summaries. Obviously, even that was inappropriate and I apologize, but please know that I was not intentionally insulting your personal life or beliefs. — TAnthony 05:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Bygones

Hey there, just wanted to say I am sorry for our conflict over Sami Brady, I may have disagreed with you, but losing my temper is never appropriate. I know you also only want what is best for articles. Look forward to collaborating in the future. TheRhani (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my part in it too. I appreciate you taking the time to stop by and clear the air. Your edits were good, I'm just a stickler for the IMDB thing. Can you tell?? I don't like SoapCentral, but can live with it for some things. TAnthony found the best link in SOD and I think we can work with that. Yes, I said we. Look forward to working with you in the future. KellyAna (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to my talk page

• If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page.
• If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will watch it for your response, so please reply there. RESPONSES LEFT HERE WILL BE MOVED TO YOUR PAGE.
• New messages begin above the double lines.
• Messages placed below this box will be arbitrarily deleted.
• Please sign and date your comments by inserting four tildes (~~~~) at the end.

Credit goes to Pairadox for the big orange banner

"Questionable image with questionable licensing"

Excuse me, but I'm looking at this edit. How can the image you removed be considered as having a "questionable license"? There's OTRS archive of the proof from the author of the photograph (Luke Ford) granting clear permission for the image to used here. Tabercil (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you truly look at the licensing, you can't use anything taken after October 22, 2007 and this clearly was taken in January 2008. Additionally, several question the picture being actually Lorenzo Lamas. Even google searches do not hit on this picture and pictures of him don't look anything like that picture. The event was a look-a-like event and there's no indication that it is really LL. Regardless, the licensing doesn't allow for use. Look here at the licensing it doesn't allow anything after 2007.10.22 so you can't actually use that picture. Addendum 2: Luke Ford sold lukeisback.com on October 22, 2007. Thus the rights to the photos on that site extend only to photos that he took prior to that date. And since he sold the site, how do you know the picture is authentic. Here's a 2007 shot of Lorenzo Lamas on Bold and the Beautiful , that not him in that picture previously in the Lorenzo Lamas article. KellyAna (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. Clean your glasses KellyAna. The license says photos from lukeisback.com before October are usable, and you're right that the photo was taken after October. But if you read what the source of the photo is, it says "lukeford.net". That site is still owned by Luke and he still contributes to it. Now that's apart from whether that really is Lorenzo. You have your doubts and I'll confess to having my own doubts as well; Luke is quite certain it is Lorenzo. I didn't think too much of the misidentification as the nickname that was given to his pics in the earliest days of lukeisback.com was "the Camera of Death"... because his earliest photos and morgue shots had the same unflattering creepiness to them. For instance, here are a few examples. I just thought he managed to recreate the ambiance of some of those earliest photos. Tabercil (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to be rude, which is obvious from your first sentence, GET OFF MY PAGE. I'm done. I'll be reporting the rudeness immediately. KellyAna (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Tools

I agree, his comment was uncivil. Is this one in a pattern of multiple uncivil communications from him, or was it a one-time thing? If it's a one-time problem, the best way to deal with it is usually to delete or ignore. Pretty much anyone can have a bad day, so I like to give everybody a free pass for the first comment or two (unless of course they are really egregious).

There are also different ways to ignore the comment. You've done one (tell him in all caps to get off your page), though I don't think that's necessarily the most effective way of handling things (it doesn't reflect well on you). The trick is to express your concerns with his behavior, in a way that you come off as the adult. Take the high road. Are you familiar with something called "Transactional analysis"? It basically boils down to people communicating from one of three possible states, Parent/Adult/Child. In your own reactions to incivility, I'd recommend going for the medium level, the "adult" response. For example:

• Just ignore him. Don't even respond, just assume that his comment fell into the "bit bucket," a la "Oh, did you say something? Sorry, I didn't hear it." (but don't even say that much, just don't reply at all); or
• Reply with a comment like, "Sorry, I find your comment rude, and I don't reply to rude comments. If you'd like to discuss things in a more civil manner, let me know."
• You could delete his message from your talkpage with an edit summary like "deleting comment" and leave it at that
• You could delete just the part of his message that you find rude.

Now, if it does turn out that there's a pattern of rude comments from a particular editor, such that further admin action may be required, it's important to document these things. One of the best things you can do is to post a polite note to the editor's talk page, link them to the policy, and, most importantly, diff the problematic comment to them. Section headers and edit summaries are also important tools here, as you can really craft a very precisely-calibrated caution, depending on what's needed:

• Lowest level: Non-confrontational section header (like "Image issue"), and innocuous edit summary (like "Reply")
• Medium level: More specific section header ("Your demeanor"), and stronger edit summary (like "Concerns")
• High level: Right-to-the-point section header ("Policy violations") and a redflag edit summary (like "Official warning")

It may not sound like much, but someone getting any kind of a warning to their talkpage, especially when there's a flagged edit summary that shows up easily in the page history, often has tremendous weight. Of course, it's also a risk that it may escalate the situation, so there's a bit of an art to it. There's also some "Practice makes perfect" involved. As you get better at it though, it's a really really useful tool for your toolbox.

I hope that helps! I'll keep an eye on things and step in if needed. If there's a pattern, and they're not heeding good faith warnings, I won't hesitate to get involved. But (usually) before an admin is going to get involved, they'd want to see that you'd made an attempt on your own first, to see if you could resolve things. They would also watch to see if it's a case of one user causing problems, of if it's two users just yelling at each other. Speaking for myself, I'd also want to see a "paper trail" of multiple warnings (which make an admin's job much much easier).

So, think any of the above suggestions might help? --Elonka 02:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Elonka, those are wonderful tools and will stay on my page for some time. I do appreciate your patience with me. I am trying to "play well with others" and TAnthony and I have tried to move past things (I think we have) and I need to reply to TheRhaini (possible spelling there). This was a first time thing but I'm just sort of past rude comments. I didn't say IMAGE VIOLATION on the photo, I said questionable which I felt it was. Was that not good faith? And I asked TAnthony if he thought my questioning of the photo was reasonable. He actually laughed at the idea that the picture was Lorenzo Lamas. So I didn't feel I had maliciously removed the picture or made a nasty edit summary. I said the picture was questionable. To be told to "clean my glasses" was not nice. I understand the all caps was not the best approach, but it was less than I've done in the past. Thank you for taking the time, I do appreciate it. And while I was obviously resistant at first, I do appreciate the help. Thank you very much. KellyAna (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As you pointed out, my reply to you was on the rude side, and I will cheerfully 'fess up to that. My initial statement to you was over your statement about the license being in question, not about the identification being in error. I spent a good deal of time getting things ironed out so Luke's photos could be used on Misplaced Pages under a friendly license, and I have steadily updated the terms of that license through the various changes that have occurred over time (e.g., adding lukeford.net, noting when lukeisback.com was sold). So I was (perhaps understandably) defensive when that work was called into question... I will try in the future to be less aggressive in responding to challenges on that front (both here and on Commons).

As for the identification, I agree fully and wholeheartedly with you in that it doesn't look a whole lot like Lorenzo at all! I had emailed to Luke back in February of this year when that ID was challenged then. I asked him:

"Heya... dumb question. Are you sure that was Lorenzo Lamas at the West Hollywood Image awards and not just some random dude who kinda looks like him??"

Luke's reply in its entirety:

"yep, i am sure, i talked to him"

(If you want I'll forward the email exchange to you as proof.) At that time, I was inclined to take Luke at his word 'cause he was there in person getting that photo taken, and as I pointed out, he has a history of taking images of people that have scarce resemblance to them (the "Camera of Death" nickname). I've sent a fresh email to him just now asking if he has further proof of the person being Lorenzo beyond what Luke has already said to me. I'll update you with any further information on that count. Tabercil (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

KellyAna, yes, I've been watching, and I've been very pleased with how you and TAnthony have been able to work things out. I didn't want to say anything too soon though, because I didn't want to get in the way. For example, I already know that I can talk with TAnthony, and I know that I can talk with you, but what was needed here was for you and TAnthony to figure out ways to talk to each other, and you've been making great progress there. Y'know, neither one of you probably would have believed me if I said this to you a few days ago, but I could tell that with just a small course correction, that you and TAnthony could become a really strong team. So if I could help with just a small nudge in the right direction (sort of like a tugboat), I'm happy to have been of assistance. But the main work is really being done by both of you.  :) If I can help with any rough waters in the future though, feel free to give me a call! --Elonka 07:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

List of supercouples redux

I've said that I didn't want you to leave the article, and hope I've taken an action that will get you to participate again. I've noticed that both you and Flyer22 have had very positive interactions and value the opinion of Elonka. As such, I've asked her to give it a look over and offer her opinions on the direction of the article. Hopefully with a new set of eyes, we can all move forward with out any o the confrontations and anger. AniMate 10:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've read what's been going on and it will be a cold day in hell before I truly get involved until you are done with it. I stand by my opinion that you've ruined the list. You and Paul and your ganging up on Flyer is ridiculous. While I respect Elonka, the same can't be said in regards to my opinion of what you've done to that page. You've ruined it and I washed my hands before, why are you bothering me about it now? I want NOTHING to do with it, even more now than when I left. KellyAna (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(passing Kelly the oxygen) Deep breaths now... Slow... deep breaths. --Elonka 23:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

But I was calm for how I feel about that article. That article and what AniMate and Paul did to it made me madder than all the issues with TAnthony times 10. They ruined it. Completely ruined it. Put it this way, if I truly expressed my feelings and there was a profanity filter on Misplaced Pages, my reply would look a lot like )*&*U *&^*%$&% (*&&*^%&$^$. KellyAna (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I hear you. But, if the article's bad, let's fix it.  :) The only question as far as I'm concerned is, should I be "admin" on that article, or "co-editor"? If I'm an admin, then I kind of supervise, but I won't be editing it. But I can give civility warnings, and/or block people who are editing tendentiously. If I'm co-editor, then I'm going to roll up my sleeves and edit and argue for the way I think it should be. But I can't do both, because as soon as I start editing, I become an "involved admin" rather than an "uninvolved admin", which limits other actions that I can take. Do you have any preference on which hat I wear? --Elonka 00:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen your work on both sides. You're a great admin, you talked me down in a great way, but you are a ROCKIN' AWESOME editor. I would love to see you jump in and edit not just mediate. The article had some great additions like "disputed by rivalry" soap couples which I think you understand. She also had a "notable wave" of potential supercouples that have been named supercouples on some lists but not others and AniMate and Paul removed it. It was a list a soap fan would understand but they don't understand that. We need an editor that understands soaps and is calm and level headed (like you, not like me), and knows that sourcing is great but a line doesn't have to be removed the minute it's added if there's not a source listed immediately. There are how many articles out there that have no sources? Well, AniMate and Paul (who nominated it for deletion and lost) remove every unreferenced line which is ridiculous. That's what got me so fed up. Why this article? Why attack it? It needs your talents as an editor more than your skills as an admin. Hope I've made sense. Thanks KellyAna (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I'll be honest with you that one other reason I'm reluctant to jump in, is because I have so much else on my plate. I'm cleaning up a bunch of medieval history articles as wrapup from an a recent ArbCom case, I'm trying to get Dirty Dancing to FA status, and I'm also helping out with the ethnic conflict workgroup (on a separate private wiki). But, tell you what, I'll be willing to make you a deal. I'll jump in on the supercouples article, if you promise to participate as well, in good faith and civility both on that talkpage, and in all other interactions with editors on that talkpage. Specifically:

• Participation on a regular basis, meaning multiple times per week
• Civil comments, 100% of the time
• Civil edit summaries. No messages in all caps
• assuming good faith, meaning that we go into it with the expectation that we're going to find a compromise that everyone is happy with (yes, it can be done)  :)
• Overflow of civility and good faith to all interactions with that group of editors, even if you're interacting with them on some other non-supercouple page
• And a promise that if you slip on any of the above, that you will go back and fix it after it's pointed out, and that you will do so cheerfully.

If you give me your word on that, I'm in. So, deal? --Elonka 00:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

OUCH, the pain. If my man Trace hadn't been final two in tonight's Celebrity Apprentice I might not be in such a good mood and I might not agree to this. BUT the very tall hot country music singer has got me in a good mood tonight (oh, and FisherQueen's humor) so I'll agree. I hope I can live up to your hopes. KellyAna (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe in you. You've got the core elements of a great editor: You enjoy Misplaced Pages, you have a lot of energy, your heart's in the right place, you're genuinely interested in making better articles, and most importantly of all, you're genuinely interested in self-improvement and becoming a better person. I'm a firm believer that no matter what mistakes that anyone has made in the past (and I've definitely made my share), that everyone has the ability to redeem themselves, learn from their mistakes, and move forward. It's very Nietzsche.  :) --Elonka 03:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I won't post on your page again unless you specifically give me permission, but I have to say that I am quite pleased you're coming back to the list. We may disagree about many things, but I think you're a valuable contributor. If I didn't think that, I wouldn't have made as many overtures to have you come back. We may disagree about some things, but I do respect you and look forward to collaborating with you. AniMate 08:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but after seeing Paul's "get rid of them all" comment, I can't do this. It's just not feasible to work with someone like that. It just can't be done. Elonka, you are off the hook, I can't go back and confront that attitude. Paul has an idea of what Misplaced Pages should be and if your opinion or mine differ from his, you're wrong, he's right, and never the twains shall meet. I can't work like that. KellyAna (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Elonka- This is why. . And this . You can call me rude but I never told anyone to pull their head out of their ass or speculated on how someone deals with people in the real world. Do you see why I left the article when the likes of THAT are trying their best to sabotage the entire thing? KellyAna (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I deleted another personal attack by Paul, as you said was advisable, delete rather than reply. So I did that but I think you should look at it. It's amazing, I left the article weeks ago but I'm the supposed problem. I can't even imagine why, but then again my head is up my ass, according to Paul. His comments, by the way, are completely wrong and assumptive in the wrong way. It's not my article and I never said that because I never believed that. That's a huge lie so I don't know what he's thinking but he is repeatedly enjoying his personal attacks against me.KellyAna (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

And now he keeps coming here and I've been doing as you said, deleting the comments. Seriously, I need your help on this one and an understanding of why I cannot work on that article. I haven't even gone back yet and already I can count half a dozen or more personal attacks by Paul and AniMate. I can't do it, Elonka I just can't. KellyAna (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you can.  :) I'm already seeing improvement, and I like the way that you were able to delete the comments without responding in kind. Good job on that. In the meantime, did you go to that Nietzsche page I linked? Aside from his famous "That which does not destroy you, makes you stronger" stuff, did you read the first bolded quote? Do you understand it? Tell me what it means to you. --Elonka 00:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Elonka ~ had to move the sections back ~ no, I haven't gotten to the link. I will tonight. I was frustrated with Paul today and the many personal attacks. It was a full moon starting around 3 eastern today, maybe that's the cause. LOL. It was just very frustrating today and I tried to be nice but got repeatedly baited, which I really did hold back. I want to be nice, but my buttons are on the surface and I know I need to stop that but certain things are hard to ignore. Being told to pull my head out of my ass, being asked what planet I'm on, and questions about how I deal with people just hit many nerves. I'm sorry for any disappointment I caused for not being 100% civil. It was a hard afternoon. KellyAna (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I am Spartacus

It's true. I am you. We would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for those kids and their dog. I am sorry if this is shocking news, as I'm afraid your whole life is just my freaky dream. I've got to stop having cool ranch Doritos and rum right before bed. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That was a great laugh. Thank you!! Yes, we are the same that's why I had to run to another admin to have me jump in. I could use some rum, in my best Johnny Depp, "Where's the rum?" Okay, now that I've had a laugh I have to go make a scary promise to Elonka that I'm not sure I can keep. Thanks for the laughs and all the help. KellyAna (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Civility and Assuming Good Faith

Hi, I noticed your comments ( ) directed toward User:TenPoundHammer on his talk page had a lack of civility. They were quite confrontational, and it appeared as if you were assuming poor faith on his part. You need to calm down, take a look at WP:CIVIL, and try to assume good faith. The comments you have been making are increasingly rude, and cautioning TenPoundHammer for being incivil after he tried to work things out with you is simply unacceptable.

I can see that you have had other warnings in the past for this kind of behavior and would like to warn you that further incidence will result in a block. Please try to work out your dispute with TenPoundHammer in a calm and civil manner. Thank you, Malinaccier (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you point me to where he tried to "work things out" because I haven't seen it. KellyAna (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

here, where he acknowledged you were right and provided a reference to back up your claim. Ah, he's fixing it. Malinaccier (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Trace Adkins

I've changed it back to just plain "guitar" and cited it to the All Music Guide source in the article -- is that fair enough? Also, nowhere did I ever claim your edits as vandalism; you're putting words in my mouth there. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 00:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You used the vandalism warning. That's calling my edits vandalism. You used TW which is a feature that finds vandals. That's calling me a vandal. There are no words putting, you used the warnings and TW, not me. I just moved your warning back to your page because you called me a vandal. If what I did was vandalism, so was what you did. KellyAna (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Where did I call your warnings vandalism? I don't recall ever doing so. Also, Twinkle is not just a vandal fighter, it can be used to revert even good faith edits like yours. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 01:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You do realize when you click on the TW link it says it's a vandal finder, right? Or did you not know that? I removed my contributes to your page in an effort to start over. KellyAna (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle's page says that it "gives registered users several new options to assist them in common Misplaced Pages maintenance tasks and to help them deal with acts of vandalism". Reverting a good faith edit falls under maintenance tasks, not vandalism; I revert other good intentioned edits that are not vandalism with Twinkle, as do many other Twinkle users, because it's fast and easy. Again, I did not call your edits vandalism simply because I used Twinkle to revert them. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 01:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

What I see is this: Twinkle is a set of JavaScripts that gives registered users several new options to assist them in common Misplaced Pages maintenance tasks and to help them deal with acts of vandalism. That says using TW helps you deal with vandalism and NOTHING I've done to the Trace page is vandalism. You're using twinkle says "you vandalized the page and I'm reverting it" but I didn't vandalize the page, not when I added the Apprentice stuff or when I changed it to guitar but you reverted my edits as vandalism using twinkle. I didn't vandalize the page. Using TW to revert edits is to revert vandalism. That's how I read that page. There is NO mention of "good" anything in that paragraph.KellyAna (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)