Misplaced Pages

User talk:Spanish lullaby

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TAnthony (talk | contribs) at 03:41, 8 March 2008 (→Carly Corinthos Jacks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:41, 8 March 2008 by TAnthony (talk | contribs) (→Carly Corinthos Jacks)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jack Shephard

Shephard does have an 'H'. See the discussion at Talk:Characters of Lost . K1Bond007 23:05, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Madonna song articles

There is a precedent on Misplaced Pages that songs that weren't released as singles or are not notable in some other way should not have separate articles written about them. Please see Misplaced Pages:Notability (songs). Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 01:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Angellogo.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Angellogo.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 15:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Grammy Nominations 2007

I understand your support and adoration for the bands you have prematurely declared as winner. However, the results have yet to be provided. Until this happens, please do not edit the page, other than to correct false information. Thank you. Human historian 03:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yahoo! News Alerts sent me this partial list of Grammy winners earlier this evening, and the pages for both Grammy Award for Best Dance Recording and Grammy Award for Best Electronic/Dance Album show that "SexyBack" and Confessions on a Dance Floor won, as I attempted to show on the Nominees for Grammy Awards of 2007 page. If my sources were all premature, then I apologize. It was not my intention to provide misinformation, but to update a page that I thought was outdated. - Charity 03:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand. However, in cases of live televised events, wikipedia does not allow information that was been release by the Associated Press or any other source that isn't from the award committee, iteself. Mainly because their sources are sometimes false. It's an odd rule, but it is rule. Thank you, however, for your intent to update the page. And when they say winner, feel free to post it. Human historian 03:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It turns out that the winners are on the Grammy website. So there's a good source, if you wish to contribute to the article. I didn't realize that and I apologize. Human historian 04:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Soap Operas recruitment

WikiProject Soap Operas Message
The WikiProject Soap Operas Recruitment Drive

WikiProject Soap Operas is coming out of inactivity, and we are looking for editors like you with an interest in soap operas to join us!
The Project was created to guide the structure of soap opera articles and centralize the effort to improve them. We intend to set format and content guidelines for these articles and ultimately raise the standard of excellence in this area.
Please consider participating in the Project. Thanks in advance!

This announcement is brought to you by TAnthony

Soap character pages

Regarding your recent edits to the Sami Brady page. It was decided that all relationships except those of force would be in the infoboxes and that forced sex/rape/assault, things like that, would be left at the bottom in a list. Please do not remove any more lists if the only thing there is "other relationships". Thank you. IrishLass0128 20:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


Passsions since DirecTV

Hi, I was wondering why you deleted the entire section of plot developments on DirecTV on the Passions article? -- Dougie WII (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The entire section was poorly written and unnecessary. Stuff like that should be incorporated into the character articles instead of being included into the main article, or else the entire article will become a giant plot summary. The brief synoposes of the storylines given at the beginning of the article are all that's really necessary. — Charity (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Charity

Charity

Could you email me please? PMA (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, Charity McKay! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.


--Zeitgespenst (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Samuel Bennett

A tag has been placed on Samuel Bennett requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Zenlax 21:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor Passions characters

Hey, thanks for your awesome merge, I was dreading the task. — TAnthony 00:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I wanted to let you know that you forgot to move most of the images from the individual articles to the Minor characters page; I've done it, though. Also, I've restored the categories to the redirected articles; this is acceptable for WP standards for unique entries, and I find it helpful to keep the characters listed in the character category (redirects show up in italics). Thanks. — TAnthony 21:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks about the images; I realized somewhere along the line that I'd forgotten them and again forgot later to add them once I was done. I had no idea about the redirect thing, either, so my apologies for that. — Charity (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
It's fine on both counts; obviously, I'm glad that you did all the work on the merge, and the redirect category is probably a personal preference thing more than anything. Thanks again. — TAnthony 02:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I renamed "Bennett family" to "Bennett and Standish families" and remerged Prudence (including her image it took me weeks to find) back into that article. Hopefully those changes will be acceptable to all of us. -- Dougie WII (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Soap infoboxes

Many of us have spent hours upon hours fixing the infoboxes from Character to Soap Character and that includes adding all the relations which were formerly in a list at the bottom and making them consistent. With soaps relationships are never cut and dry and in this world names are rarely gender specific. Then there are characters with two fathers so a step and father notation are appropriate. As for brothers and sisters, the infobox indicates all the relations and who they are related through. Your changes did a disruption to the Ethan Winthrop infobox. They don't clutter it, they define it. The infoboxes replace the lists that used to be at the bottom so more information is required/necessary in the boxes. KellyAna (talk) 05:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to tell me about the long hours spent trying to improve soap character pages; I, too, have spent many long hours merging minor character pages, fixing infoboxes, and improving the grammatical quality of articles. I understand your position, and I apologize if I have caused some sort of massive disruption, but when I check the sample soap character infobox at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Soap Operas#Templates, only parents and other relatives are given parenthetical explanations. Perhaps a decision was made somewhere else, and the sample infobox was never updated, but, in my opinion, if a reader wants to know how Ethan and Jessica are siblings, they can simply compare the two characters' articles and see that they share the same father; to add (half-sister, via Sam) is superfluous. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll send TAnthony a note but for as long as I've been here we've included the parenthetical denotation of relations. We don't force readers to tromp through other articles to see relations when we can put it in any infobox available with a simple notation. No reference document that I know of forces that thought process. KellyAna (talk) 05:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I just looked at the "example" and there were a few errors. I've fixed it based on little things over the last few months. This should straighten it out. KellyAna (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
KellyAna, I disagree with most of your notations and seem to share Spanish lullaby's feelings about this. However, I understand that we just have conflicting personal preferences, and for now I think we should just do it article-by-article based on the preferences of the editors who monitor them.
My basic argument is just to keep the infoboxes as uncluttered as possible; every bit of extra detail about the characters listed doesn't have to be noted if it is of limited importance in context and can be found by simply following a link. If Ethan and Jessica are listed as Joe's siblings, we don't need to write "brother" and "sister" except to perhaps note special circumstances like "step-brother" or "half-sister." I don't see the necessity in "explaining" all of the connections either, like "Niece via Sally" because anyone who actually wonders how Tina is Michael's niece can peek at Tina's article. I feel the same way about the maternal/paternal designations, or naming the other parent of every child listed for a character. This isn't essential info that has to be available in the infobox. Also, "dated" and "affair" seem redundant and unimportant when characters are already listed under "Romances," and I think dates are important for marriages and romances.
But again, I won't mess with yours if you don't mess with mine; hopefully you and Spanish lullaby can compromise on whatever article(s) brought this issue up, but we've never really set an "official" way of doing it and I'm hesitant to. — TAnthony 06:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I never ment to step on anyone's toes; I simply looked at the sample infobox and was under the impression that its style was to be used in all infoboxes. I would like to suggest, however, that Sarah, Jane, and Jonathan be wikilinked — they each have their own section at Children of Passions, which is where Ethan Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane redirects. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
No apologies are needed, I see this as a good thing; obviously KellyAna and I never realized we had conflicting ideas about this. Any kind of discussion is good if it makes WP better, and I'm sure some of KellyAna'a arguments will sway me on this as mine may her. She makes a good point that there's no need to drive readers around to other articles when information can easily be included in the infobox, but I now personally feel like the actual use/value of stuff like "half-sister via Sally" and maternal/paternal designations is outweighed by clutter it creates. Complicated situations can even be explained in a footnote rather than spelled out right ion the box.
KellyAna, the parenthetical notations have indeed been in use forever, but they pre-date the new infobox, which obviously includes relationship categories now. They are still useful in many cases, but I still feel like it's unnecessary to put "father" and "mother" when these characters are listed under "Parents." Still, looking at Ethan Winthrop, though I may have done it differently, I think most of your notes are fine with me because of his complicated relations with the Bennetts and Cranes. Of course, even if I totally disagreed I'd leave it alone, I'm obsessed with One Life to Live, LOL. — TAnthony 16:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Madonna (entertainer) are undone

Please stop adding sections called biography when all its subsections are large. It is just an unnecessary division in the Contents table. Vikrant 11:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I looked through the talk page and its archives and saw nothing against hierarchical structure. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Passions photos

Me and Doug are coordinating to try to make the PASSIONS page look uniform, and not have many different types of photos. "In the scene" screencaps are what we are going for the characters, and I chose ones, mainly from NBC.com's recap pictures, that worked for the characters. I've also been adding pictures to the old characters, and the different actors who play them. Alexisfan07 27 February 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 22:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If I may comment: actual screencaps are preferred over promotional photos under fair use, so "replacements" like the one done in Fancy Crane are technically better, even though some of the images may not be as "picture perfect" (facial expressions, etc.) as the promo ones. Just about all the Passions pics were actually deleted a few months ago because they were all promotional photos. — TAnthony 23:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, okay, my mistake. I wasn't aware of that — I was thinking that "promotional photo" meant "use to promote" and was generally picking those over screencaps. Oh, copyright laws. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I changed the Gwen one back, because I chose that one specifically to match Natalie Zea's picture of her, is that ok? Also, how old is the Rebecca one? Also, I'm looking for a better Esme one. :) --Alexisfa07 28 February 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 20:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, sorry, I didn't even notice that. I was just mostly looking for pictures where facial expressions were more neutral (NBC has a habit of capping people mid-rant). The Rebecca one is from May 10, so it's nearly a year old. The expression is still slightly odd, but the cap is more clear and the shot is a bit closer to her face.
The only other semi-decent cap that I've been able to find of Esme alone is from December 31, but she's making weird hand gestures. Also, is there a reason that you didn't like the new Fancy cap that I uploaded? I'm trying to figure out exactly what you and Doug are looking for in caps. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't really like that Esme pic either, I'll look through my archives for a better one over the next few days. -- Dougie WII (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello there

Nice and interesting user page, really;-) But why did you change your name? (Please, email me if you wish) --Kochas (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Justin Hartley as Fox in 2003.jpeg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Justin Hartley as Fox in 2003.jpeg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Carly Corinthos Jacks

Why would you recreate a page that was deleted just to redirect it the correct page? Now I have to as the admin to delete it AGAIN. KellyAna (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Why would you delete a page instead of redirecting it to the proper article? ABC.com lists Carly as "Carly Corinthos Jacks", so it's not unreasonable that someone would search for her under than name. I didn't move the article, I simply made a redirect, and, considering all of the redirects to Carly Corinthos, I don't think that it was unreasonable. Misplaced Pages:Redirect didn't seem to contain anything opposing it, either. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
All the redirects were done by a vandal who is banned for good. That's why I asked why it would be remade. It was a simple question until SOMEONE turned it into a bigger deal than it is. KellyAna (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
If I may interject, that is the point of redirects, so that if someone ever uses it in a link, it will lead to the correct place. Creating a redirect is not the same thing as "recreating an article." And by the way, I just checked "What links here" and it seems as though the GH navbox has the link Carly Corinthos Jacks, and so appears on nearly every GH page! — TAnthony 23:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It was deleted and reinstating a deleted page is against Misplaced Pages guidelines and it was deleted because of previous issues with a vandal / sock puppet. Please, TAnthony, don't interject in this, I asked a question and want to know why something was done, not your opinions on the painful situation. You weren't involved in the sock puppet issue and the pain that the page created. KellyAna (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with some vandalism issue, and you didn't "ask" a question -- you had a little fit. I'm going to fix the GH template in case you do have the redirect deleted so there isn't a big red link in the navbox. Someone unfamiliar with the past is going to end up recreating that redirect over and over as long as it's a possible name for Carly, because that is standard procedure. But by all means continue your steamrolling. — TAnthony 23:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me but IT DOES. Okay, it does. You weren't involved, you didn't see what happened. You don't know. I asked a question, and you were rude calling it "a fit", and you've chosen to butt in for no good reason. It was a question and you're creating unnecessary issues over A QUESTION. KellyAna (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Fixed the navbox but these articles all still link to Carly Corinthos Jacks. So make sure you fix them when you delete it again. — TAnthony 23:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I clearly don't want to start a war over something this stupid, but I am aware of what happened, and as much as I understand that you want to protect the article and avoid all that crap, you're fighting a losing battle have a redirect deleted, especially when it has so many articles linked to it. It's going to come back. And it really should, because it's useful. Someone may indeed search by that name or use that as a link, and when they see it's red they may even start creating a new article thinking it's not there. And restoring an article as a redirect really isn't the same thing as recreating it. I interjected because Spanish lullaby is a helpful new editor, and you and I are very alike: bossy and easily angered, LOL. Again, don't want to fight, but you can't blame Spanish lullaby for something any Wiki editor would do. — TAnthony 00:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Lulliby ISN'T a new editor. She's an editor with a name change, Charity McKay and has been here a while. You interjected because you couldn't let a simple question be answered by someone who it was asked to. It was a simple question and NO, you don't know the half of what happened with the Carly stuff. Not the HALF of it. You didn't even know Spanish Lullaby was Charity McKay and had been here for several years. KellyAna (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I may have joined a few years ago (April 2005, I think), but, until recently, my edits have largely consisted of me correcting grammar in random articles that I searched or came across; I've only recently started participating more heavily in improving soap opera articles and I'm still learning all of the rules and regulations around here. You say that you asked a simple question, and maybe you feel that you did, but, to me, all of your questions and comments have come across as extremely hostile and argumentative. I, like you, am only trying to help Misplaced Pages, and I, like you, am bound to make mistakes at times — all that I ask is that my mistakes be accepted as being made in good faith. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
There you go again, spazzing because someone said you were wrong. And I'm sorry, but I think you're being a little overdramatic here. Do what you want, but if I had some across the redlink I would have created the redirect myself. If you change all the links I mentioned above, feel free to delete it and I'll leave it alone. But try to resist getting mad at the next person who recreates or talks about it, new editor or old.
LOL, Spanishlullaby, now I remember the change, you tricked me LOL. ;) — TAnthony 00:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Haha, sorry, I didn't realize that the name change would be such a big deal. Charity McKay is a silly pseudonym that I came up with in the eighth grade, and I've been trying to slowly work my way away from it in recent months. — Spanish lullaby (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't get "mad" until you butted in unnecessarily. Next time maybe minding your own business and not getting between two editors for no reason would keep things calm and between two people. And I didn't get mad at her, I got mad at you and your butting in for no reason, or would it be false reasons because you assumed without verifying. KellyAna (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Spanish/Charity you didn't make a mistake, that was done by SOMEONE ELSE. I simply asked you a question that I felt you were competent enough to answer. Apparently others did not. KellyAna (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, clearly I have the same compulsion as you — to have the last word — but listen to yourself! I perhaps shouldn't have said you had a "fit" or whatever, but Talk pages are public and I felt like I needed to interject. Sorry if you feel threatened by that, but editor has a right to comment on something they think is wrong. I didn't mean to agitate you, but look at how mad you're getting at me because I said you're wrong. Maybe you need a break. — TAnthony 00:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
LOL, I love how long this discussion is, hahaha. — TAnthony 00:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Deity of other people expletive. I didn't feel expletive threatened, I just felt your overwhelming need to butt in for no reason. It's exasperating. You can't just let a question be asked and answered without butting in. Yes, talk pages are public, but you didn't need to "interject" under false assumptions. Oh, and insane people are mad, I'm aggravated by your constant "interjections for no reason." KellyAna (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I am the first to admit that I can be perceived as a defensive, bossy know-it-all at times, and I get very annoyed when articles I monitor are messed with by vandals and stubborn editors who really don't know or care what they're doing. I was probably even a little snippy at the beginning of this. But I'm not going to pretend I haven't seen you flying around here on your broom with your condescending and snarky tone. It's very amusing how you're annoyed by my interjections here and elsewhere and yet you can't help but scold everyone over every little thing. Maybe you were just asking the question, but both Spanishlullaby and I perceived your exasperation. I don't comment on everything I disagree with, or revert every edit I don't love, but in this case I was arguing on her side because you clearly intended to delete the redirect.
We all know you're a valuable editor, and I am glad you're out there policing articles with vigilance because there are so many vandals out there, and soap fans who have no clue about Wiki guidelines and compulsively mess with articles. But maybe you should pick your battles; some things you should just let go. And when you talk about all the "pain" caused by the Carly issue, I am wondering if you remember that you're talking about a WP article about a soap opera character, not a starving orphan. — TAnthony 03:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)