Revision as of 01:29, 7 June 2007 editFlyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs)365,630 edits →Supercouple article← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:02, 7 June 2007 edit undoTAnthony (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors853,150 edits New BarnstarNext edit → | ||
Line 247: | Line 247: | ||
'''Elonka''', I also left this message for '''Mike''', but if there's no huge objection from other editors here within the Misplaced Pages: WikiProject Soap Operas, I'm going to expand the Supercouple article a little. I feel that since supercouples exist in real life, a portion of the article should be dedicated to celebrity supercouples, past and present. After all, the term supercouple isn't limited to soap operas alone. And these days, supercouples seem to be more prevalent in celebrity couples than the fictional couples. I'll also add an external link to each fictional supercouple on the main supercouple list just like this: I feel that besides making the list more "solid" upon glance without necessarily having to enter the article, this will also deter new editors from just adding a couple that they like when that couple isn't "notable"...especially editors who only sign up here to add their favorite couple to the list that has no notability. This way, if they notice that -- unlike all of the other couples on the list -- they don't have an external link in which to validate the claim that the couple they want to add is a supercouple, they may not add the couple. ] 01:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | '''Elonka''', I also left this message for '''Mike''', but if there's no huge objection from other editors here within the Misplaced Pages: WikiProject Soap Operas, I'm going to expand the Supercouple article a little. I feel that since supercouples exist in real life, a portion of the article should be dedicated to celebrity supercouples, past and present. After all, the term supercouple isn't limited to soap operas alone. And these days, supercouples seem to be more prevalent in celebrity couples than the fictional couples. I'll also add an external link to each fictional supercouple on the main supercouple list just like this: I feel that besides making the list more "solid" upon glance without necessarily having to enter the article, this will also deter new editors from just adding a couple that they like when that couple isn't "notable"...especially editors who only sign up here to add their favorite couple to the list that has no notability. This way, if they notice that -- unlike all of the other couples on the list -- they don't have an external link in which to validate the claim that the couple they want to add is a supercouple, they may not add the couple. ] 01:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
== Barnstar == | |||
So I was actually kind of stumped with where to begin creatively; I wasn't too crazy about my first attempts using ] so I just did a quickie using the basic barnstar image and the "paper dolls" icon I used for the other WP:SOAP icon. Not sure how I feel about it, but I named the image in a way that I can upload a replacement whenever. I guess there's no hurry in implementing the barnstar because who would we give it to?! Anyway, how is this first attempt? ] 02:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};" | |||
|rowspan="2" valign="top" | ] | |||
|rowspan="2" | | |||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Soap Opera Barnstar''' | |||
|- | |||
|style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | ''']''' has been awarded The Soap Opera Barnstar for helping bring ] back from the dead! — ] 02:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
|} |
Revision as of 02:02, 7 June 2007
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to User talk:Elonka/Archive 6. |
Nominal GDP stock index
Elonka, I am new to the Misplaced Pages world and still learning. The subject is currently under review by a major index company. Please do not delete. References will be added shortly. Thanks B Leclere.
PS: I noticed a message entitled "Profitip spam?". This message originated from somebody whose main contributions go for a competing project... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profitip (talk • contribs) 10:31, March 23, 2007 (UTC)
Your talk comment
Thank you for your comments. I appreciate it. And I appreciate that you kept an open mind during the adversarial process ;) Wjhonson 03:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
You said if I had any questions to ask you. How come if you put proof of something somewhere someone will still change it?DJ-Siren 03:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- On a show page I see you working on sometimes, I put proof of one of the cast members being only Recurring, not contracted, and someone insists on putting them as contracted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ-Siren (talk • contribs) 05:54, May 29, 2007 (UTC)
My article to meet WikiProject Soap Opera standards
Hello, Elonka, my soap opera couple article J.R. and Babe was nominated for deletion, but that was before I cleaned it up. However, it's still nominated. I was wondering if you could tell me if it meets WikiProject Soap Opera standards, and if not, what can I do to ensure that it does? Also, how can I join WikiProject Soap Opera? Just sign my name under the list of participants? I'm definitely willing to help clean up some soap articles. Flyer22 23:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair use image use and sandboxes
Re : No, there isn't. The way this is supposed to be handled is that while the article is in development in the sandbox, the images should be linked, not displayed. --Durin 16:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey up for new deletion debate
As a commentor in the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey debate, I thought you might want to know that the debate has been re-started at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey (2nd nomination) because of significant changes in the article during the debate. Mangojuice 17:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Elonka
I'm thinking that we should keep the title about Babe's fake death, but instead of titling it what it was when I created it, it just be Babe's Fake Death. Flyer22 22:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Do you feel that the section that was about J.R.'s recovery should be combined into the love triangle section? If you removed the "Recovering, Giving Babe Another Chance" section, I agree.
It looks like a little gap is left there though. Flyer22 22:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Where you mention "but Josh helped him to again rekindle his love for Babe" in the J.R, Babe, Jish love triangle section...did you mean Tad? Or were you saying that since Josh had saved J.R's life?
I'll go ahead and replace Josh's name with Tad's name, since stating Josh would be a bit confusing to some viewers of the show.Flyer22 23:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Buffy Summers
Hi, you recently pointed out that the "Spike (Buffyverse)" article contained too much plot summary. I was wondering if the Buffy Summers page suffered from the same problem, since it seems just as long as Spike's page. Also, I recently edited the Dawn Summers and Rupert Giles to contain more detail, and am now worried I overdid it. Any advice/feedback on how to improve these pages? Thanks. Paul730 16:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, I tried to shorten Dawn's history, what do you think? BTW, what sources aren't shown; there's links to episodes but I don't know what else you mean. Also, I don't really know what you mean by overly long plot summaries. I looked at FA articles and found Link from Legend of Zelda. His page has loads of in-universe stuff, but is still an "FA". Also, Captain Marvel's page has lots of plot summary; just split up with lots of sub-headings. Is it because the Buffy pages don't have enough out-of-universe stuff to counter-balance the in-universe stuff? How much plot summary is too much? I tried to shorten Dawn's to one paragraph a season but I still had to explain her confusing origin, so it was still pretty long. What do you want us to do with Buffy's page? Shorten it to one paragraph a season, or condense everything into one little paragraph? If you could please be more specific on what you think should be done to these pages, because I'm kind of confused... Paul730 20:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
IMs...? Sorry, I only recently got the internet, so I'm pretty new to all this. Oh, and as you might have have noticed, I'm a hardcore Buffy geek, so I'm too happy about your comment that Dawn doesn't deserve her own page... How dare you! She's Dawnie for crying out loud! :) Paul730 21:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Reword
- Yeah, Elonka, one of us should probably re-word that part in which states..."In 1992, after ABC executives decided that the show needed new blood, and promoted Agnes Nixon's protege Megan McTavish to the position of head writer, McTavish began adding new dimensions to the show. As part of this, she created the character of Babe Carey, who first appeared in the fictional town of Pine Valley in 2003."
- I mean, Megan McTavish was promoted, but then she left, and then came back, where at around the point of 2003 she created the character of Babe Carey. You think it sounds confusing the way it's worded at this moment?
After the part where it says..."McTavish began adding new dimensions to the show"...we should state something such as..."A little later"...Or "Some time after that, she created the character of Babe Carey, who first appeared in the fictional town of Pine Valley in 2003."
Or something along those lines. It'd probably be best to find another way to place that internal-link that links to the article about McTavish infuriating fans. I say that because she didn't infuriate fans to that extent until until around the year of 2003 and so up. Or maybe that link should stay where it is since it seems to start off from McTavish first changing the show to some significant degree. Flyer22 04:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Elonka, did you reply to me? My account said New Messages, but I couldn't find your message. Flyer22 04:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but not at the top of the page. To check, you can look at the history of the page, or my contribs, or look here: . Also, when you get the "New Messages" box, you can click on "diff" to see just what was added. :) --Elonka 04:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I checked the history page, that's how I got your first internal message, but I guess I got lost after that.
- The date to the SID Top ten list is from the 5/22/07 issue. If it's really important for me to find out the publisher, or for the date to show up on that scan of the poll, I'll ask barb of the marybarb Jacob Young site to either give me the information on that, or see if she can scan the Top 10 list in a way that at least shows the date of the article. That is, if it's necessary. Flyer22 05:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- What's SID? --Elonka 05:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- It stands for Soaps In Depth. And SOD, when it comes to soap operas, stands for Soap Opera Digest.
Do you watch the show General Hospital? It seemed like you did/do. I don't necesarily watch that show, but I got the impression that you did/do.
Certainly not everyone who watches a soap opera knows what SID is though. My mother doesn't either. She knows of soap opera magazines called Soaps In Depth or Soap Opera Digest, but not their nicknames. Flyer22 05:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Pauline Fowler
Hey Elonka. I've reduced the storyline section substantially, by about 6000 characters. When you get the change can you let us know what you think on the talk page. Regards. Gungadin 19:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Images
As you should be aware, under the current Misplaced Pages:Non-free content guidelines, non-free images of living people are not acceptable. There is no meaningful commentary of Image:Miranda Kerr.jpg. Several of your other uploads have the same issue, ie. they are being used simply to illustrate the appearance of a person (examples of unacceptable use 8). Also, if you receive permission to use an image that permission needs to be registered with the foundation, see Misplaced Pages:Example requests for permission and Misplaced Pages:Successful requests for permission, if permission doesn't allow the image to be freely used then the image cannot be on wikipedia. --Peta 07:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Style of writing
Hi, I just wanted to ask your advice on something. I recently re-wrote Willow, Giles, and Dawn's pages quite drastically, and am now working on Xander's. However, I am not sure exactly how these articles are supposed to be written; the Buffy Summers page does not reference any episodes and as such reads more smoothly. But then, that same page has a "primarily in-universe style... clean-up yada yada" box on it suggesting that that shouldn't be how articles are supposed to be written. I'm trying to work from what has already been written on these pages, but each page is written in a slightly different style. Should character histories be written from the perspective that the charcter is real, without referencing individual episodes? Or should it be written from a "real world" perspective. For example, in the Willow page, it mentions that Will and Tara have one of the longest lesbian relationships in TV history. But the Buffy page has no references to the real world whatsoever. I want the Buffy pages to be consistant with each other, so what do you think? BTW, I also asked this question to Nalvage since he seems like an expert on the Buffy pages, but I wanted to get your opinion too since you were the one who put the box thingy there. Paul730 17:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The aladin image
Just out of curiousity, have you noticed the guy on the talk page and his claims? Does it come under fair use for us to use it with it being released by the National Geographic or whatever...we could always use an image off the DVD sample...Englishrose 17:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- What I was thinking of, if we take a screenshot of the DVD (or the DVD sample, a sample of what's on the DVD from the Book of Cool site) then it's classed as fair use because it's a screenshot. Englishrose 20:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- There's a sample of the DVD showing you what's on from the Book of Cool site, as the sample comes from the DVD, it's classed as DVD screenshot if you see my meaning. Englishrose 20:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorted :-). Ooooh, wait there's one more thing to add. His IMDb link. Englishrose 21:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- What I was thinking of, if we take a screenshot of the DVD (or the DVD sample, a sample of what's on the DVD from the Book of Cool site) then it's classed as fair use because it's a screenshot. Englishrose 20:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Willow
Hi, I've been working a lot recently on the Willow Rosenberg page, and was wondering if you could take a look at it and give some feedback for improvements. Also, quick question, when you're making links to other wiki pages, do you have to make a link every time a word is repeated? For expample, every time Buffy is mentioned on Willow's page, should I link to the Buffy Summers page? Cos that seems a little excessive. :) Paul730 15:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for your comments, advice and offer of more help. I don't have the spectacular curriculum vitae that you do, but I went and turned my link blue! Marieblasdell 00:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Juice Plus
Elonka, I appreciate the olive branch. I have laid out some of the history behind the adverse event section to illustrate my position more clearly. I hope you understand why I have been so insistent. If you wish to discuss specific issues regarding the content in the AE section, please outline them on the talk page rather than deleting the section again. Rhode Island Red 06:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Red
I'm not familiar with the wikipedia mechanisms here; I have just had a look at the WP:RfC (redirected to Checkuser, I think), which requires that the appropriate warnings be issued before using RfC as the "last resort". Have such official warning been issued? I'm sure we're past the "assume good faith" stage with 'Red'; has he contravened e.g. the "three revert rule" on the "Adverse effects" deletions?
If we are to request that the powers that be check his behaviour, then it needs to be clear that all procedures (whatever they are!) have been followed correctly. He seems to have plenty of time at his disposal, so if any such request is started it will be a long and wearisome process. Would a warning based on WP:OWN w.r.t. the Juice Plus article be appropriate? I will gladly support you to try to stop what I consider to be his abuse of WP here, but I bow to your greater experience with such things. Is there a checklist/process description to use? TraceyR 07:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- See also User_talk:EdJohnston#Juice_Plus. I regret that RIR is so attached to the Adverse Effects section, which I believe we could do without. I haven't received any news of a possible change of heart. EdJohnston 22:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Elonka, I'm truly grateful for (and amazed at) the work you are putting into getting the Juice Plus article back on track. I am quite optimistic that we can get a balanced and objective article at the end of the mediation process. TraceyR 23:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Juice Plus
Erm, I'm a bit confused by your revert at Juice Plus? I agree that Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, but we have a situation where every single editor on the talkpage is against the inclusion of that "Adverse Effects" section, and the only editor who wants it, is Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs), who has clear WP:OWN issues (just look at his contribs). I agree that Matthew's comments were out of line, but that doesn't change the fact of talkpage consensus. --Elonka 01:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- I reverted the article because the information was cited. I would rather have information that is cited left up on the article page then no information at all. I really don't care about the outcome of the article, except that the information is cited. Their is no reason to remove cited information. If you would like you may revert back to the version before mine; I have no problems with that. Just remember WP:V and WP:CITE. I will leave this article up to the the Mediation council, to the editors working on this article, and to the admins to sort everything out. Thanks! --TTalk to me 01:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Further help
Hi Elonka, thanks for all your help on the Pauline Fowler article. I would be interested to hear your comments on two other eastenders articles, Phil Mitchell and Grant Mitchell (EastEnders). They have possibly the longest real world context sections of any of our character articles, so I would like to get them promoted to GA level at some stage. I'm sure you wont like the storyline sections (Grant's storylines arent referenced yet and the Phil is long), but i'd still be interested to hear what improvements you think we can make. Gungadin 17:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I need your help
Could you please point me in the right direction to where I can request a policy to be changed? I really don't think that articles about past characters and TV shows that have ended should be written in present tense, and I want to get the policy on that changed. Could you help me out? -Trampikey 20:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for starting up the tense discussions, and for the advice about Misplaced Pages politics! I've added my two cents to the two discussions, so hopefully they'll get a response. Also, I'd like to take this chance to say sorry for the way I reacted to you when you first suggested changes to Pauline Fowler - and thanks for helping me out a lot despite this! -Trampikey 21:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Inivte and barnstar
WikiProject EastEnders
Welcome!Hello! You look like someone who might be interested in joining the EastEnders WikiProject and so I thought I'd drop you a line and invite you! We'd love to have you help us :-)
Links for Wikipedians interested in EastEnders content | ||
Register: Participants of the EastEnders WikiProject - EastEnders WikiProject - EastEnders Portal |
-Trampikey 23:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
For helping out with Pauline Fowler, and for pointing me in the right direction and giving me valuable advice. -Trampikey 23:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC) |
Welcome to WikiProject EastEnders!
Here are some things you can do to help:
|
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
|
-Trampikey 23:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Bot question
Hiya, thanks for creating the bot, but I had a question. It keeps putting flags on Image:David Perry.jpg, an image that I've moved over to Commons, and would like to get deleted from Misplaced Pages now. I've tried fixing the image file to address whatever the bot's concerns on, but it's still not happy. Can you please advise what I can add to the Commons page, to get the bot messages to stop? Thanks, Elonka 17:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- The problem with the bot is that it's not great at detecting whether the image on commons has an acceptable source, so it will put the tag if it's not sure. Basically, it's not sure if it's the same, so it will keep re-adding the tag until it's happy. I'm still working on the bot, and I'll try to fix that problem. —METS501 (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Television
Yes, you are right, it's probably redundant to have both the TV and Soap projects listed on soap articles; however, TV Project is currently larger and more active, and I figured adding these articles directly would increase the visibility of the articles themselves as well as the Soap Opera Project, encouraging more editing and participation.
By the way, I'll try to work on a potential barnstart this week, we can discuss. TAnthony 07:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I see your point, so I am not "double-tagging" any articles I have tagged for the Soaps project since you've voiced your concern. I can go back and AWB the WP:TV tags out of the doubled articles, but its a big job and I won't get to it right away. In the meantime, perhaps it will drive a little traffic our way. TAnthony 16:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Sears
Well, Fox News thinks he is at Irvine, ; I would not be surprised if he used the title after he had left the position. He has published no peer reviewed articles (at least since 1950). The basic bio I have some ideas for--more tomorrow. DGG 07:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Loveland
Sorry, i don't have any pictures from Loveland in Jeju. -littlet889
WP Soaps membership
Hey there, before we're at each other's throats over the issue of tense (LOL), do you have any ideas about how to recruit more members to the Soaps project? Many soap articles are such a mess, all kinds of random users are constantly changing and twisting articles — there are so many guidelines and policies that are needed, but we can't really come up with and enforce these things with 13 people. I was thinking about just going through edit histories and inviting people manually, but ... TAnthony 20:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delayed response; I am on IM but hardly use it. My AIM username is xtommy and I'm actually on right now if you're awake. I'm not sure of the time diff ... TAnthony 02:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I just signed onto AIM (invisibly), are you available? TAnthony 20:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Inappropriate Accusation
Elonka, it seems that one the one hand you are arguing that we should assume good faith on the part of other editors on the Juice Plus page, but on the other hand, you are making accusations of impropriety about me. I took a break from editing for a few days because quite frankly I was getting burned out from all the pointless bickering on the talk page. You had even suggested that I take such a break. I have no relationship with the anon editor 85.71.60.166 and it seems very presumptuous and improper for you to suggest otherwise. Please stop making such inflammatory accusations. Rhode Island Red 16:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
re: Johnyajohn
Check the comments I just left at User talk:Johnyajohn. Maybe you already knew about this. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Spike
Hi, a few weeks ago you said that Spike's page contained excessive in-universe detail. I've tried to reduce the plot as much as I could, broke up the article slightly with some more sub-headings, and included some info about Spike's creation based on interviews with the creators. It's still not perfect, but I was wondering if you thought the bio section was still too long, and if there was anything else which needed major improvement. The powers & abilites section is a bit long-winded for my liking, so I might target that next. Paul730 06:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Deletion debates of a few supercouples within the scope of Misplaced Pages: WikiProject Soap Operas
Hey, Elonka, a few articles within the scope of Misplaced Pages: WikiProject Soap Operas have been nominated for deletion. But this is before we've gotten around to truly improving these particular articles. At this rate, if these articles are more so targeted because they are soap opera couple articles, I find it very off, given that these articles are a work in progress. I was hoping that you could lend your voice on this matter in their deletion debates, as I will contact all participants of Misplaced Pages: WikiProject Soap Operas to weigh in on this matter as well. I do not believe that getting rid of these or any supercouple articles on Misplaced Pages is the answer, improving them is.
So far, I know of three true supercoupe articles nominated for deletion:
Images deletion by ^demon
Please report irresponsible action of User:^demon here Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Use_of_administrator_privileges
- "Sandbox" versions of some of these couple articles, Elonka? If so, sure.Flyer22 00:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Days
From what I see, I know you probably don't watch Days of our Lives, but I was wondering if you would like to work with me to make that article featured-quality. It's been my favorite story since I was little and I really want to make it the best it can be. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 06:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Request for Mediation
A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Juice Plus.
|
Supercouple article
Elonka, I also left this message for Mike, but if there's no huge objection from other editors here within the Misplaced Pages: WikiProject Soap Operas, I'm going to expand the Supercouple article a little. I feel that since supercouples exist in real life, a portion of the article should be dedicated to celebrity supercouples, past and present. After all, the term supercouple isn't limited to soap operas alone. And these days, supercouples seem to be more prevalent in celebrity couples than the fictional couples. I'll also add an external link to each fictional supercouple on the main supercouple list just like this: I feel that besides making the list more "solid" upon glance without necessarily having to enter the article, this will also deter new editors from just adding a couple that they like when that couple isn't "notable"...especially editors who only sign up here to add their favorite couple to the list that has no notability. This way, if they notice that -- unlike all of the other couples on the list -- they don't have an external link in which to validate the claim that the couple they want to add is a supercouple, they may not add the couple. Flyer22 01:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar
So I was actually kind of stumped with where to begin creatively; I wasn't too crazy about my first attempts using Image:Hollywood Barnstar3.png so I just did a quickie using the basic barnstar image and the "paper dolls" icon I used for the other WP:SOAP icon. Not sure how I feel about it, but I named the image in a way that I can upload a replacement whenever. I guess there's no hurry in implementing the barnstar because who would we give it to?! Anyway, how is this first attempt? TAnthony 02:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The Soap Opera Barnstar | ||
Elonka has been awarded The Soap Opera Barnstar for helping bring WP:SOAPS back from the dead! — TAnthony 02:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC) |