User talk:TAnthony/Archive 2

9598:

comic book infoboxes and with plot summaries in general. It is not incorrect regarding those characters' fictional histories. How is including the age of a character in the infobox any different than including all that other stuff about that character in the infobox, most of which is fictional? Why am I "comparing myself and other contributors to the writers who are writing the show and soap press who are reporting it"? Because age being relevant to storylines is partly what we were/are talking about in this discussion. You were acting as though age regarding fictional characters is irrelevant, trivial, and something that does not really define them, which is something you have stated more than once now. I was arguing why age is not irrelevant and trivial regarding fictional characters and that these age changes are sometimes commented on by the writers of these shows and the soap opera community. If I am in-universe for listing a character's age, how is that not the case for soap opera writers who give these characters ages in the first place? You say that you cannot believe that I am "actually defending OR" with basic math? I cannot believe that you are acting as though every little thing on Knowledge needs to be sourced. Do we also have to source that 2 + 2 = 4 here on Knowledge? Or that the color of the ocean and sky during the day is blue? Of course not. That is my point. You state, "They made Kendall's birthdate 1976 to jive with Alicia Minshew, how can you in all seriousness logically apply that to Lucci's character for our purposes here? Or any SORAS character for that matter?" My answer? I did above. Just as you state that "Erica WAS 15 in 1970, Erica WAS raped at 14, Kendall WAS 16 in 1993 and then she WAS 23 the same year, and then 26 in 2002," the same is true for Erica's birth year being changed to 1962 in 2001. And that has nothing to do with "the fangirl shining through" me.

9183:'born' in a certain year and thus her mother must be at least 14 years older, etc. etc." I say that if the viewer has to suspend disbelief in these cases, the ages are changing. You know how soap opera ages work, so I do not know why you are acting as though I am being some silly fan girl. The Marty Saybrooke rape storyline happened in 1993, within real life and fiction; that rape storyline is now said to have happened in 1988 within the story. That is a change, which also changed the characters' ages (though back to ages that make more sense, given their children's ages). This is why we call it retconning. Yes, to the fictional characters, their ages have never changed. But we know differently, even while suspending disbelief. If a character is 10 one day, then 17 the next, that is a change. To say that we should have Kendall remain listed as age 30 even when her kids are aged to 30 is ridiculous -- that is the point I am making, and is also the same point in regards to Erica's age. You argue that the ages do not have to make sense because these are fictional characters? No offense, you know I respect you, but I call bull on that. These characters being fictional does not mean that anything is allowed regarding them. That is why critics often criticize some fictional plots as being unrealistic, even in regards to soap operas...such as Todd "rapemancing" Marty. I am quite use to soap opera character ages not making sense, but it is their own fault for following the real world timeline and yet then drastically aging a character (or, in Erica's case, drastically de-aging). You even earlier pointed out the problems with Erica's age due to soap operas following the real world timeline. Defining Erica's age is not impossible due to the retcons. If real world time is not supposed to matter, then why do the retcons bother you when it comes to listing the characters' ages? 9733:

happened on her 14th birthday. Kendall was conceived that night, which has made Erica 14 years older than Kendall. This is the reason that Erica's age has been directly affected by Kendall's age more than once. It was affected by Kendall's age twice, and it seems highly unlikely that it would not be affected by Kendall's age for a third time (when Alicia Minshew stepped into the role of Kendall in 2001). Some time in the early 2000s, when it was even acknowledged within the series that it was the early 2000s, and with Kendall's new birth date still in place, the writers brought up Erica's rape again; it was still stated as having been on her 14th birthday. Erica and Kendall truly first bonded as mother and daughter on the anniversary of Erica's rape. Their 14-year age difference was presented quite clearly at that time as well, if you were watching then. Thus, I say that if you still do not get why I do not see stating Erica's age as 1962 as being original research, then we really should just drop any discussion of this completely. I am not necessarily arguing to reinstate Erica's 1962 birth year somewhere in her article. I just wanted to try to explain to you my thoughts in a different way. Erica has always been defined as being 14 years older than Kendall. I completely get that this is fictional, but this is something about these two fictional characters that has not changed, just as plenty of other things about fictional characters never change. My arguing for Erica's 1962 birth year was never about being inuniverse or a fangirl on my part. It was simply about following something that has remained consistent throughout storylines. Erica's age changed; Kendall's age changed; but their ages have always remained 14 years apart.

9112:

character articles somewhat without a real-world frame of reference. You said, "Kendall's birth year was changed to 1976, and, this, of course, alters Erica's age as well. Any time the age of a soap opera character's child is changed, it also changes that character's age. This was most certainly seen with Marty Saybrooke, which caused debate about it on her talk page" and "I definitely see why Todd Manning's age should not be listed, though, since the 1993 rape storyline is so famous within the American soap opera community and we are now supposed to believe that the rape happened a few years before 1993." No actual ages are "changing," storylines are just creating continuity discrepancies that force the viewer to suspend disbelief. You are trying to fit fictional concepts into a real-world context, in this case by establishing artificially contrived "ages" because one character is "born" in a certain year and thus her mother must be at least 14 years older, etc. etc. It does not have to "make sense" that Starr was "born" in 1996 but is now 17, or that Cole was "born" around 1998 but is now 18 and older than Starr. These are fictional events that have not actually occurred, though they may be viewed as "happening" on a particlar airdate. As we know, one fictional "day" can last weeks onscreen, Thanksgiving and Christmas may seem to occur mere days apart, children age 10 years in a day, and even within the fictional world, who's to say that what "happens" on the show on May 1, 1993 is happening in 1993 at all, and not before or after? When we reference dates in an article, they are really from a real-world perspective. When AniMate and I call 1962 original research, we mean that though it may be

1348:

subpage of mine, but I find it's the easiest way to help people confused by the policy (which I admit, isn't written particularly well, even if the meaning is clear) to certain problems they may be having. The problem really lies in the existence of non-free images to begin with. In an ideal world, all our images would be free, but unfortunately there are times when there are no free replacements for some fair-use images which are necessary to increase understanding in an article. Thus, the Foundation can't really say "zero non-free images in all articles" or "A maximum of one non-free image in every article" because there will always be some major article to which it doesn't apply (logos, for example, are problematic). Because this hasn't been enforced strongly enough in the past - it wasn't until March 2007 that the Foundation put it's foot down on this matter - many articles have gained many non-free images (there are still over 1,000 articles with more than 15 non-free images in them, 95+% of which violate the policy). Because this has been the status quo, understandably many editors have been reluctant to see the images removed from articles. In the end, though, minimal must really mean minimal in all articles.

9460:"original research" which you say disputes it is basic math. Erica's age was affected by Kendall's age before, and to act like that was not the case again is logic of yours that I do not follow. To call basic math original research (basic math that even soap opera writers acknowledge will be followed when they do this type of aging, as I noted above), as to say that if a character has sex with two characters one day and three the next day....we cannot say that character has had sex with five characters over the course of two days, is silly. Unless the writers reveal otherwise (other sex that character has had offscreen), that character will have only had five sexual partners over the course of those two days. Erica being born in 1962 is a number invented by adding 14 to 1976 due to the show itself. You say, "...the soap community is aware that Kendall's birthdate was ultimately established as 1976. Making this apply to another character is OR." Yet I point out that the writers did this before, acknowledge that this type of aging affects more than one character; Erica being born in 1962 is even evidenced by 9588:

incorrect. Saying, "Erica was born in 1955 until 2002, at which point her new birthdate is 1962" is doing that. "In-universe" is a Knowledge term, that's what we are talking about. Why are you comparing yourself and other contributors to the writers who are writing the show and soap press who are reporting it? OF COURSE age is relevant to writers and storyline, that is not what we're talking about. I can't believe you're actually defending OR with a "basic math" argument. They made Kendall's birthdate 1976 to jive with Alicia Minshew, how can you in all seriousness logically apply that to Lucci's character for our purposes here? Or any SORAS character for that matter? I understand your need to reconcile the disparate facts and arrive at a logical conclusion based on the most recent facts (the "new" 1976 date "replaces" previous information) but ALL of the facts are still facts: Erica WAS 15 in 1970, Erica WAS raped at 14, Kendall WAS 16 in 1993 and then she WAS 23 the same year, and then 26 in 2002. And if you can't see the fangirl shining through your own comments, so be it.—

6804:

contradicts another or may advance an opinion. To my knowledge there is not a single review of any of the BH/KJA novels that has suggested that the notes may not exist, or even reported the fact that "many fans don't believe the notes exist." Is this because reviewers are afraid of being sued by the authors? Is this because the number of people disputing the notes is not notable? I really don't know. But I have seen nothing to convince me that any significant amount of people really challenge the existence of the notes compared to the amount of books that have been sold, and even if we could use forums and message boards as sources, I don't know that they would impress me from a demographic point of view. It's like asking people who love an exclusive clothing designer (and who post on his website) whether they prefer his regular line or the line he's going to design for WalMart. You know the answer you're going to get, and you'd probably get a different one if you opened the question up to a larger group of people. Even if a majority of members of a particular

8962:

when the show begins; she is later said to have given birth to a daughter who is 23 in 1993, but in 2002 that child's birthdate is revised to 1976." Makes perfect sense, and more importantly, is not presented in an in-universe manner or expressing numbers calculated using original research. The more I think about it, the more I beleieve that once any kind of retcon occurs, any simple represnentation of "age" becomes pretty much irrelevant OR. Removing the fields is probably drastic, but policing articles in other ways is likely an exercise in futility. I suppose in most cases, what should we care if random articles become juvenile piles of trivia? But I wonder how this info would fare in a serious article review. You're placing too much importance on the infobox; it's an overview, not a mini-article. I would remind you that there are large groups of editors with very good reasons why infoboxes needn't exist at all. And I don't understand why you would intentionally want to include something that "does not make sense" to a reader? 04:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

9147:, or that it is meant to apply across-the-board. Character addresses were added to the soap box to accommodate one of the British soaps in which they are more important because the characters are somewhat classified by their address; the field becomes a trivia black hole in most other soap articles. You know me, I'm a soap fan and I add and preserve info in articles that might be construed as trivia to some editors. In principle I can concede that noting an (uncomplicated) age in an infobox is harmless, but it can also be construed as trivia, and I would argue that in most cases it does little to increase understanding of a character. I like Starr, I am not appalled by the fact that the article notes her age, but in the context of the overview an infobox provides, it is meaningless. It is really only helpful when discussing her current storylines, in which the character is pregnant as a minor and subject to her parents' control, etc. Once she's an adult, whether she's 19 or 30 does not seem to be of any importance.— 8360:. This section has made the article too long, I do not want to leave out a lot of this information, and there is a lot more information regarding other things about Todd that I want to add to this article. Of course, I would not title it Todd Manning and Marty Saybrooke; I would title it something like...Rape of Marty Saybrooke. Thing is...titling it "Rape of Marty Saybrooke" would most definitely mean that I should include a lot of information about the original rape (which would make the better article but is a lot of work) and would be taken by some people to mean that we are siding with people who consider "the second rape" to have actually been rape. Whether or not we do is irrelevant to Knowledge, but "the second rape" would be under a non-neutral article title (even if I title it under a neutral heading in the article). Also, "Rape of Marty Saybrooke" sounds too much like a real-life rape incident. Thus, perhaps naming the article "Marty Saybrooke rape controversy" would be better. 8437:. Thus, those sources from Branco are not simply about his own criticism of the storyline. Then there are the additional sources (which start the section off and help to end it), which is good. Does "the second rape" outshine everything else this relating to Todd? Of course not, but I am not sure that the original rape angered people as much as "the second one" and I currently do not have as much information about the original rape or other things about Todd, which has subsequently caused "the "second rape to seemingly have more bases which need to be covered. Really, I have been thinking of making an article about Marty's original rape for some time -- it would consist of all the needed information about the rape, the trial, and its impact on American soap opera (meaning fan reaction, critical reviews, and its legacy). Since there are a few scholarly sources which discuss it and sources from other valid sites, I have been thinking that I could make a good article out of all that. 2880:

than what you intend. For example, "You are going to sabotage all soap articles" is a pretty clear implication of bad faith. "You are being unreasonable." "There is no inoffensive way of saying this, KellyAna, but you are becoming a bit of a nuisance with your behavior in general, from your snarky edit summaries to your completely unbelievable behavior on your own talk page." "You are truly out of control," "You aggravate everyone," "There are also several editors I feel she has terrorized and steamrolled lately." "I obviously take issue with her stubbornness." These kinds of comments (regardless of whether or not you feel that they are true) are the kinds of things which escalate a dispute, not de-escalate it. Further, they weaken your case considerably, because when a third-party reviewer comes in, they can't tell who's in the right and who's in the wrong. They just see two people yelling at each other, and you both look equally at fault. :/

7771:, which are extensive and specific. The idea is that exhaustive details about game play and such can (and often are) discussed on external websites or other game-specific wikis or blogs. Without being well-versed on the game and not knowing what you intend, it's hard for me to advise you on how to proceed. Just because a topic only seems of interest to fans doesn't necessarily mean it won't be notable in a more general sense, but at the same time my Spidey-sense tells me that the various locations within the game may not warrant significant coverage beyond a concise list within another article, and perhaps an image or two of ones that may stand out for some reason or another. Of course anything you add comes from your "own information," and material that is common knowledge and/or unlikely to be challenged can get by without specific references, but lesser-known info (and any kind of opinion or analysis) needs an external source. 2909:, and yet it is impossible not to challenge some of the arguments she made there. I would and have chimed in on any similar discussion with any other editors. Yes, those comments above (and more) were certainly made in times of frustration, but as much as she wrings her hands over such "attacks," I cannot help but take issue with her blunt reverts and dismissal of any and all criticisms of them, as well as what I have referred to as "steamrolling." I believe each of those issues started out with a polite comment, to which she snarled, to which I snarled back. This definitely escalated because we happened to cross paths one too many times on the same articles in the course of a few days, and my watching her talk page and edits probably fueled my annoyance in general. But if we look at the recent articles involved in this mess, she pretty much has not conceded a single point, no matter the validity of the challenge. Even 7173:

relatively minor details. The plot sections of fictional character articles are intended to establish the notability of the characters and provide understanding, not relate every step of every plot in which they have been involved. For example, in your most recent edits you note that Rebecca sees Lucky on the docks and Lucky thinks Liz and Nikolas are talking about him; this is not noteworthy information. Try to think of it this way: if you were to read this article a year from now when these characters are involved in other storylines, what would still seem notable and relevant? So far her entire storyline can really be condensed to something like: "Rebecca comes to town and everyone is shocked at her resemblance to Emily; her growing closeness to both Nikolas and Lucky causes conflict between the brothers, made worse by rising suspicions that she is somehow part of Helena's latest plot to manipulate Nikolas." —

9779:'s article goes for what is more like original research for the first reference for her age, though backed up by a second reference. I simply view Erica's 1962 age as solid as Starr's age... Of course, we all know that these ages can be changed by the series. In fact, these ages will most likely be changed due to rapid aging of their children. Kendall's children will most likely be aged to teenagers within the next six or seven years (and, really, I am giving them the benefit of the doubt by stating they will wait that long), which would rapidly age Kendall (though put her closer back to her "true" birth date). Bianca is likely to be rapidly aged as well due to rapid-aging of her children. All this would no doubt age Erica (though closer to her "true" age), if we are thinking logically. So, yes, it is not like I do not get your point about how age often means little in the daytime soap opera realm. I get it. 8662:, but I've been around here longer and have seen many discussions regarding these types of articles, and made my own mistakes. "Powerusers" like myself don't expect to be blindly followed and are always willing to discuss these issues, it just gets frustrating when editors seem to do things (and fight for their edits) without looking at the "big picture." Most soap-related articles are in bad shape, and people like AniMate and I are just trying to keep as many articles as we can from getting worse from a certain standpoint. I probably should just let some of them be "destroyed" with trivia and other bad practices and just let them get deleted when someone comes along wanting to do so, but every such deletion jeopardizes these articles as a whole. Mainstream editors already think soap articles are a joke, if we all start ignoring policy and completely turn them into an extension of 9291:

in-universe perspective at times has just been proven again by your comment above. You have a need to assign ages to fictional characters, and to extrapolate dates and timespans from facts and clues: this is an in-universe perspective, because you are not using the real-world as your frame of reference. The shows are fictional things that exist in our world. The difference may be hard to see when you're talking about a single actor in the same role on the same series, but recasting and retconning and transplanting characters into different pieces of fiction make the difference between fact and fiction clear. Superman is no different than Erica, he has just been used in various media with different performers and different timelines. I'm not saying you think soap plotlines are real, but though you may not see it, in your comments you talk about storylines with an in-universe slant.

8246:... I moved the casting info into its own section because it has a source and was lost in the plot area. To be honest, your "Character analysis" section as it stands really needs to be slashed down and some of it perhaps incorporated into the storyline area. Specifically, the "Personality" section reads somewhat as editor point-of-view. The subsequent summaries of family, romances and such are presented in a non-encyclopedic way. It is more appropriate to incorporate notable facts into the plot summary, avoiding statements that require editor opinion or analysis. In general, any kind of discussion about a character beyond recounting plot needs to have a source; Knowledge is not intended as a forum for original thought and analysis, but rather as an overview of information reported elsewhere, as in books, magazines or on reputable websites. Featured article 6662:

fundamental difficulty with your position is that the sole (ultimate) source of the information is the otherwise unvouched ipse dixit of two people with an obvious financial interest in promoting one version of events. The individuals have had every possible opportunity to substantiate their claims by releasing or publishing copies of the notes, but have failed to do so. Without wishing to get into the merits of the books in question, I think it's fair to say that the claims that BH and KJA made about the notes were crying out for corroboration. In the absence thereof, it's difficult to see how anyone can lend much credence to them. In such a situation, it would hardly be NPOV to refuse to acknowledge the considerable degree of controversy surrounding the provenance/existence of the notes.

6707:. It speaks volumes that no one has yet produced a reliable published source which challenges the existence of the notes, or even reported on a fan/reader challenge significant enough to be noticed in the mainstream. You say there is a "considerable degree of controversy" but there is no real way to quantify if it actually amounts to more than the most hardcore fans posting in a forum. And I will repeat, they are not saying he wrote the books. If you read a 2-page outline of any book, the completed novel is obviously going to have a lot more to it. Am I the only one who can see that two writers could start with the same outline and come up with two considerably different novels? What is it, specifically, that has convinced you that Frank could not have conceived the basic plot of 9031:'s age is even listed, though it changes over the course of the stories. I ask you, TAnthony and AniMate why age should be removed from the soap opera character infobox when other fictional character genres retain age in their infoboxes? Seeing this case as "special" because these are soap opera characters and because you are tired of IPs and inexperienced editors putting in unsourced ages is not a valid enough reason to eliminate all soap opera character ages from the infobox. Editors dealing with prime time character articles and other fictional character articles also deal with unsourced age additions, but they have not eliminated the age option from their infoboxes. The age of a character is sometimes a central part of a storyline. This was clear with 9481:

once better formatted the reference from Soap Opera Central for Erica Kane's age as being 1962 - you gave your approval for that (in fact, you often gave your approval for the use of Soap Opera Central, which led other editors, including me, to not view the use of that site's character biographies as a problem), and yet now you are acting as though it is absurd to list Erica's birth year as 1962. I know that you, as well as all of us experienced editors here have now "seen the light" about using Soap Opera Central's character biographies as references, but this is not just about Soap Opera Central, but everything else I stated above as pointing to Erica's birth date now being 1962. You say that all that really can be asserted for sure are

7132:, and the move to DirecTV was simply a subsequent final attempt by the studio to keep it going. You are correct that ratings were never released for the DirecTV run; Neilsen sells its ratings information in different "packages" at varying price points, and DirecTV's contract allowed them to get ratings for their own use, but not use them for marketing or promotion (that is, publish them in press releases or make them public in any way; Nielsen charges more for the right to do that). Even producers of the series were not told what the ratings were or how many new subscribers DirecTV may have gotten because of the series, but DirecTV's failure to continue the series suggests that they weren't impressed with the numbers.— 784:. If there were a system in placed, I'd recommend the project be forced back down to a work group so it can fully be under the TV project for better oversight. As for notification, that isn't my job. I "notified" TV by including it in the deletion sorting because I'm in the Television project. I do the same for any other TV article I AfD or find while browsing the AfDs. I do the same for few other projects I'm a member of. I do not del sort for other projects. Those projects should have people watching the AfDs same as we do. And since any SOAPS AfD would also be in the Television AfD, it probably be even easier just to watch the TV ones. But that's up to y'all since you want to be a standalone project. 9121:"... in 2002 Erica's birthdate is revised to 1962." When I wrote above about the facts "making sense," I didn't mean that her in-universe age makes sense, I meant that the retelling of the sequence of events in the real world (writers changing information) makes sense. In some ways you are trying to present these characters as if they were real people. This is an encyclopedia discussing a fictional topic, and so the "facts" will not "add up" because fiction is fluid; in cases like Erica, you are attempting to make them fit by defining her age, but doing so is impossible because of the retcons. Which is the point, since a fictional topic really cannot be held up to non-fictional limitations. How is 8976:

year, this caused an outcry from viewers of the series since Erica's age at the time of the rape combined with Kendall's age conflicted with the All My Children timeline and made Erica and Kendall too young. The writers attempted to rectify this by aging Kendall to 23 years old and scripting the character to repeatedly mention her new age, emphasizing the change...Kendall leaves town in 1995 and returns years later in 2002 with a new actress, Alicia Minshew, in the role. The character's birth year was changed again, this time to 1976, which pushed Erica's birth year forward to 1962." So, TAnthony, you think the birth years that are calculated based on the changing information should be removed?

9753:

cannot be fully resolved. The article currently says that Erica was raped at 14 and had Kendall in 1970 or before, and then it says that Kendall's birthdate was later revised to 1976. All true, and the reader understands the age difference and the change. Why the need to lock in a date of 1962, when not even the show itself has done that? I guess I haven't presented it this way yet: to avoid original research, we provide all the relevant info and let the reader figure it out/do the math; any kind of calculation or interpretation or analysis on our part is inappropriate. This is the same concept as an editor quoting from a book and then interpreting what the passage means;

9321:

had Kendall ... and yet all are true. Because none of it is real. There is no way in which all of the "facts" make sense. I ended up putting in the age in the infobox because reliable sources asserted the character's age in 1970 and only OR disputed it. 1962 is a number invented by adding 14 to 1976. That is original research. Period. You say, "The soap opera community is quite aware that Erica's age was retconned to 1962." No, the soap community is aware that Kendall's birthdate was ultimately established as 1976. Making this apply to another character is OR. The same way that using any SORASed character's age to calculate the age of their parents is OR. Similarly, the

1992:

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.

2561:

issue. And she's so defensive I don't think she even takes time to comprehend what I'm trying to say. And that whole "by the gods" and wiccan business, LOL, that's when I realized she just isn't getting it, and is completely unreasonable. This is what separates us; I gave my opinion but I could care less if she deletes the damned redirect to avoid all the "pain" caused by it (LOL again). It does annoy me, however, that she'd had it deleted previously but didn't bother to fix all the links to it. It's like, why don't you spend more time doing constructive tasks like that, rather than revert and scold people for adding episode numbers a week in advance. Like

6173:

by an extended vacation. For the first time in years I'm thrilled about going home... since I decided to rent a hotel room. My parents were offended at first, but are okay now that they've realized they get me for three weeks and won't bump into me before my morning coffee. I read your exchange with PJ's IP. I'm not particularly surprised by the Asperger Syndrome, as I honestly expected something like that was at the root of his interactions with others. Still, you have the patience of a saint, as I would have likely bailed after the first insult or threat. When I login tomorrow, I'll likely be in another time zone, and then... the big RfA. Wish me luck.

6140:

someone who would really benefit from having their own website where he could control the content. Perhaps a OLTL wikia page? I always hate seeing someone blocked, but... As for my gender, I thought about making a vaguely crude joke about peeing and sitting or standing but the cold, wet, cesspool that Los Angeles has become has sucked any joviality I had out of me, despite tomorrow being my last day of work for the year. I'm actually am a guy, and found Flyer22 repeatedly explaining it to users. Perhaps we should switch names to end any gender confusion. I'm always happy to clear up the confusion, because using the awful "he/she" can be so annoying. --

8447:

article much longer. I would like you and I to give trimming "the second rape" section a shot. My main concern about trimming it, however, is having too many of the main or key points cut out. Plus, trimming it in half would only take it close to 84 kilobytes, which leaves the article still "too long" in regards its expected limit before splitting. I know, though, 84 kilobytes is still better than 100 when reducing size (unless needed information is being cut). And with all the other stuff I want to add to this article, I know that I will pass its "too long" limit again anyway, which makes 84 kilobytes or close to it even better in this case.

9157:

articles, it would appear that I have a very out-of-universe perspective. You say that "Erica Kane is a fictional construct, so age does not apply as it does to a real person." I get that, and yet I realize how age is applied to soap opera characters; these characters mostly go by real time. The changes you made to the Erica Kane article should not have been made until this discussion was through. It makes no sense whatsoever to state that Erica is age 53–54. This makes no sense due to Kendall's age within the realm of real time that soap operas go by. The soap opera community is quite aware that Erica's age was retconned to 1962 when

9802:

significantly improving as a Knowledge editor, even though there were newer editors coming to me for advice and treating me as an administrator, as my early archives show, which may have given me a bit of an ego). I should have just left that addition out of the article. While I wanted to believe this person was being truthful about the information and still want to be believe that, and see that some parts of the story can be backed up by reliable online references, we should not simply take the word of a Wikipedian about biographical information. This is exactly what we (you and I) told an editor on my talk page about the

2919:

I have not see her apologize to anyone recently or extend an olive branch, it is all defensive outbursts and accusations of stalking. I realize that I have contributed to that by goading her, and yet, is it worse to let her do something I feel is detrimental to an article, or challenge her as aggressively as she defends her own actions, and take a chance on making her mad? I really do hope she takes my comments to heart, and I hope that she and all of our editors can focus more on improving articles and less on policing minute details. Although maybe the mass deletions which will eventually come would clean house a bit. —

8831:

Lucci and the series began, which creates the anomaly that the character was eight. More importantly, the date itself is artificially calculated using airdates and Kendall's onscreen dates, etc. Because we are dealing with both real-life and fictional time spans, that Erica was born in 1962 makes no more sense than that she born in 1955. Including the year in the infobox adds little to the understanding of the character, and instead adds confusion. I would prefer a paragraph using the sources that illustrates to the reader how the character's age was adjusted over time due to Kendall's existence and aging.—

6577:. It is far preferable to use a cast photo or something similar (but not a montage created by you) to show some of the characters. In some character list articles, it might be useful to depict certain key characters, most especially if they have something unusual about their appearance that is discussed in the article. That is not the case here. All of these characters are, by definition, minor and do not warrant images. If a sub article is broken out for a particular character, then please feel free to add an image of the character to that article. But on this list, it's not supported. Thanks, -- 4144:

images could not have a fair use rationale written for them because they were images of living people and so they are clearly replaceable by freely licensed images. The attempt at a fair use rationale for those images claimed that because the pictures were of the characters, they weren't replaceable. I don't believe this is a defensible position since a picture of the actor who plays the character could clearly be obtained and would adequately illustrate the character they play. The only exception I could think of would be if the actor only appeared in very heavy prosthetics to play the role.

9009:

a apart of that character's history. I do not see why when any kind of retcon occurs, any simple representation of age becomes "pretty much irrelevant OR" or trivial. I see absolutely no difference in listing the age in the infobox as opposed to stating the age in the text, other than the text going into detail. If one is familiar with references, they would click on the referenced age in the infobox to simply get a likely explanation. And I personally have not seen large groups of editors with very good reasons for why infoboxes need not exist at all, but that is another discussion.

6221:

my parents smug and self congratulatory looks whenever they remind me they insisted I get an education minor in case art didn't work out makes me regret the move somewhat. Home is Arkansas, a huge change from LA, and a great starting point for the "mini trips" I'm planning to make to New Orleans and Memphis. Be glad you didn't fly out yesterday. Worst turbulence on a flight ever to Vegas, where I was delayed almost an hour because of snow... in Las Vegas. I'm still trying to wrap my head around that one. You can save your I'm sure unblemished purity in regards to my RfA as I

8300:

220px, so Alexis' face gets kinda small in the version you uploaded). Your Sonny pic was excessively sized, and I don't feel like it illustrated the character any better. Also, WP administrators have advised us in the past that screencaps (or promo images that look like them) are preferred to promotional portraits from the network sites because those sites actually have language that forbids their content to be used elsewhere. This is not a hotly policed situation at this point, but I always advise going that way if possible to avoid any deletions in the future. Thanks.—

6773:

assessment of a person's credibility without making the claim that he's lying. I don't know Brian Herbert. I make no aspersions whatsoever about his personal integrity. What I am saying is that the state of the evidence engenders healthy, rational scepticism about his claim, just as it would if anyone else with a book to plug made a similar claim. The formulation on the Hunters page ("The authors have stated...") is appropriate for an unvouched claim, as was "It is apparently based upon..." Both are preferable to the suggestion in my post of 8 May 2008, above.

413:

can't exactly use those as reference. I can use them to verify the reference as a double check, but I can't use them as a reference in the article. It is the little things irking me lately like why do people feel the need to remove hidden tags instructing people where info can come from? Do they really think this covers their tracks when they make changes? Can you tell I'm frustrated? I just want respectable articles that don't get nominated for AfD because people find gross inaccuracies. Is that too much to ask of those people? LOL!! Have a good one!

8881:" or "de-SORASed." While these soap opera articles should be for the general public, most people who read these articles are soap opera viewers and are quite familiar with character ages being retconned, SORASed and de-SORAsed. If the age is noted within the text, what is the big deal about it being noted in the infobox? It is still confusing even when explained in the text. A casual reader who strolls by and sees that the age does not make sense will likely want to do some research about that, such as read the article to see what the deal is with that. 6349:

some kind of real-word notability to really be able to withstand an AFD. This would mean mention on a reputable website or in a book or magazine, etc. Many soap articles have been tagged for deletion over time, and there are many more which are currently in bad shape and in danger of being noticed and deleted. There is a bad habit among casual editors to create a separate article for every single character that has ever been on a series; this actually goes against policy. Strictly speaking, only the most notable characters should have articles, like

5266:. Perhaps all these 'lists' could be combined into one larger AfD so that the pros and cons of such lists can be discussed in toto. I noticed the 1st AD was a no-consensus. By including them all together it may be easier to show the problems inherent in maintenance. I agree that such lists are simply lists for the sake of having a list... and unless one sets careful parameters for who to include and how and why, the list could end up having hundreds of sub-lists and include literally millions of names. Maintaining such would be impossible. 2461:

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.

9413:. Superman is different than Erica, for the very fact that he has been used in various media with different performers and different timelines. My take on this has nothing to do with having an in-universe slant. I am simply acknowledging the fact that daytime soap operas follow the real world timeline. Why do you keep acting like that is not the case? That is the difference between Superman and Erica Kane. If characters' ages are not being changed, as you argue, then why have we had soap opera writers comment on this and say that 6743:. If you took that from it, then my apologies. The reference to the tea cup is a jocular - but in my view apposite - allusion to Russell's problem with articles of faith. Let me put it another way. Barring a tearful confession and retraction, what is the hypothetical piece of concrete evidence that would persuade you that Knowledge ought to acknowledge the fact that the existence of the notes in question is disputed? (nb I'm not for one second suggesting that Knowledge ought to make the claim that the notes are falsified.) If 8425:. Thus, precedent for having an article built around a storyline has been set (and probably by other television genres here before or in addition to those two). The way I envision creating an article of this type would be to make it better than those two. I get what you mean about most of the "second rape of Marty" section coming from Branco's first article about it; I was worried about that, but I did trim a bit of what he said days before coming to you about this. I also had to reword some of it, as to not be accused of 7002:

series was in the best interest of all parties; in this case, promoting DirecTV programming would ultimately benefit the NBC Universal family of companies, since they were still making money by selling the series to DirecTV. And so you understand, when we say that NBC "sold" the show to DirecTV, we actually mean that they sold the rights to broadcast certain episodes a certain number of times, etc., not the actual ownership rights to the series. NBC Universal still owns every episode of

31: 807:

part of the Project. We are relatively small and just gaining momentum again, but we do have overall goals that include making soap articles fully compliant with the usual TV and fiction policies. We've begun actively merging and cutting articles and changing tense in an initial "cleanup" phase, and have been slowly identifying articles and implementing the necessary references and real-world context with notability in mind. The first standout achievement of the Project is

8991:

daughter is 15 years old, and since Jim was a college senior and Mary was 18 when she was pregnant and stated that Jim was 3 years older than her, we came to the conclusion that Jim is 36 and was born in 1973." Frankly, I'm becoming more and more tempted to take TAnthony's position and turn a blind eye to let the raving fangirls do what they will to the articles and fill them with worthless trivia. I'm just not sure we should make it easy for them. A big part of me wishes

3169:. The MOS asserts that they are perfectly acceptable and exist to encourage the creation of new articles. When these articles are created, the links to them are already in place. Obviously infant actors will probably not have articles anytime soon and can be unlinked, but an adult actor could presumably be deserving of an article at some point in the future. I recently restored links to some names in the "Celebrity guests" section which had previously been red links (like 9771:

Kendall and display that with Kendall's current birth date, such as the instant when Kendall's age was changed to 1976 and Erica was still stated to be 14 years older than her due to Erica's rape at age 14. That is using the show itself as a reference. Using the show as a reference when dealing with non-contested information is fine. Erica's 1962 birth date is not currently contested, except by fans who laugh at the idea that she is 47. But the fact remains that if

8392:; obviously the original rape is the defining storyline for the character, but does this latest story really outshine everything else? I feel like some dense coverage on the story would be enough without going into every nuaunce of Branco's discussion; interested readers can go to his article for details (and that is what Knowledge really is, a starting point for further research, not a compendium of every fact on or sentence written about a topic).— 6357:(think about what soap characters would actually make it into a printed encyclopedia). We obviously have articles for many characters per show, usually all contract players and such, but they are in constant danger of deletion if not shored up with references asserting notability. The general membership of Knowledge doesn't necessarily share our belief in the notability of these characters, and policy backs them up at this point. The Featured Article 7708:

sort the books out what (in their opinion) culturally, artistically, etc. momentous and destroy the rest. This is only narrowness. Aka I can only create articles with my own information, because there are no other pages on the Internet about this topic, and I also know that the articles would only interest the Total Annihilation fans. I mean if some Dune articles are nominated for deletion, how could a computer game rival with Frank Herbert?

9085:

or reverting unsourced ages. If you all were not as worried about it, you would not be proposing this idea. But then again, I would probably feel like you do if I had as many soap opera articles on my watchlist and were actually looking at my watchlist. I am tired of debating this age topic and am no longer as passionate about keeping the character ages in the soap opera infobox. If you remove it, TAnthony, I will not throw a bitch fit.

7245:"reliable source." I'm not trying to be a jerk, but the fact is, since anyone can have a blog/site and write whatever they want, and only be as accurate as they choose to, Knowledge has to have certain criteria to maintain accuracy and accountability. I am not suggesting that you make up information or do not note your sources, but unfortunately your site fails the criteria (at this point). I encourage you to discuss your situation at 6909: 1886:

much the people with whom he's had the most significant interaction. And it's simple to see who his other siblings are, if the reader is interested, by looking in the infobox. We could leave the lists, but then someone will come along, notice that Joey article is mostly a big list of random names, and tag it. And if we had to defend the notability of the article, we couldn't because it really isn't to anyone but us soap folks. —

1167:—I was following one of the guidelines for formatting biographical articles (can't remember which one offhand) that suggested the infobox should appear after the introduction if possible and only in the upper right as a last resort. So I have been placing it in the upper right for very short articles, and after 1-2 paragraphs if there is a suitable amount of material, mostly making an esthetic judgement on how it appears best. 7562:, the area for free images, and represented them as if you owned the copyright and could grant permission for their use here. The images are owned by the copyright holder of the video game, even though you screencapped them. I re-uploaded them to Knowledge itself, and tagged them with the proper templates to state that though the copyright owners retain ownership, we are using the images minimally and in a small size under 1924:

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.

2475:

is it you are making so much out of a QUESTION? And since you are unaware, witches don't fly around on brooms, that's a fictitious stereotype perpetuated by the media just like gays..... Don't make me go there, it would be as you rude as you disparaging Wiccans with your broom comment. Let's not go to that level of insulting because I really don't need to insult gays to offset your insults to witches and wiccans.

1099:, "links do not have an expiration date, beyond which they must be 'fixed.' "If there is a reasonable chance an article will be created (and cast, staff and crew of network television shows are potentially notable), the links should stay red so that they are active when the article is created. Some are just nonexistent because their subjects aren't "sexy" enough, not that they're not notable or deserving. I mean, 9636:

contexts. "In 2002 they said that Kendall was born in 1976, and in 1993 they said that Erica was raped at 14, so naturally it was 14 years before 1976." That is an in-universe perspective and original research at the same time. You're trying to make facts add up that never will because they are not limited by real-world time. And for the record, soap writers are by definition writing in-universe! Unbelievable.—

9053:'s age should not be listed, though, since the 1993 rape storyline is so famous within the American soap opera community and we are now supposed to believe that the rape happened a few years before 1993. But at the same time, I want a section about this in the Todd Manning article or some note about it there. In this case, I can see TAnthony's point about ages being better noted in the text than in the infobox. 3982: 9536:, or something similar to that (but even in Superman's case, he is first given an age range when he debuts as a baby, and Bart is almost always defined as a little kid). To me, age, when relevant within that particular fiction, is far more important to list than the name of a fictional town a character grew up and or lives in. Age or age range is often as much a defining element of a character as 5543:. I am in the process of rewriting it in its entirety and referencing SoapCentral as the source of the data. In the future, please do not copy text from other websites and use it in any Knowledge pages. I realize that this was probably an honest mistake, so please let me know if you have done this with any other articles and I can help you fix them without getting you in any trouble. Thanks. — 1730: 5697:. I'm unfamiliar with the show, but told him to go ahead make the change if he felt it was needed. Then, I get my talk/user page blanked, and the "leave me alone" messages. I've tried to stay out of it since then, because it was handled, but I have read the insults, and problems, and I just wanted you to know that your work here IS appreciated, and I stand behind you and Elonka. Thanks :) 8554:

for me to stop editing the article for a week or two in order to better see any flaws in my keeping the section as it currently is...or to have someone not as close to it look over it/likely edit it (such as you). I cannot stop editing that article for a week or two right now (I want to get some things taken care of with that article while I am being a little more active on Knowledge).

2328:

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 Knowledge, 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

1944:, 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. — 2888:

KellyAna another chance. She does a lot of good work, and as we both know, the soap articles can take all the help they can get! If we can figure out how to pull together as part of a team, where we're all adding our own strengths towards the overall mission (and covering for each other's weaknesses), I think that we, the articles, and Knowledge would all reap the benefits. :) --

5835:

sometimes there's just nothing that can be done. Looking back in hindsight on the entire situation, the main big thing that probably could have been done differently, is that as soon as there was a challenge to the redirect, we could have gone straight to the AfD(s). Other than that, I think everyone did as well as could probably be expected with that kind of situation. --

2884:

with something positive. When people read these, they often form a first impression from the first words, then they read the content, and then their final impression as to whether or not they're going to listen to you or write you off, will be based on the last thing you say. If you genuinely want to change behavior, remember that you're persuading, not just venting.

2029:

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.

3456:

because I'm not objective about it. He needs to join Days of our Lives and come to Burlington in August. In all seriousness, I know being out of work can suck, I hope you find something soon. Oh, if only you could get me Eric's autograph. His and Juliet Mills. I've loved her since Nanny and the Professor and she is my second all time fave Passions character.

7332:, I honestly don't think we could find enough real-world context and third party sources to assert enough notability. Again, I didn't mean to sound like an ass, but I'm serious about my advice and warnings. You're a regular editor and I'm always trying to get more committed people like you to look at the big picture and participate in a more significant way.— 5483:, and feel free to copy the material there for new TV series or film images, of course changing the linked name of the series or film where it appears. It is also helpful to include a link to the website from which you took the image under "Source," and if you can't recall, specify that you are the uploader (as I've done with the images I've fixed for you). 7287:

soap opera articles that are just very long plot summaries with day-to-day minutae and no references. Guess what, an article with no sources cannot withstand an AfD. If you're going to spend the time adding info to an article, do it right or don't do it at all. It seems like small thing, but you're actually "damaging" the articles you are interested in.—

1426:'s methods have been criticized and he seems currently inactive, I find some merit in his argument that the bulk of these images were not created as part of a "press kit" to necessarily be used by other media, but in fact to promote these series and films on their own sites or in areas of their own choosing. In fact, the websites' terms of service (like 9161:'s Kendall took over the role. This is something Soap Opera Central got right, and other soap opera columnists have stated over the years. You had no problem with Erica's age rightfully being stated as 1962 before. Why now? If you insist on stating her age as 53-54, then I am certainly all for removing the ages from these character soap opera infoboxes. 9713:

that what we are supposed to be doing here is akin to writers creating fiction. You got the impression that I was stating that. Oh well. It can disturb you. You, AniMate, and others worrying over ages of fictional characters this much can be viewed as disturbing and is something I see as trivial as compared to the bigger scheme of things on Knowledge.

8388:

is covered on its own and analyze it (and btw, any separate article you end up creating should contain the word "storyline" or something to make it clear it is a fictional topic, unless you are going with mere names). I hate to say it, but the more I think about it, my gut is telling me that this section within the Todd article should actually be

3251:, I can admit to those of you watching my page that I work for the show. I'll be striking everything for the next few weeks so let me know if there's any info I can dig up before it's boxed away, LOL. Not that anything I could tell you can be considered from a reliable source. Like obviously anything that can solve the Theresa Crane dilemma. — 1582:

relationships should already be noted in an article naturally, like the character's parents and siblings and spouses as they relate to storylines. It's really unnecessary to list someone's adopted great-grandchild within the article if the fact isn't worthy enough to be mentioned in a plot summary area. Anyway, the info is still available. —

2523:. This is part of the Project's ongoing task of removing unnecessary and excessive lists from soap articles. Various article assessments have determined that these lists negatively impact an article's quality. Many articles have not gone through the "transformation" yet, but please do not add new lists to articles without them. Thanks. — 9071:, which caused debate about it on her talk page. If Kendall's children were suddenly aged to 30, for example, there is no way that the audience would still be expected to believe that Kendall is also in her 30s. By keeping the information you propose to be kept out of the Erica Kane article about her age only further confuses the issue. 6100:

source, and though I noticed some rewrites and additions, they seemed minimal and I suppose I assumed they were from subsequent edits. We've seen a lot of new users cut-and-paste info here from other places here, not realizing it's a problem, so again I'm sorry that I didn't notice the care you took adding information.

6685:

them, as they are not handwritten by Frank. And I can easily see accusations of forgery after that! The books weren't written by Frank, these "fans" hate that they dared continue the series in any way, and nothing will ever satisfy them or change their minds. Oh, and your "Oberon/unicorn" comparison is a classic

8009:, a book which analyzes the science of Herbert's novels in a real-world context, is the lone secondary source which really does. To be really strong, the article needs to reference reputable magazine/website articles and books discussing melange; in this case, I believe those exist and have yet to be added. The 9023:

changing, anyway, as you know. If you mean past tense, listing the age may go against WP:TENSE for characters who have died within the series, but oh well. Prime time characters and fictional characters from other genres list the the ages of characters in their infobox. One example would be anime character

8470:(something I have been going by for some time now)? In the past, I have noticed that you do not go by "logical quotation." I mean, did you even know about it. "Logical quotation" often comes up in GA reviews and especially FA reviews. It seems that following this type of formatting is now being disputed. 9775:'s brother's birth year was stated, with acknowledgment of the real world year, and as four years younger than John (I forget which one is actually younger), we would have John's birth year. Why is it important for the show to outright state 1962 for Erica when the facts are clear, unless changed again? 3637: 2645:

Crane fails the test, doesn't it? I appreciate you saying I'm right, I do. Thank you. I get as annoyed as you when they move articles like that. I've got a harder one, EJ Wells. One week he's Wells the next he's DiMera and the following he's both. That page moves more than "Two Guys Move You" does.

9752:

Hey there, of course I fully understand your thinking, and the fact that Erica having Kendall at 14 has always been kept intact. But I don't think you could find a reliable source for this that has "1962" in it, because it is generally understood that any kind of retcon will create discrepancies that

9712:

I disagree with you on the age topic, of course, as noted above. As for "pretty much all the 'serious' soap editors" monitoring this discussion, a few soap opera editors are not the bigger community, now are they? I was talking about editors of all genres using the character infobox. And I never said

9365:

article. I've got some other character articles I'm working on that I'd like to see join Pauline as Featured articles, and as probably the best-known American soap opera character I'd like to someday guide Erica to that as well. But it needs some work, and there is clearly no point in my bothering to

9182:

You say that "No actual ages are 'changing,' storylines are just creating continuity discrepancies that force the viewer to suspend disbelief" and that I am "trying to fit fictional concepts into a real-world context, in this case by establishing artificially contrived 'ages' because one character is

8578:

I am through adding to that section; it does not need any more information, unless more of it is going to be cut or it is a small piece of criticism about that storyline from some other good source not already covered in that section. And do not ever worry about getting in my way. We have helped each

8387:

is an awesome source; separate, it will likely seem like coverage/analysis of Branco's story (and its analysis/opinion), which is not necessarily as notable in and of itself. Even with misc other sources to back up key points ... I would say, definitely try to find another TV/film/book storyline that

8026:

do not have as much coverage in external sources, because though they are arguably on the next level of importance/notability within the series, they are nowhere near as notable as Arrakis when looking from a mainstream approach. These articles are all plot and unlikely to ever be more; at this point

6892:

in passing in another film, TV series or novel; if we did so, there would literally be list of a hundred items. Further, such mentions do not establish a topic's "influence" on society or culture; rather, a reliable, verifiable external source (book, article, etc) must be referenced which comments on

6702:

I put myself in the position of BH/KJA, and the mere suggestion that they are lying is basically insulting and inflammatory when there is no evidence except that some fans hate the books. You can say all you want about how they have motive to lie, but there is nothing concrete to contradict them, and

6647:

For the record, I don't find the new books necessarily worthy of being placed alongside Frank Herbert's own, and feel that he may not have made some of the same plot choices etc, but the truth is that we have sources statements asserting that there were notes, and nothing at all to suggest that there

6409:

article is easier to defend because the family has been a notable one in the series, more so than the individual long-dead characters themselves. And good luck finding external sources discussing these characters! So we've tried to make sure all notable characters have some material dedicated to them

6328:

Hi, me again. Once again, new to this. I added a talk section for changing 'Dorian Cramer Lord' to 'Dorian Lord'. Additionally, I have a question, and b/ I know that you're into OLTL, I'm sure you'll know: Why is there no article for Victor Lord? He's not a minor character. I was wondering, since you

6202:

Believe me, at times it's all I can do not to hurl insults myself! But I do really want to get through to editors like that, if only because they never really go away and the best you can hope for is that they learn how to better interact. Still, as you could tell it's like talking to a brick wall in

6162:

LOL, I am also in LA and am now wondering if you're just talking about the weather or the realization we all seem to have about the nature of the place after living here too long! It's funny, I think I may have thought you were a woman when I first started seeing you pop up, not sure why, but then of

6064:

With all due respect, Soap Central is not the only place that features that exact bio. Several other sites, including one I listed as a reference, had that exact same bio. As SC is partially edited by volunteers, so no one has any real way of knowing where the text in question originally came from.

5720:

How poetic. I think it was you who pointed at the similarity between character of the House and that of the Planet; in the 6th of December, 2006. Are these your own words? (And, NO, I am not one of those bastards who try to edit every 'unreferenced' word out of the encyclopedia, presumably because of

5671:

Don't worry about it at all; you may have initiated the "discussion" of the article but you are certainly in no way responsible for the path it took or the actions of any editors involved. I must admit that my own persistence enflamed the situation more than anything. And when even Elonka's ever-calm

5356:

There is not much more to say about any of them, why do they need their own articles? Anyway, what you don't yet understand is that articles on fictional characters need to consist of more than just plot summary, or they are likely to be deleted. Most of the soap opera articles are in danger of this,

5117:

Have you ever considered becoming an admin? You have a really even temper, a boatload of edits, and frankly WikiProject Soap Operas could use an active admin involved in some of our issues (especially since Elonka's kind of busy dealing with all sorts of BS). If you're interested, let me know. I'd be

4606:

I thought so too. Right now I've redirected the majority of the stubs to the list of GH characters, and will probably start working on them in my sandbox. Just as a favor, could you keep an eye out for Santos25Q. He's not blocked (for some reason), and is back to some of his old tricks. He undid some

3580:

Honestly, who thought it would work on DirecTV? Half the time my DVR won't even record it during the week or records the same show three times. I know a lot of people who rely on DVR for their soaps. I took to catching it on the weekends because it was reliable most weekends. I wish they had just

3430:

OH, HAIL NO, you little TARD =) ~ You got to work with Eric Martsoff (damn, I can't ever spell his name right) every day??? That's so freakin' cool (and I don't know how I missed this thread for so many days). So JER really is as reclusive as they say? Did you work there when Josh Ryan Evans died?

2933:

Especially that "flying around on a broom" comment, I mean, c'mon. :/ Plus, if you delete those comments, it can have other collateral advantages. Other editors will see you doing this, and when you refactor a comment, it both makes you look more mature, and it also provides an example for everyone

2918:

I try to give everyone a new chance every day, and I have certainly tried to do so with KellyAna and will continue to. I have complimented her vigilance and hard work. I did want to be a bit more positive in my last remarks to her, but I sort of figured that after all this I'd come off sounding fake.

2540:

I just wanted to apologize for the whole kerfluffle that went down on my talk page. However, I, personally, really appreciated you stepping in — despite the fact that I've been a registered member for a while, I still feel rather newbie-ish, and it was nice to know that I hadn't committed as massive

2474:

Starving orphan? By the gods, talk about over dramatic. You are just driving this to a point of ridiculous I've not ever seen on Knowledge. You TELL me this is a battle. Really? I thought it was a QUESTION. You've made it more than it was. Your meddling made it an issue. It was a QUESTION. Why

2312:

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

2181:

It was deleted and reinstating a deleted page is against Knowledge 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.

1991:

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

1939:

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

1791:

I'm not mocking you, I just don't like your tone. Telling me you don't like your work reverted means nothing when you are wrong. I understand your preference for the lists, but understand that the rest of us at the Project are trying to look at the big picture, which is preserving the articles. There

1363:

It's your interpretation of "minimal" I'm taking issue with. Many of these characters could actually be spun out into their own articles, but why have a bunch of stubs pending expansion when you can keep them in one place? I have articles and other coverage to assert notability but only so much time!

1347:

is a policy page. To answer your point, one image would certainly be allowed per character if the article was split out into individual articles, but this doesn't apply here since the characters aren't notable enough to have their own articles (though some of the actors are). Yes, the FAQ is a user

961:

I never said that I was a perfectionist...And the closing credits on 1/18 didn't say "Tar Signor", it said "Tari Signor". The letters are so small that sometimes it looks like an error in spelling or a different name. But it did say Tari. And I apologize for calling you a moron. It was uncalled for.

912:

ABC.com backs up the historical spelling, and the Soaps.com references obviously uses the mistaken credit from 1/18 because it happens to have a screen capture on the page! I'm a perfectionist and normally I would go with "onscreen," but I've been wtahcing the show for over 20 years, they screwed up.

412:

I just find it funny that no one bothered to check the actual ep count which made me sort of mad at both KellyAna and FightTheDarkness for not checking and assuming the number was correct in the first place and just adding two on. I do stuff with the pictures from the eps and they are numbered but I

9806:

article, and this is not like an editor citing an article and the date of that article and us taking their word. This is, in all reality, someone's word that cannot currently be completely checked. You have edited the Agnes Nixon article a few times since its Early life addition; since I did not see

9796:

on June 10, 2007, who was basically saying that they are either the daughter of Agnes Nixon's closest teacher (Eleanor Dubuission Fossick, also known as "Miss Eleanor") or that they came across that information due to having talked to that teacher. I remember I addressed that editor about his or her

9519:

You say that I am not going to get what you are saying, as if I am living in my own little universe. Well, I get what you are saying. You should get what I am saying. But, yes, I do not know what you mean by "Hopefully someday be part of a broader discussion on one of these articles that touches on

9116:

on "facts" accumulated from reliable sources, you are basically assembling them to present "new facts." An accurate presentation of the facts is something like "Erica is established to be roughly 15 when the show begins; she is later said to have given birth to a daughter at age 14, and in 2002 that

9084:

You three have seemingly already made up your minds about not including the ages in the infobox, and my single objection is not going to stop this action from taking place. I get your annoyance at people putting in unsourced ages, but I have never cared much about that to go around articles removing

9008:

TAnthony, soap opera ages when SORASed or otherwise altered do not make sense either way, explained in text or not, due to how they follow the current timeline in addition to changing the character's birth date within the fictional timeline. But we include that information, regardless, because it is

8830:

I think it's pretty much in or out; in the specific case of Erica, I agree that her several-times-revised age is of note. However, I would argue that just listing "1962" in the infobox (despite sources) is somewhat confusing/misleading; first of all, it prompts the reader to compare it to 1970, when

8791:

Ah, I hear ya. Thanks for explaining. It is just that I usually do not see the harm/am not annoyed by listing the age in the infobox when it is due to the reasons about this that I stated above. First and foremost, the age should be sourced. But one of the main problems is that some of these editors

8271:

Also, where did you find that new Claudia Zacchara image? We are technically required to provide the source on the description page. I add the uploader's name when I can in case there are questions in the future, but while it's fresh in your mind it would be great if you could note the webpage where

7436:

articles and am always fearful of potential AfDs. I think you can see the notability where it truly lies, but I feel there are many articles that are not adequately referenced and "substantial" enough at this point to survive an AfD. Not that I can ask you to "check in" with me before you edit, LOL,

7122:

content from their site, it would only be because their contract with the new network required that (which I'd imagine it would, so that CBS could benefit from fan traffic). But who knows. When it comes down to it, the sites are simply promotional tools with a certain value attached; don't be fooled

6808:

website doubts the notes, is that percentage of readers in general enough to be notable? I don't know. But I'm curious what gives you and others the impression that a notable amount of people disbelieve, I mean, how many people do you know that have voiced this opinion? How many posts have you read?

6684:

To be fair, they've published images of the floppies containing the notes with labels in Frank's handwriting, and I haven't heard of any handwriting experts coming forward to challenge that. And I think we both know that even if any notes were published, plenty of dissenters would say the boys wrote

6348:

have consolidated may smaller articles on minor characters into larger articles of one kind or another to save them from deletion. Knowledge has strict guidelines regarding articles on fictional topics; basically, fictional character articles cannot consist of just exhaustive plot summary, they need

6172:

I was mostly talking about the weather, since I've been so jaded about life in LA for so long that I'm back to loving it. Today doesn't feel that bad, though i think that's mostly because I'm just finishing up alot of little nothings at the office in preparation for a night of hard drinking followed

4170:. You seem to be saying that no fair use image should be used to illustrate a character, and while that may be a valid opinion, there is no specific wording in policy that backs it up to the point where such images can be removed from articles or deleted without discussion. The prohibition specifies 3816:

Random people constantly upload and use images inappropriately, which violates copyright and fair use laws. If we don't monitor and prevent this, it opens Knowledge up to lawsuits by the copyright owners. So it is nothing personal, but images are only allowed to be used here in very specific ways. —

3784:

Haha, no. I just meant, the use of the images may not seem like a big deal to you, but it is to the owners of the shows. The whole reason we police the use of images so tightly is that if there is a lot of "abuse" going on at Knowledge, the eventual lawsuits would disallow us from using any fair use

2644:

policy. I know it's not "proof" but I did a random survey on a couple of boards I post on and neither vote was very "Crane" heavy when they think of Theresa's name. Granted, it's only a handful of people over the last hour and it's not proof, I know that, but as far as policy and verifiability go,

2605:

so I know how frustrating it can be. She means well, but I really don't think she sees that she is obsessing or being unnecessarily stubborn about unimportant things. I mean, what is her issue with switching the photo? And she really is, plain and simple, hostile about just about everything. I have

2352:

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

2297:

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

1625:

is Joey's his adopted brother if they've never even shared a storyline. Soap character articles already strain the limits of notability in most cases (the Kevin and Joey articles have absolutely no real-world references) and if they are dominated by these lists, they risk deletion. Specifically, the

1332:

I am not trying to start an edit war, and I certainly see your point, but if the policy is up for interpretation, what makes yours the correct one? At least half of these characters were contract players for years, they were assembled into this article pending expansion to keep the character article

1216:

Hey there! I left this in the Cramer family Talk Section too, but I was wondering what you thought about working up a new page or at least an entry in "Minor Characters" for Addie Cramer? She's become such a vivacious and great supporting character since her recovery IMO and I think she deserves a

374:

The number all of you put in was incorrect. As of Tuesday according to the reference, the number was 10735. That's the problem with updating it on an assumption, which FightTheDarkness does, and just reverting what's been reverted. I checked the count and corrected the number. The issue at hand,

9801:

and was wrongly formatted even when I first noticed it in September 2007 (somehow I had overlooked it in August 2007). When I noticed it, I cleaned it up and made it the Early life section. But I know now that I should not have (keep in mind, this was back during my first year here when I was still

9646:

TAnthony, I have already gone over my thoughts about this. I mostly disagree with you on this topic. No need to debate it even further into the dirt. The character infoboxes topic is now settled, if enough other editors do not come in and object to this "settlement." Most editors here will not even

9597:

I am not forgetting that that this is an encyclopedia. You argue that "resenting any " is incorrect. I state that we do that all the time here (present biography from the point of view of the fictional world, with both bad and good articles), such as with naming a character's "special abilities" in

9540:

is. Rarely ever do I come across a script where the character's age or age range is not listed. So to see comments on Knowledge stating that age is trivial, not important, or something "un-defining" regarding fictional characters is baffling to me. I get your points, but just because I do not agree

9403:

You keep saying that " have a need to assign ages to fictional characters, and to extrapolate dates and timespans from facts and clues: this is an in-universe perspective, because you are not using the real-world as your frame of reference." I say, "What????" The real world is most definitely being

8975:

As for the Erica Kane age retcon, this is what it says about that in the article right now in the family section of the article, "Kendall Hart first appears on the series in 1993. In the beginning of the character's tenure, scripts detail her as sixteen years old. Due to Erica's original 1955 birth

8593:

The more I think about it, a good article about the original rape could be made. Having an article about a storyline is no different than having an article about an episode, as long as it is notable enough. I would likely name it "Marty Saybrooke rape storyline." I am just not sure when, if ever, I

8538:

Okay, I am off to go better tweak the Todd Manning article and cut down on the section we discussed above. I may still create some type of Todd and Marty article about the original and "second rape," but until then...some of this commentary detail about "the second rape" will have to be disregarded

8285:

Thanks again for your continuing contributions, and I hope you take my comments in the helpful way in which they were intended. I am only concerned with valuable articles being improved and avoiding deletion, and try to help other editors and give advice whenever I can. I know we'll be seeing a lot

8141:

to it. Subpages are intended for this exact purpose, to work on article drafts, make test edits, and general experimentation. I have a few myself. You can have as many as you want as long as you're not displaying copyrighted images, or using them as personal pages to which you're directing external

7903:

Well I have much more information (could be 1 A4 for each), but I didn't wanted to flood your page. And also, there are multiple maps, wich took place on the planets, so it is possible to link the TA pages to them (also the main TA page needs to be expanded), and because of the timeline the planets

7745:

and so it can and should cover more topics more extensively than would be possible/advisable on paper, but there are limits — and they are enforced, often very strictly. It's not that anyone wants to "destroy knowledge," but a threshhold of notability has been established to keep things manageable.

7381:

after a single episode was aired, there is nothing to back up a statement when and even if this additional season would air. I know it seems like nitpicking, but as there is no great benefit in adding your 2010 category, or detriment to the article by not adding it, by convention we should at least

7323:

OK, I'm sorry if I came off snarky, obviously I see you around a lot and don't want to be in any kind of argument at all. But this really is the biggest problem facing soap-related articles at this point. I'm actually surprised more haven't been nominated for deletion; they are in such bad shape in

7286:

Yes, but if sources are irrelevant to you, you should not be editing here. The fact that you saw something on TV is original research until you back it up. It's a bad habit to be adding things without a source, and frankly, adding a twin sister to an infobox is unimportant trivia. There are SO many

7023:

Like "Scrubs" for example. It is ABC-owned/produced, but it aired on NBC until ABC took full rights to the show. Now if ABC were to sell Scrubs on another broadcast outlet or cable outlet, ABC would no longer host the website and another network would host the website. And all of the soaps that are

7001:

Hi, thanks for the question! Obviously you know that though the NBC network which airs the show and NBC Studios which produced the show are separate entities, they are "sister" business units owned by the same company. The website exists for promotional reasons anyway, and continuing to promote the

6220:

I haven't worked in comics for a while now, as I moved into animation and graphics with some minor consulting on comics based movies. The writers strike, which I'm sure affected you adversely as well, served as catalyst for me to move into teaching practical arts classes at university level. though

5760:

Hi there! Glad the Ordos edits were ok: the article was a mess of POV, OR and written from an in-universe perspective and I picked it up on my way through some Dune-related articles. I do that periodically (the edits to Anirul from a while back as an example!). Then I though I'd post a message here

5572:

I understand that you did not intend your comments as a literal "attack," but understand that the tone in which you say something is almost more important than what you say here. Your suggestions will never be heeded if other editors feel that you are insulting them, and you lose credibility if you

4556:

This is only an idea. If it were to happen, I would probably leave all bigger articles alone, but only add those writers/directors who had a short run or weren't that notable. Because it really isn't worth creating small stubs for each of those. But maybe I shouldn't do this anyway. If I had a page

4407:

are signed under the contract cast members. Why are those actors both under recurring? I won't change anything because those changes are always reverted by someone. Kerwin has been on contract for a long time, but someone always claims they have a source saying he's recurring. Also, I'm pretty sure

4274:

Thanks Anthony, for the message. I removed the red links as I was adding in links for a British show a few months ago and then a registered user took the brackets off as they were Red Links. I guess it is different strokes for different folks. It probably depends on the "editor" of the page. (There

3455:

Ahhhhhhhhhh is about all I can say to that. He's so hot. Hotter than James Scott (but I'll deny I said that forever). Wish him well too and I hope he ends up on a soap or show I like. Damn he's one fine man. YUMMMMMM!!! Okay, so you now know my major crush and why I stay away from his article

3420:

Hey, thanks to you both, it is a great bunch of people here and we have honestly had a lot of fun doing this show all these years. Everybody really appreciates the fans because they're so supportive and they're what have kept us going this long. We've had a nice run but this is what the TV business

3143:

and exist to encourage the creation of new articles. When these articles are created, the links to them are already in place. Obviously infant actors will probably not have articles anytime soon and can be unlinked, but an adult actor could presumably be deserving of an article at some point in the

2928:

Thanks, and for what it's worth, I've been exactly where you are, so I understand what you're going through. All I can advise is, that the "leading by example" thing is really important. Rather than you waiting for her to apologize or extend an olive branch, I think it would be enormously powerful

2879:

TAnthony, I realize that you think that KellyAna is the "party in the wrong" here, and I absolutely agree that some of her comments have been uncivil. However, some of your comments have been over the line as well. Often your posts are good, but I think they come off in a more confrontational way

2825:

KellyAna, no one is stalking you, you just aggravate everyone to the point that we have to respond. Everything here is public, and I refuse to let you steamroll everyone if I can help it. I do not want to attack you or anyone, but I don't feel like anything I have said is any more uncivil than what

2699:

Start with a gentle good-faith comment. I find it helpful to try and picture the individual as someone who I used to respect, but whose behavior has recently become problematic. For example, picture them as a retired university professor who has gotten a bit old and slow, and may just be confused

2629:

I totally agree with you that if the most reliable online sources say one thing, that's what we should go with. And yet, adding "Crane" isn't really incorrect, so is it a bad thing? Is it likely to be challenged or cause a problem? With redirects, people will get to the article no matter what. I do

2464:

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

2327:

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

2028:

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

1885:

I'm sorry, no one means to belittle your work. It's just that the lists have been pinpointed as problematic. The information is still there, just not taking up the entire body of the article. In the cast of Joey, the article itself mentions his parents and Kevin and Dorian and Kelly, who are pretty

976:

I put a different footnote back as a compromise, but I assure you, when I did a screen cap of the credits, it very clearly says "Tar." I will totally email it to you if you want. The credits did say "Stewart" though, which is totally wrong and even ABC.com spelled it "Stuart" for Friday's show, but

819:

banner. I spent many hours scouring through categories and such tagging articles for the Project — I think we're up to like 2900 right now — and few of them had any WP banners at all, let alone a WP:TV one. A number of these articles probably have no right to exist, but many were actual series, and

806:

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I actually agree with some of your points; many people who edit soap-related articles regularly are merely adding miniscule plot details, listing distant relatives and creating articles for soap opera infants — but the bulk of those are IP editors who aren't even

9829:

I've only done what I'd consider "cleanup" to the Agnes Nixon article; if I ever read the "Early years" section (which I don't remember doing), I certainly didn't look at the source! Your instinct is correct, it's totally unreliable. None of it seems inflammatory, but it's certainly full of POV if

9360:

I can tell by your comments that you are never going to get what I'm saying, and that's fine. Hopefully someday you'll be part of a broader discussion on one of these articles that touches on some of the same ideas. I am going to try and resist the temptation to touch the OR-laden SORAS section in

9320:

You make an issue about Erica's age (birthdate 1955) "makes no sense" in relation to Kendall's new birthdate of 1976. EXACTLY. Either Kendall could not have been born in 1976 because the show didn't start until 1970, or Erica could not have been 15 when the show started, or she was not 14 when she

9204:

How is Superman any different from a soap opera character? He is fictional, you say, so he is ageless? And yet I point out that ages are often a part of fictional characters. Superman is ageless. But Erica Kane and other soap opera characters, who clearly age onscreen and within the storyline, are

9125:

any different from a soap character? He is fictional, so he is ageless. The fact that one actress has portrayed Erica on a single program makes it tempting to see her age as more tangible, but it is still fiction, and cannot be firmly established. And by the way, the comic character infobox has no

9066:

AniMate, I disagree that "less it was stated that Erica Kane was born in 1962, editors doing the math is original research." It is not truly original research when the show states that Kendall's birth year was changed to 1976, and, this, of course, alters Erica's age as well. Any time the age of a

8990:

Personally, I do. Unless it was stated that Erica Kane was born in 1962, editors doing the math is original research. I also echo TAnthony in questioning how this type of information would fare in a serious article review. "Well it was mentioned once that the character was born on July 21, and his

8961:

I have a feeling we can go back and forth on this forever ;) The fact that you would have to "explain" the number with a "retcon/SORAS" note seems proof to me that it is not appropriate for an infobox. Explaining it in the text presents the info as generated: "Erica is established to be roughly 15

8553:

So far, I got it down to 95 kilobytes; most everything else there seems needed. I might be too close to that section (as a screenwriting teacher would say of a writer's script) to see any further significant trimming that would most definitely be okay, though. If that is the case, it would be best

8497:

LOL. Yeah, that is why I have not been fond of "logical quotation," because the general American audience has no idea what that is; it is "wrong quotation" as far as they are concerned, and many editors here (whether IPs, new editors, or experienced editors) often "correct" any "logical quotation"

8446:

Having an article solely about "the second rape" is probably not the best route to take, for the reasons you pointed out. But I also note that another good reason for splitting it, which Knowledge allows in addition to it being well-sourced, is that leaving it in the Todd Manning article makes the

8236:

Hey there ... before I answer that, I've been meaning to say hello and thank you for your recent contributions. You seem to have read up on policy and such and have made some great edits, tagged some articles appropriately, etc. It is so appreciated when new editors take the time to learn a little

7530:

I mean I couldn't find any other place to write to you, so I write it here. I don't really understand why the images I uploaded are violating the copyright law and after you edited them why they do not. But they are presented, so its all right, I only wanted them, because they look better than the

7508:

will do? Soap infoboxes are are cluttered and long enough (some are longer than the articles they're in!) without all this excess stuff. When editing in the future, please try to consider the accessibility and readability of articles to a general audience rather than the trivial soap fan approach;

7076:

It seems like you work for these industries. I was so upset when DirecTV took Passions in because I didn't have that service to continue to watch it. If you do work in these industries, you probably aren't supposed to release certain info, but there was never a release of Passions' rating after it

6830:

LOL, you got me going again! Anyway, we'll never agree and as much as I hate to admit it, mine is not the only opinion that matters ;) So I can concede to "the authors state," which is less suggestive than "the authors claim," and wait until the next person comes along to change it. Thanks for the

6592:

Thanks, I was obviously aware that most lists had been stripped in this way, but unaware that a "policy" had been set down. And so we're clear, I don't care that much about these specific images, and I remove images all the time for NFC-related "violations." It just seems like an interpretive grey

6206:

Where's home? I'm going to Jersey myself; I have so often been tempted by the hotel idea, but by now I've got them pretty well trained to make it bearable hahaha. I've been out a lot lately so I'm saving my hard drinking 'til I get there! Is your current-job comic-related? I'm a TV production mgr,

6139:

I loved Michael, and his death was oddly shocking even though everyone knew it was coming. Witchblade was one of the most well drawn books out there. I'm not particularly surprised about PJ either. His attitude is so ill suited for Knowledge, and I gently tried to get him to see that. I think he's

6099:

Hey there, thanks for your comment, and thanks for your edits in general. Please understand that I never doubted your good faith intentions and didn't mean for my copyright warning on your page as to seem harsh, so I'm sorry if you felt put off by it. I simply saw multiple phrases identical to the

5834:

Actually, no, I thought you handled yourself with remarkable restraint, especially considering the quantity of abuse that was being hurled your way! So good job on that. :) I think we all went the extra mile to try and assume good faith and smooth out any misunderstandings with that editor, but

5239:

Perhaps, but only if this has been discussed elsewhere; Knowledge is not the place for original thought and analysis. If there is such an analysis out there from a reliable source, it can certainly be incorporated, with references. As far as the canon issue goes, believe me, that issue has come up

4433:

It's funny, I did a screen cap of the Andrea Evans credit on Friday in case I needed it for my request to move the Tina article, and I did notice the weird way the credits are mixed up. I'm going to take a look again and see what the deal is exactly, but I seem to recall other people "mixed in" as

3480:

I don't know if you remember the Santa Barbara ending but I felt the most bad for the crew that they showed on the last ep. It was so sad. If you're one of those I'm going to bawl my eyes out. I'll miss Passions but I'm worried about you being out of work in California. Good luck and the Gods'

3010:

Or to put it another way: You've said these things, she's read them, you have both responded to it... What good is being done by leaving the comments in place? If you can point out a positive reason that the comments should stick around, I'd be interested in hearing it. But if the negative is

2460:

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.

2445:

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

814:

This Project was definitely created before my time and I imagine before the concept of task forces was widely known, and I could see it morphing into one in the future. But I feel like you may be thinking this upstart, specific little Project came along and "stole" a bunch of TV articles. In fact,

771:

shrug* I disagree. I think SOAPS should be a workgroup under television (are there any non-television soap operas? Genres don't need separate projects anymore than individual shows and after seeing what the SOAPs project calls improvement, it seems to have no disregard for its "parent project" or

9732:

One more thing. I am done with this debate, but I do want to state something else: People cite or get caught up in Erica Kane's birth date as being 1962 mostly due to her rape that occurred on her 14th birthday. That rape has remained a defining part of Erica's history, and has remained as having

9698:

that it is better left out than presented using flimsy original research (as they seem to be in most cases), that is the point we're trying to make. As far any outcry over the infobox, I think pretty much all the "serious" soap editors are monitoring this discussion. And the fact that you seem to

9485:

ages, meaning that parents are older than children. And yet, if Kendall's children were suddenly aged to her current age, let us say for arguments sake, as I proposed before, you would be against making the calculation that Kendall is older and exactly how much older because it would be "original

9480:

Marty Saybrooke rape is not just said to have now happened "20 years ago" but also in 1988; this was reported to have been established on air this year. But even if it were original research, you had no problem with this "original research," editor synthesis and analysis of facts before. You even

9111:

Such drama! I will probably not be so drastic as to change the template, but I do think you're missing the point. You have a very in-universe perspective. Erica Kane is a fictional construct, so age does not apply as it does to a real person. You are looking at this (and probably other) fictional

8754:

AniMate, what do you mean by "remove the year from the 'birth' field"? I say to you and TAnthony that I have no problem with whatever you want to do in order to reduce this age problem with the soap opera character articles...as long as the age can still be mentioned in the infobox when "needed,"

8568:

I'd be happy to look it over, just let me know when you're "through" with that section. Or are you adding stuff to other areas? I think I recall the last time I looked it over there were some other things I wanted to work on in other sections, but I don't want to get in your way, and I have other

8378:

Very interesting question. The section is getting too large for the article and of course I see its importance, and yet I don't know if there's a precedent for an article built around a storyline in the way you envision. Without having read the current version of the article/section in detail, my

7707:

This is bad. I mean this is not against you, but, must I find an outer information source about the topic. And why must the article notable, would people just destroy knowledge, because it not fits into their image? In spite they ignore it, it is still exist. People don't walk to the library, and

7244:

Aha, now I get it, it's your own site. Well, I believe you may be an "expert" and appreciated by the author, but you have not been granted any notability or "power" as a critic, commentator, or newsgatherer by the publishing or online communities, so at this point your site cannot be considered a

7072:

What I am trying to say is that if another broadcast network or cable network picked up Passions, NBC wouldn't continue to air website, but it was picked up by a service and since DirecTV doesn't really host official websites for shows, that could be the reason why DirecTV didn't buy the official

6965:

Usually when a show is canceled from one network and moves to another network in a present time like this with advanced technology, the previous network would no longer have any connection with the show and wouldn't even continue to host the website and another network would be the one that would

6114:

and similar Featured Articles for examples of how an article should eventually be. And as far as info you added from your research that I may have inadvertently edited out, by all means reintroduce anything you feel is appropriate. Just keep in mind that we don't need to discuss every single plot

6105:

In my own copyedit I just attempted to rewrite as much as possible and trim whatever detail I could. At this point the article is primarily plot summary, and though this is a long-running character, character articles are supposed to have "minimal" plot details. It (like many, many soap articles)

4526:

where they include all of their children, instead of creating a low-quality article for each of the. What do you think, would it be a good idea to develop an article like that? On my userpage, you'll see the title "Created writers, producers, directors articles," a complete list of all articles I

3980:

Their is an episode in which Dorian found out Victor Lord was alive and the issue of her inheritance including Llanfair came up. The court ruled everything was rightfully Dorian's due to in legal standards after 7 years of abandonment, the marriage is legally dissolved. If you've noted like I did

2904:

Thanks so much for your perspective and advice, of course I respect you immensely as an editor or I wouldn't have involved you. And I can't help but always look to your ever-evenhanded tone as an example! I think you realize that I usually figure out pretty quickly when to stop and let something

2883:

Your recent post to KellyAna's talkpage is pretty good, I hope that she will be able to take it in the proper spirit. For future reference though, you might want to use more of a "sandwich" approach on these. In other words, start with something positive, then say what you gotta say, and then end

2659:

Yeah, the "common name" thing is impossible to prove either way, because it's not like most soap characters are talked about in the mainstream like Bill Clinton. And even if you amassed 100 soap magazine articles, it seems like it's sort of arbitrary based on the article and the writer, really. I

2560:

No need to apologize, I probably should apologize for using your talk page for that extended argument! LOL, I could probably go on like that for pages and pages. I obviously admit that I can be stubborn and a know-it-all too, but I feel like she really has a hostile tone no matter the size of the

2032:

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

1923:

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

1601:

Well I don't like it, because it doesn't make any sense to me. For one, Joey Buchanan's article has a lot of space and his family and relationship info should be on the article, not some stupid info box. it should be a section just like it was before. So all that I am asking is to make it like it

1581:

Besides being more visually appealing, the endless lists within the article actually negatively impact an article's quality when we're talking about assessments and such. That's how it came about with Pauline Fowler, and that article obviously went up to Featured Status. But really, any important

1566:

I love it. It makes the articles cleaner and it was discussed before it was done. I think TAnthony can find the previous discussion. I know he'll agree that it is in there and looks better (since he took the time to create the infobox). It cleans up the articles and makes them look better and

9408:

about a "possible age discrepancy" is off. This so-called in-universe perspective that I have is followed by the show (its writers and producers) and the soap opera community at large. How do I have a need to assign ages to fictional characters, and yet the writers do not? The writers give these

9156:

I am not the one who made it "such drama." You and AniMate did. I object to your saying that I am "missing the point" and that I have "a very in-universe perspective." I mean, really? In what way do I have a "very in-universe perspective"? Because from my contributions to these crappy soap opera

7172:

to become more familiar with policies regarding fictional topics. Not only should articles consist of more than plot summary, but storyline info itself should be as brief and concise as possible. In the case of Rebecca Shaw, you seem to summarize the plot on an almost day-to-day basis, including

6661:

I take your point, but think that it's misconceived. There are doubtless sources asserting the existence of the invisible flying tea cup, the faerie king Oberon and Robocop on a unicorn, but I've yet to hear anyone suggest that any of these should be uncritically accepted as historical fact. The

6597:

is great but obviously this article needs no image to "understand" that character, etc. That goes double for book covers! And I can find external sources to assert the notability of many fictional characters who I feel don't really need their own articles even though technically they have enough

6272:

In most cases, when a show moves from one network to another, usually the previous network will completely have no more relationship them and it all relationships stay exclusively on the other network. However with NBC and Passions, NBC continued to maintain their relationship with Passions with

6080:

Still the phrasing “blatant copyright violation” might be a bit off the mark. After all, I was the one that added the Soap Central link in the references section in the first place. It was not like I was trying to hide anything. Perhaps I should have reworked it further. (It is far easier to

6076:

This is the only article I created in such a way. That is because it is the only article that I created basically from scratch. Also, the trick here was that it required such a lengthy collection of information, in order to do it justice anyway. But I am learning as I’m editing, the best way to

5635:

are not "inappropriate to warrant any warnings," then you are incorrect. Removing other editors' comments from an article talk page without even an explanation is in poor form, especially when these comments seem to go against your own position in a discussion. I'm sorry if you feel that you are

3930:

Well, I did write this article three months ago, as well as her portrayer's, Florencia Lozano. The thing is...my computer broke down (though I really shouldn't be surprised, considering it was my ragged, not good, computer). It literally, no lie, broke down seconds before I was about to copy and

2841:

Elonka, of course I see your point, and yet KellyAna is now turning her own actions back on me and other editors; no one is "watching" or "stalking" her for some inappropriate reason, she attracts attention and criticism with every move she makes. Of course she doesn't want me looking in on what

2386:

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

1958:

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

1333:

clutter down. Each character section here is the destination of the character links elsewhere; I could break them out into individual articles but it seems unnecessary. I am willing to compromise and remove some of the images by character importance, but clearing them all out is unnacceptable. —

1241:

On the second thought, the "Minor char" page is really for miscellaneous characters not necessarily related to core familes; Addie should really stay where she is, but in a slightly expanded section. Cassie and Melinda also redirect there. I created the article as a chronological overview of the

9587:

No time for a lengthy rebuttal. But obviously you are forgetting that this is an encyclopedia. An article about a fictional character should be like an article about a toaster, not a biography from within the show's universe. Presenting any of it from the point of view of the fictional world is

9325:

rape is now being said to have happened "20 years ago" and you are translating that to mean 1988. And then you are applying that to the characters, meaning "they were in college then so they must have been around 20 and so that means ...." This is what original research is, editor synthesis and

9290:

Flyer, I did not mean to insult or enrage you with my comments; I am obviously aware of your many contributions and am not suggesting that you are a fan who doesn't know the difference between soaps and reality, or that you don't know the proper format for articles. What I mean by your slightly

8727:

I think it's getting to the point where we need to remove the year from the "birth" field in the soap character infobox, unless their age is somehow notable. We have editors putting the actors birth year into the field, we have editors putting in the year that the character was actually born on

8299:

You also need to provide a source for the Alexis Davis image. When uploading images in the future, keep in mind that per fair use images policies they should be as small as possible, usually in the range of 250-300px, and they will look better in the infobox if cropped (the infobox autosizes to

8078:

Thanks all your help. I think the most important thing about the video game guideline is, that it must be interesting to non-gamers too, and I don't know if they would. But, how do I create a page like Mogzyx/Empyrrean? And is it permissible to create this way all the articles (eight after all,

6826:

is a 2007 novel which Sue Grafton states she wrote? And you know what, if you had a plausible explanation for how you came upon Frank's outline, like you were his editor or his assistant, how could we challenge it? People could still say your book sucks and you've executed Frank's ideas poorly,

6803:

Reading my last comment I realize I came off a little snarky, and I don't want you to think I'm actually mad at you for bringing this up or anything, LOL. My basic point is just, by the simplest WP policy, every statement requires a source, and in particular anything putting across an idea that

6772:

You'll doubtless accuse me of straw man again, but are you trying to suggest that anything other than complete acceptance of any claim that BH may make would amount to defamation? If so, I think you're missing a subtlety. It's entirely possible to point to factors that impact negatively upon an

5932:

is really starting to make me cringe. Any idea how much longer it's going to be before we get a new picture? I'm certainly not trying to rush you, but I'd almost rather not have a picture up than one that is so unflattering. As the king of bad photos, I'm probably just being sensitive, but that

4183:

If you are referring to the use of non-screen captured images like posed publicity photos, the whole reason I asked the question is that I know of no explicit prohibitions in this regard either. I have seen arguments revolving around web site terms of use, or their promotional nature vs. actual

4143:

The specific images I deleted were tagged as promotional images, which isn't an appropriate license for images that are not for commercial use. Promotional images are less restricted than that, so they were deleted because they had an inappropriate license applied. In addition, these particular

3570:

We were never a huge hit so I think they just gave up on it. Realistically, there is no reason for them to have thought we would do better at night, and it would be more expensive to produce ... but who knows? The novela thing seems to only work for the Latin culture, however. It's just a shame

2938:

paying attention to how more senior editors such as yourself, deal with a dispute. Assume that for every one person who is posting on a talkpage, that nine others are reading but not posting. So, if not a favor for me, could you "do it for the kids"? Either refactoring your comments, or just

2887:

I hope you don't feel that I'm coming down on you too hard about this. I have huge respect for you and all the work that you do, and I know that your recent comments are more a case of "temporary frustration" than any kind of a longterm problem. I would, if possible though, like to see you give

2426:

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

2212:

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

9770:

Thank you for explaining in what I feel is a better explanation for your not wanting Erica's birth date to be stated as 1962. I still do not get how it is original research to state 1962, though. I mean, I could easily make a reference about the show having crafted Erica as 14 years older than

9669:

And, also, it has been quite clear that this discussion and the one linked below about age has not solely been about using "bad practice" for character ages (which you also originally took part in) but also about you, AniMate, and others feeling that listing character ages is trivial and being

9421:

assigned ages and age ranges to a few of his fictional characters was he being in-universe? We all know that these characters are not real, but ages are given to fictional changes. It is make-believe. And, in the cases of daytime soap opera characters, these ages change (mostly due to children

8806:

Yes, it does seem like if a character's birthdate/age is notable (likely in a SORAS situation), it can be somehow discussed within the article with sources. Age info that isn't notable/sourced enough to appear there shouldn't be reflected in the infobox either. I'm tempted to boldly change the

8777:

I can see few examples where a year would be notable in an infobox. Erica Cane's age should be discussed in depth, and you can't do that in an infobox. The purpose of an infobox is to relate basic facts, and her age isn't a basic fact but rather a complex and confusing issue. I guess I see the

7968:

Every WP article needs to be fully referenced, and though many are "in progress" and left alone, unsourced information can be removed by any editor at any time, and an unsourced or poorly sourced article can be nominated for deletion at any time. Editors can usually recognize the potential for

7801:

I understand your arguments. I am not only want to create these arcticles, because I like TA, but (in my opinion) sometimes it is exciting to read about fictional planets or places of unique features. I think I am capable to collect sufficient information, to create an article for every single

4667:

Well, if you use the old "image" parameter you can change that # to whatever you want to resize the image, like |150px]] . Does that answer your question? Not sure I'm understanding exactly, which article are you talking about? By the way, when using the image1/image2 parameters, the |210px or

9213:

and such not including age is very reasonable, seeing as those characters actually seem stuck in time, as opposed to soap opera characters who follow so much of real world time that it seems silly to think of them as ageless. The Jason Bourne and Mireille Bouquet articles were not meant to be

9022:

Rocksey, how is including character ages going against WP:TENSE? Do you mean because the age is changing with time, that it is changing instead of staying the same as it would if a viewer were watching the story from the beginning? If so, when a viewer watches a story, the story is constantly

6969:

With the case like Passions, it seems unusual. After moving Passions from NBC to DirecTV, it looked more as if NBC was still controlling everything of Passions and making it available on DirecTV than actually DirecTV buying the show. It seemed like there was no point of NBC continuing to host

6532:, with the archive date). For any more recent links that may not have been archived, I like Soaps.com recaps better than SoapCentral.com; SoapCentral seems to have more user contributors. But use your own judgment, the plot references are unlikely to be challenged with either of these sites.— 6520:) ... you enter the original link in the "Wayback Machine" box and it will list archived versions by date; I choose the latest one that works and replace the link in the article with that (I also usually note the fact that it is from the archive somewhere within the citation). So for example, 4776:

I think that's a rather fuzzy interpretation of what's "in" the universe (it is based more in the Dune universe than "Doon" was (hardly part of the universe or canon)), but given that I now see that it IS handled in the general Dune article, I concede. Thanks for giving the matter thoughtful

4120:

Listen, you're just about the only regular soap article contributor who understands that these article need to be more than a plot summary and some exhaustive family details, and you put in the time and effort to really improve these articles. I appreciate that a lot. Can we clone you? LOL. —

3431:

That was one of the saddest days in my soap viewing. Josh, Douglass Watson (Mac from Another World), and MacDonald Carey were the saddest losses of NBC daytime. I am sorry about you being unemployed. That's rough in California. I hope you find something soon. Good luck in your job hunt.

9635:

of age is unimportant to characters and stories. I am saying that, at Knowledge, the significance of an exact number is diminished when you have to use bad practice like original research to get it. The Kendall situation is not basic 2+2 math because you are synthesizing facts from different

9459:

The show not starting in 1970 has no bearing on Kendall being born in 1976; Erica's age at that time did/does. You ended up putting the "wrong age" in the Erica Kane infobox, no matter reliable sources. And, yes, Erica being 50-something at this time is "wrong," because it was retconned. The

8928:. Primetime characters' ages usually make sense, and altering the soap opera infobox to not include age would also be affecting those articles. I said it before, but I simply do not view the age of characters as trivial; age or age range is often a defining trait of a character when created. 7571:

I took the time to redo images because I agree that they are interesting. However, in the past many editors have challenged images from the video games because they are less "canon" than the film/miniseries, so I'm leaving the film ones in as well. Images which are considered "decorative" or

7019:

Thanks for the reply. I now understand the situation, but even though if a show that is produced by another network, they wouldn't even think about hosting the website because they would be selling it on another outlet. Now NBC isn't the only network that produce shows. ABC and CBS also have

120:

the word "image:" (it's inserted for you when it displays). However, so you know, fair use images (screenshots) are considered replaceable when it comes to showing what an actor looks like, so they are not supposed to be used in performer articles. The idea is that you can either go to their

5823:

OK, I'm assuming you've read most of today's (and recent) comments on Phenom's page, the Current Days characters page, and my sockpuppet reports. I know I tend to go from friendly and helpful to businesslike and cold quicker than is probably preferred, and I was certainly relentless in this

2238:

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.

1987:

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

754:

had mentioned it and it got lost in my Talk page. In any case, I feel like I have to clarify something regarding your perception of the Project. We are well aware that it is a descendant Project of TV, but it certainly allows us to focus efforts on improving the articles in this genre which

686:

from a film before her nose job might be used in the article about the actress to illustrate that point, and while that can be explained in "Purpose," the fact that it is impossible to now take a photo of her with her old nose would probably need to be explained/justified, and I would think

4157:

While it has been established that fair use images are not appropriate in a living performer's article to represent what that person looks like, it is longstanding convention in fictional character articles that screen captures be used (sparingly) under fair use to represent the characters

4105:

Thanks for showing up there anyway. I would greatly appreciate any suggestions you have to improve that article. And thanks for often being so supportive of me. You understand what I go through in taking these articles from merely plot summaries to something that is halfway decent, good or

2992:

the comment, would that make you feel better or worse? Basically, it seems to me like some of your comments to KellyAna have hurt her feelings. Granted, she's not reacting with language like, "Hey, ow," she's reacting by, as you put it, snarling, but it's obvious that she's seeing, and

6598:

notability. the problem with soap fans is that they love to create individual articles for every single character, and they love for everyone to have an image ... I feel like this is encouraging a series of small articles which could actually withstand an AFD, and I just hate clutter ;) —

1450:

I do not seek to "outlaw" these images entirely, as they are certainly useful in many cases, especially where a screencap may be unavailable or not sufficient to illustrate a particular point. But in the presence of a screencap of comparable value, I'm curious about the legal and fair use

7270:

which aired today (Friday, June 5). Whether the articles are now reverted back or whether someone waits for a Soaps.com recap as official source material - irrelevant to me. But let the record show that the Rebecca-Emily twin revelation actually did air before I touched either article.

5876: 8488:) and goes against my grain! Though I see the point, I actually wonder what the bulk of editors would do on instinct, because I can imagine you painstakingly punctuating an intricate article and then having people come along and "fix" it out of habit, preference, or ignorance. Hmmm.— 6593:

area, considering that one could argue that, let's face it, a lot of images technically fail the requirement "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Like, the pic at Featured Article

861:," your one magazine may be wrong? I'm not trying to be a jerk, but "Jeb Stuart" is unchallenged and she got the name by "marrying" him, so common sense alone says it's a typo. Why don't we wait until after she appeaars tomorrow and see if the show or the website solve the debate. — 5365:. Most soap characters aren't this notable, so we're lucky that most articles haven't been noticed and deleted. There has been much discussion on this at the Soap Operas WikiProject. We really need to focus on improving articles, rather than obsessing about plot details and such. — 4278:

It is hard to keep up with all the show pages I frequent. Some like Red links and some don't. I'm sorry for the removal of said links, however there are a few people in the list without the brackets around their name, such as in the special guests and deceased OLTL actors section.

9138:

are start-class articles which likely have yet to be assessed in any significant way. I'd actually be interested to see if any "quality" articles touch on the age thing; I would guess that any that do are for characters whose age is clear-cut, like Molly Ringwald's character in

2705:

Document, document, document. When you see unambiguous problems, post them to the editor's talkpage. Build a paper trail. Explain why the behavior is a problem, include a diff, link to the appropriate policy, and suggest how to do better. These posts serve multiple purposes:

7736:

LOL, welcome to Knowledge! Obviously everyone here has a different opinion about what is notable and what is trivia, but the existing guidelines are somewhat stacked against fictional topics. By my understanding, the general concept is that Knowledge is not intended to contain

6309:

NBC," which makes no sense ... did you mean "from NBC?" Regardless, there are at least two places in previous sentences that note it is NBC's show, your insistence on adding "NBC" or "DirecTV" to every other sentence in various related articles is inappropriate and maddening.—

6265:

You do not seem to understand that Passions was still continued to be completely operated and owned by another Television Network which was NBC and in reality, DirecTV was only continuing to air the series for NBC. Why don't you look at this link and find out for yourself.

4298:

Thanks for your response; you're right, every page seems to have a handful of editors who "enforce" certain conventions, but I would argue that any deletion of red links like this, in general, is against policy and kind of short-sighted. I've purposely stayed away from most

1620:

You are missing the point, which is that according to WP guidelines, lists are discouraged within articles, especially trivial ones such as these. Notable relationship info is already mentioned within the text of the article; the reader doesn't immediately need to know that

5192:) are really not appropriate for talk pages, which are intended for discussion of the content of articles in the context of editing them, not for editor analysis and reviews. That kind of material is better suited for a fan forum or your personal blog or website. Thanks. — 402:

peeps! As you realize, I don't usually make any edits there, don't even remember why I had it on my watchlist. And I hear ya, I get so frustrated with the constant minor, stupid and inaccurate edits on various soap articles, I have to keep my evil side in check, LOL ;) —

4228:

I agree, it's a great translation and probably pretty accurate. But "defining" it like that makes assumptions. I'm just as unforgiving with editors who like to "translate" Herbert's use of Arabic terms. But if you really feel strongly about it, feel free to bring it up on

4052:

I think you're right. Putting children who don't have notable storylines of their own into one article might not be a bad idea. The Children of Days article is just... awful, but can be improved. I think an entry with all of these kids can cut down on the GH cruft nicely.

4275:

always seems to be one on each TV page at least). For example, in the comings and goings section of the Days of Our Lives page, the "editor" does not find it necessary to place people who do not have articles in that particular section and only use people with articles.

3328:

My biggest question is to JER, why did he make a show with a great backstory and wonderful characters then squander it all with storylines that never end, couples who are never happy, forcing even the most ardent fans of the show have a love-hate relationship with it? --

2005:

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

6225:

won't be upset if it doesn't pass, though I may call on you to relinquish it in the future if I need to broker some kind of deal around here. I just pray it doesn't turn into one of those RfAs where everyone tries to argue down the people with legitimate oppose !votes.

3445:

LOL, Eric's on camera RIGHT NOW but of course I can't say what he's doing or saying ;) Yeah, I have been here since the very beginning, it was definitely a starnge and sad time when Josh passed away. Thanks for the well wishes, I'll let ya know where I land next. ;) —

4317:

Ah, just caught your change ... you're right about the guests stars, I guess I don't look there all the time, and the red links are continually removed and added in this list. As far as the dead people go, if they ain't notable now, they won't be in the future, LOL! —

398:'s edit summary, I just wanted to make the point that it doesn't matter when it's updated, and figured my "comment" would be more readily seen in an edit summary. I obviously didn't realize (or check!) that the info itself was bad, so my apologies to you and the other 9651:, to weigh in on this matter, preferably at the discussion about it linked below. I did get a smirk out of you stating, "And for the record, soap writers are by definition writing in-universe!" Yes, the same goes for other types of writers as well. The "same" indeed. 6496:

Not sure if you're aware of this yet, but with ABC.com's recent changes, references leading to their daily recaps are now defunct. I'm not sure if I should remove these, or replace them with other daily recap sources, such as soapcentral.com. Any suggestions? Thanks!

9807:

you object to it, I felt "Oh, well, I suppose it's okay" even more. However, I realize that you may have not even noticed the source used or at least not paid much attention to it. That whole section should be removed. I am ashamed that I let it stay in for so long.

7105:

You may be right that as a service provide more than a network, DirecTV doesn't host webpages for its shows (probably because it doesn't produce or own many or any). But I would actually guess that DirecTV just didn't want to spend the money on relaunching a full-on

7077:

left NBC for a subscriber service. I bet that the ratings fell a lot after it moved from NBC to DirecTV because most fans didn't have that service. I was just wondering if you know about this, did the ratings dropped a lot when it came to DirecTV after leaving NBC?

7027:

It seems like DirecTV cannot host official sites for their shows because when I come to think of it, if ABC were to sell their rights to the soaps to a subscriber service like DirecTV like the way NBC did with Passions, ABC would also continue to host the websites.

4500:

Since I've joined Knowledge, I've created numerous articles for real-life producers, directors and writers of soap operas, but neither of those articles have quality. To avoid having a million stubs on Knowledge, would it be a good idea to created one article titled

1677:

peer review and other discussions, which have basically identified these lists as trivial. We want to preserve the information in the most unobtrusive way, as their presence has actually contributed to the deletion of articles under certain circumstances. Please see

8317:

Thanks so much for the advice man, it really helps. I'll get the Claudia pic's website and work harder to improve the plot usmmaries rather than have it in an analysis (lol). So Thanks again and you're welcome, I love working here but can I have your opinion on the

1409:

I'd like an idea what the current thinking is regarding the use of "promotional" images for television and film articles, specifically the ones that really get used on Knowledge — studio-produced character images lifted from websites. I had been advising people at

4542:

That's a great idea, I think a list would be preferred to a series of stubs. However, even a list need not contain every person who ever wrote a soap script and all of their credits. This would really amount to trivia. There needs to be some notability involved. —

7366:

for you to be projecting the runs of TV series in advance without sources. In the case of the daytime soaps, I work in television, and in this day and age we cannot assume they will keep running indefinitely. You appear to be a relatively new user and created the

8840:

The year is confusing, but can we not just do without the year (as AniMate stated above) and simply list the age (if sourced) in the infobox? Her age being tampered with is noted within the article, but it does not go into the most recent detail (even though the

3302:

LOL, I figured as much. It was worth a shot, though. :P Honestly, all I'd like to ask is that you give James E. Reilly a massively mean glare for me should he ever descend from Olympus or wherever it is he seems to think he resides and make his way to LA. —

1817:

Seriously, I don't want to get in a fight with you over this, we appreciate your participation in the Project. I like having the info available too, but it is just unnecessary and detrimental to the articles in list form. Please try to understand our reasons. —

9830:

we're discounting the source. It should be removed. I'm tempted to paste it on the talk page for others to dissect, and perhaps some parts can be referenced and reintroduced, but some of the Bio people seem to hate when we preserve unsupported data like that.—

8863:

Don't you think putting "Age 47" is confusing/misleading as well? Why is it at all important? It is the very definition of trivia. It only makes any sense if it is explained in its entirety, as in the text of an article. I would argue that the only ages that

2774:

For the love of the gods stop following me around Knowledge. Can NO ONE "fight their own battles" without you commenting? I can't talk to one editor without you butting in. What the hell is with that? I don't need another stalker, I have enough already.

6210:

Good luck indeed with the RfA, I'll definitely weigh in. I really really hate how those things play out, but I guess it's a necessary evil to make sure that only quality people succeed. Let me know if there's anybody I can sleep with to get you in, LOL. —

5688:

Wow. That's so discouraging. Along with the name calling. She reached out, and was shot down. It's sad, because it seemed like Phenom had the makings of a great editor. As a matter of fact, when I first redirected the article, he mentioned something about

3550:

Was there any thought of moving the show to a weekly primetime show? I think it would do better there if it could be compressed into one weekly episode. NBC has nothing but crap in its primetime line up now. The only thing I regularly watch on NBC now is

2298:

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

354:

is for all intensive purposes worthless. G hits are crap.I want to stub the article (which is incorrectly listed as 2009, and currently redirects to the main Dune page), but I'm afraid that it will be Speedily Deleted. Any suggestions? Thanks as always.

6465:, we need all the help we can get! I urge you to look at existing articles and see how they may be improved, in particular by adding references and other material asserting real-world notability. And let me know if I can help you in any way. Thanks! — 4307:

page, I think the only unlinked actors are the youngest children, who presumably won't be notable enough for their own articles in the foreseeable future, and a minor character or two with no last name. There I go, nitpicking again ;) Thanks again. —

3292:

LOL, I CANNOT tell you what's going to happen;) The show is airing thru like August in DirecTV, they're dragging it out. I just meant, if you want me to dig up the credits from show #405 or the last line of the 5th scene of the script for #6, LOL. —

2606:

resisted commenting on the Theresa name change because, frankly, I don't know why anyone is fighting about it, LOL. I actually want to agree with her, but she's being so unyielding. If some other people want to use Crane, who cares, let them do it! —

1451:

comparisons. Perhaps this is being debated somewhere? In any case, if a guideline or at least "rule of thumb" has not been established, something should be established and set down someplace where it can be referenced by editors. Thanks in advance. —

7300:

I'm not trying to get into an argument with you, and if I violated protocol I stand corrected. However, you needn't be obnoxious. Please simply make your point without being nasty and without twisting my words, if you don't mind. Have a nice day.

7785:

I would love to help you out if you're interested in giving me an idea of what you are hoping to contribute. I'm not the King of Knowledge or the final word on any topic, but I can give you some advice and an idea of what challenges you may face.—

7566:. As this issue involves copyright violations, there are very strict rules, and I encourage you to click on the images and analyze what I've done on their description pages for future reference, and you can also ask for my help with future uploads. 3241:

but I actually have a copy of the letter from the Academy; I was thinking I could upload it to Photobucket to use as a source, as I've seen done with magazine articles, but that brings up Theresa Crane verifiability issues for me, so I don't know,

4434:

well. However, it doesn't say "Contract" or "recurring" in the credits so despite the obvious "ordering," we can't take that to mean anything (I don't even think they're necessarily alphabetical either). As far as I know, Kerwin was specifically

7947:, so that other editors don't mess with it/tag it until you've gotten it into an acceptable form. However, non-free images cannot be used in userspace, so don't upload any until the article is moved to main article space. Again, please read the 3202:

FYI, just because you screen cap or even manipulate these images in Photoshop does NOT give you any rights of ownership to the point that you can bestow rights for their use on Knowledge. ABC OWNS THESE IMAGES. Please do not assert otherwise. —

7187:

Sorry , but the link on the pretty little liars page www.prettylittleliarsss.webs.com Isn't a fansite . It's a source where people can read the latest news about PLL . You haven't read the series probably so you don't know anything about it !

7006:, even those that aired on DirecTV, and by continuing to host the site they are obviously cultivating that fanbase in the hopes of driving them to other NBC programming. Despite the show's cancellation, the franchise itself has certain value.— 5453:

I can tell by all the image warnings on this page that you don't yet understand fair use rules and don't seem to want to, but ... FYI, if you do not own an image, you cannot use it to show what a living person looks like here. You did not take

5773:

Yes, that article always irked me, but beyond a technical cleanup I wasn't comfortable editing it too much because (as I noted above) I'm not familiar enough with the content to know what's notable, etc. So again, thanks for the good work! —

7572:

redundant are also often removed to keep in line with the "minimal use" policy of copyrighted images, but they may be defended because they are different than the others. The "map" image didn't look like much, and so comes off as decorative.

2859:

I've removed your comment on my page (where you admit to stalking me but lie to Elonka that you aren't) and reported you to her. Elonka said to stop and you obviously have no intention of doing so. Do not revert my removal and put it back.

2639:

I would say in the body of the article adding Crane isn't a bad thing. Adding it to the title is. I've watched on and off for years and I've never heard her referred to as TLF Crane by anyone that watches the show. Which goes back to the

6261:

For your information Passions is very related to NBC even after it moved DirecTV's The 101 because NBC continued to have owned and produce the show. Saying that DirecTV's The 101 didn't pick Passions from NBC is not an incorrect statement.

1995:

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. —

2736:

ANI is also an option, but I'd only go there if you have a really clear and unambiguous case that a harried admin could come up to speed on the situation within a couple minutes -- they're not going to want to get involved with ambiguous

2151:

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

200:

Hi - thanks again for the work you did on some of my articles a while back. You did mention that some of them may technically be "in violation" and risk deletion and that if this was the case I should contact you. Well one of my articles

484:

is a sock of a sock that has been banned a few times. If I see their edits I'm going to just automatically revert them. He likes to make up categories and run around adding them to articles. In general the categories end up deleted.

9647:

know of the decision to remove all character infobox ages until it is "too late." Some of them are likely to bitch about it when they find out. I am going to ask one of the editors who heavily contributed to the Pauline Fowler article,

5716:

From the "House Ordos" article: "...Despite the superficial appearance of being a pristine place of exquisite crystalline beauty, ultimately just a world where life neither could nor would want to grow — a looking glass into nothing."

2630:

get very annoyed when people move articles every time someone gets married, because obviously soap marriages never last long, but in this case I don't feel like it's worth getting upset over. But yes, you're really in the right here. —

8456:

I will get on to trimming it today (right now). Any further trimming you feel that you can do without cutting out main or key points, I would appreciate (even though, if not for it making the article slower, I would prefer it all left

8429:. The reason a lot of that section is sourced to him is because he went over all the problems fans have had with the storyline. The other two articles from Branco in the Todd Manning article about "the second rape" are interviews with 5475:

In addition, you have uploaded album and DVD covers, which are acceptable in album and telenovela articles, but which will be deleted unless you provide the proper fair use rationale templates when you upload the images or soon after.

902:

as "Tar Signor" so I have little faith in the editor who prepares the credits. I work on another soap and it's one of those things that one person does and few people check. In any case, I'm curious to see if they fix their mistake. —

8056:

to be. I have a feeling your grand intentions will best be served in your own blog, or an external game-specific wiki. But I'd be interested in looking in on your progress and offer advice should you start developing something here.—

3470:

Many tears last night, but I think the fans will be happy with how it all turns out! You may even see me on camera, I'll let you know ;) Kelly, didn't get this until today, but we have a final party and I'll see what I can do ... —

7495:

or follow the linked name. Further, saying "son" or "granddaughter" is completely unnecessary when the headings say "Children" and "Grandchildren" ... and it is especially unnecessary to pipe links with extended names. Why does the

6072:

In addition, I also added some good info that is not found anywhere, info that came from old recordings that I still have on VHS tape and from old Soap Opera Digest magazines. Of course, you saw fit to edit most of that info out.

2371:

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. —

9736:

In any case, I do try my best to stay professional on Knowledge, and as I stated on my talk page, any hostility that took place in this debate between you and I will have no bearing on our working relationship here at Knowledge.

5850:

By the way, thanks for this comment; the attacks themselves don't faze me, I'm honestly more concerned about the general disruption and endless potential for unchecked IP sock vandalism here. I'm hoping he just loses interest. —

2037:, 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 6040:

A large percentage of the deaths listed are initially not put in the right place, and are corrected. If the date of death is not mentioned, they are left until further information can be found. If it was run any differently,

5244:

article. In most cases the articles currently contain about as much attention to that as possible within our guidelines. We can only point out inconsistencies in a roundabout way without analyzing them or making assumptions. —

8013:

article has an acceptable level of references from primary sources, but is still 99% plot. However, Arrakis likely has similar reliable, verifiable references yet to be added because it is an equally notable topic within the

6068:

I did try to rework as many sentences as possible, in order to make it read less like a pure copying job, unlike other sites. I also added updated information that was not present on the SC page as of July of this year.

8744:

Yeah, I've "hated" the birth/age fields for awhile now for just that reason; this info is rarely of note and definitely trivial, and the shows are usually purposely vague and/or change and revise relative dates and ages.—

6163:

late I had you in my head as a man. Not that it matters, it's just interesting how we sort of assign phantom faces and imagery to people here based on unconscious connotations with usernames or reading between the lines.—

2556:

Yeah, I guess I'd forgotten the name change, and your recent questions and work with photos and stuff gave me the impression you were "new." In any case, I've definitely found your recent work helpful and along my line of

6648:

were not. Any wording to suggest that the notes do not exist is unsourced editor POV. All they're saying is that they used a 2-page outline by Frank, not that he wrote the book himself or spelled out all of the details.—

7672:

articles, but I took a look and can't really see where you'd be putting 12 planet images. I do not suggest that you create a separate stub article for each planet; if that's what you intend, I would bring up the idea at

2747:

I've got a watch set on a couple of the pages, I'll try to keep an eye out, but I'm starting from zero. My first check was to the editor's talk page but I didn't see any cautions from you. I'd definitely start there.

8728:

screen, and we have editors putting in a year that was mentioned once on screen. It's silly and frankly it's trivial. Any thoughts? Flyer, since you (and anyone else interested) watch this page please chime in as well.

8001:, meaning the books or films themselves, which is great but not enough for the article to be fully compliant with policy and therefore protected from deletion. The lead paragraph establishes the notability of the novel 7889:

articles themselves. Do any game articles have lists of levels? Again,if you can't meet the video game guidelines I noted, your article(s) will probably be tagged for deletion by someone in the Video Game WikiProject.—

7459:), so I judged based only on the lack of scholarly analysis. (I'm actually amazed at the level of scholarly analysis for Frank Herbert's original books, I would be saddened if they had not received academic attention.) 8130:

and in the address bar add a slash and the potential article name to create subpages. When you're finished, you can use the Move tool to move the article to mainspace, and then delete the user subpage itself by adding

2842:

she's doing, most other people seem too intimidated by her to tell her when she's wrong. Which seems to be more often than not. I wouldn't care what she does if she wasn't committing irrational bad faith edits like in

323:? As I explained on your talk page, the relationship info you added is already included in the article, in the "Relationships" section of the infobox. Click on "Show" and it will expand the box and reveal the lists. — 3785:

images at all. And most of the images here are fair use, meaning they are owned by someone who has not granted permission for their use. Minimal use at a small size in certain instances is allowable, but that's it. —

97:

Look I tried to get Chris Stack's article to have a pic but it said image twice and won't show the pic, same thing happend to Farah Fath. I dunno what's wrong. Can ya fix it, I'll try to get Farah Fath's in as well.

9330:

ages, meaning that parents are older than children. Yes, sometimes it all makes as much sense as if it were real, but the fact that a writer can rewrite "history" and make a toddler into a teen in a day changes the

6273:

complete ownership, production, products and etc. of the show. The only thing was that NBC was not airing Passions like the first 8 years of the show and instead NBC distributed all of the new episodes to DirecTV.

2805:

TAnthony, as a gesture of good faith, would you be willing to review your recent comments, and remove anything which might be considered uncivil or a personal attack? I think it might help de-escalate things here.

9541:

with you on all or most of what you have stated on this topic does not mean that I am slightly in my own little in-universe world. If you are close to done debating this, let me know...so that we can both move on.

7403:

fan/nerd/WP contributor, I agree that there are some extraneous character articles and such in regard to the later, non-Frank Herbert works. I have done a lot of work improving, merging, and/or redirecting various

3721:

I left a message on your talk page before I did it, and also explained in the edit summaries. Your soap opera userboxes violate fair use policy, as fair use images may only be used in articles (not user pages) per

509:

Hi. Did you mean to delete that entire section or just one (the middle?) of the links? Which one were you referring to as "not a review...just a preview"? The NYT "Dune Babies" link IS a review. Just wondering....

7420:

and there is unlikely to be enough coverage in external sources to change that. As I noted in the AfD, I feel that the significant/notable aspects of these characters can be dealt with in other existing articles.

4333:

I noticed that you removed mention of the band Shai Hulud from the cultural section of the Dune page because they are not a notable band? They are a major label band, quite famous, and have an extensive wikipedia

3112:

character articles, but as noted in the main article, the middle names you are attempting to add are original research by Judith Moose that were never used in the series (and this inappropriate to add). Also, The

6961:

Since you seem to know a lot about Passions' situation, here is the question I want to ask. After NBC canceled Passions and moved only to DirecTV, why is it that NBC continued to broadcast the official website?

525:

Yikes, sorry about the confusing edit and edit summary! I did intend to get rid of the "Dune 7 ideas" link and also the dunenovels.com (it wasn't pointing to a specific page and the books are out). Regarding the

5968:

Aha. No worries. If I actually bothered to check my Tivo I'd probably know that... and what's happening on all my favorite shows that have started there new seasons. Thanks for keeping an eye on things anyway.

5393: 4579:

What would you think about me making some articles for other major families on General Hospital like the Cassadine family article? It would be a good way to deal some minor Quartermaines, Webbers, and Hardys.

5744:

and I just took it back out. It's total POV and I don't see any encyclopedic value. I'd love to work on the article more, but I've never played the game, so I'm not clued-in on the accuracy of the content. —

3405:

has been a major part of my teen years, and I really appreciate everything that everyone involved with the show has done over the past nine years. Best of luck to you and everyone else in the future. :) —

8079:

because I will put the moons together with their planet)? And don't you think it is luck that my first uploads were Dune planets, and you are a Dune fan? I mean if you weren't they could have been deleted.

577: 3938:

Anyway, I was pissed as hell (naturally)! I do not want to write all of that all over again, and am sending that computer to a guy who can hopefully retrieve those documents while fixing up that computer.

2743:

If it helps, look at each clear unambiguous example of a problem, as another diff that you can use later. When you've got a dozen solid diffs saved up, presenting them all in one place is really powerful.

166:

I saw. She's a "different" type of editor, to say the least. It's advisable to keep an eye on her. She also created a page for a future character on GH. Needless to say, that's already been redirected.

9126:

age parameter, and Superman is a Featured Article. Actually, none of the fictional character Featured Articles I know of include age in the infobox. Other fictional media-specific infoboxes like those for

8237:

about how and why things are done before they jump in and make drastic (and inappropriate) changes. Though I think we can use a little less of the "yo dude" stuff in your edit summaries and comments, LOL.

6821:

novels have sucked, and I'm convinced she must have gotten lazy and hired some college student to write them for her; if I get a large enough group of her disappointed fans to agree with me, can I write:

2465:

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. —

687:"Replaceable" would be the place. But perhaps that would be a rare occurance that could be worked around, and I should make that change (while keeping the function active for templates already in use). — 6930:

and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

1321:

is more reasonable; it uses one image per character to identify the characters ... since one image would be allowed per article if these were split into separate articles, I think it can be defended." —

8005:(with secondary sources); this sets up some real-world context and helps lend weight to to the significance of the topic, but technically does not assert notability for melange itself. The reference to 7073:

site from NBC. Now I don't have DirecTV, but I have friends who have them and I have seen the DirecTV shows and the official websites for these shows are always hosted by another company or something.

772:

existing Knowledge guidelines and policies, filling the encyclopedia with literally thousands upon thousands of articles on episodes and characters that never should have been created. Few to none peet

8966:

Butting in here, but I just wanted to say that I agree that anything to do with age should be removed from the infobox. Not only is it trivial information that always changes, imo it also goes against

4207:, but it's not something that makes immediate sense in English. Even if it is OR, personally I thought it was a pretty good translation: 'The Partnership of High-Profit Traders'. Rolls off the tongue. 7210:

It is a blog that is not managed by the author or publisher, or an accepted "expert," so IT IS A FANSITE. My knowledge of the series is irrelevant, but my knowledge of Knowledge policy trumps yours.—

7780:

Images are a whole other story; even the most notable topics have a limited number of copyrighted images. What allows the site to use any at all is that efforts are made to not "abuse the privilege."

375:

the site that is referenced, which has an accurate count, doesn't always update day to day but they do catch up by the weekend. I don't think anyone was saying it was a rule, they were saying don't

9248:

By the way, I am now willing to concur with the removal of ages from the soap opera character infoboxes, if you have not noticed from my objection to your recent listing of Erica's age. Most things

7156:

Hi, thanks for your recent contributions to various soap opera articles here. I'm especially appreciative of your including references to Soaps.com when adding plot information (as you have done in

8579:

other out with that article since I started editing it. It is always nice to have a good editor working with me. We can always talk over any addition one us may not like that much, and compromise.

7881:

would redirect to the appropriate item in your list. Also keep in mind, though, that an article is only useful when other articles link to it. Are any of these individual planets noted in existing

7437:

I'm just hoping for a heads-up if you're thinking about AfDing anything else. I feel I have a good grasp on the "big picture" at WP, juxtaposed with the relative significance/potential of various

7024:

on ABC are produced by the same network and if they were to discontinue one or so of the soaps and sell it on another broadcast network or cable network, ABC would stop broadcasting the websites.

820:

WP:TV had not adopted them yet. Step one in cleaning house is seeing what you've got and organizing, right? Your point about oversight aside, I don't think WP:TV needs the burden at this point. —

8523:

I will instead go ahead and get started on trimming this section tomorrow. Right now, I have matters to attend to off Knowledge. Talk with you later. Thank you for always giving me great advice.

4415:

was recurring (because her contract ended before her character departed to Paris), but she was signed as under contract. Does that mean that the credits ABC airs every Friday aren't accurate or?

6081:

rework it than to compose it from scratch, is it not?) But it’s not like you get college credit for this. I’m just a big fan of the character. Perhaps this all is more work than it is worth.

1465:

Hey TAnthony... A follow up on the Gary Tomlin article... He may have left the crew, but the episodes directed by Gary are still airing on DirecTV. Here is a list of directors for January 2008 (

8266:

right now. Keep in mind that most soap articles are in bad shape from a policy perspective, and you may find "unacceptable" elements in many articles and wrongfully assume they are acceptable.

2302:

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. —

7693:

articles, though well put-together, technically violate policy and are missing references asserting notability etc. Let me know what you intend, and perhaps I can give some specific advice.—

1433:

At this time, there seems to be no language anywhere in the fair use guidelines for images discussing this topic specifically, and the addition of the "image_has_rationale" parameter in the

1419: 6414:

articles as possible in this manner, and continue to maintain them as a whole. I haven't gotten around to adding references to all the articles as yet; I mean, technically, an article like

2127:

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.

6106:

needs some information from external sources asserting the character's notability and adding real-world context. I would love for you to work on this article to improve it; take a look at

4989:

I'm absolutely loving it! You guys did a top notch job. I think I'm going to cry after I see the last eppy though... there are rumors of USA starting it again though (fingers crossed). --

3038:

Has there been a change in infoboxes lately? I got a message that they are "smaller" but I'm on a job site that uses IE and huge settings on their screens, so I can't tell. Do you know?

7870: 7678: 5646:

I must apologize for any part I had in this....I feel responsible for setting this entire debate in motion. I was just trying to explain the rules. It wasn't personal to the creator. The

2683:

Sure, I'll help as I can. I see that there is definitely some trouble with incivility in edit summaries, but I haven't looked into it more than that. I'd recommend that you start here:

2097:

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

8778:

character infobox as a repository for the trivial that so many of our great editors are obsessed with, and the actual articles where we should discuss the complexities of changing ages.

8280:

have specific uses and should not be used to arbitrarily emphasize words or phrases an editor thinks are important, like the character's current portrayer or love interest in an infobox.

1444: 654:. At the time of my querie, it had the 2 part ID templates up, but the backlink cat wasn't there. Since the templates are your work, I came here to see if you had run into any troubles. 9426:? Why do we have soap opera columnists talking about SORAS and appropriately calculating character ages, as even soap opera writers have acknowledged that they know the deal with this? 7249:

and see if you are given any options there. I also encourage you to create a Knowledge username, as anonymous IPs are unfortunately often taken less seriously in discussions. Thanks.—

6958:

I am a new user of wikipedia. I have noticed you have contributed a lot to articles related to Passions(a show I loved until NBC took it off and DirecTV taking it away from viewers).

6632:

If it has to stay, the page could at least say that the sequels are "allegedly" based on notes left by Frank Herbert, rather than just accepting the truth of that dubious proposition.

608:

Thanks; I haven't been on much for the holidays, and a bot seems to have removed that function yesterday while changing the category of the template itself ... fixed now, I believe. —

8680: 7577:

The Draconis article was a two-sentence rehash of preexisting info, and would have been deleted anyway for lack of notability (and no articles would have linked to it). As it is, the

7491:? Infoboxes are not meant to be mini-articles, just an overview of basic info. Adding descriptors like "son, via Joe" is just clutter. People interested in extended relationships can 5608:

I dont believe any of my behavior was inappropriate to warrant any warnings. This is clear harrasment. Im getting harrased by nitpicky editors and I just want them to leave me alone.

5386: 3981:(due to me being a OLTL fan) Dorian married Herb within those 7 years thus their marriage was invalid. Every other marriage she had came after Victor could be legally declared dead! 759:

sort of proves my point that the general membership of TV isn't concerned with the genre. And I don't think you can call it a "vanity project" any more than the TV project itself. —

7741:

information on a given topic, but rather to provide an overview and be a starting point for further research, as a printed encyclopedia is. Of course, it is accepted that Knowledge

8498:

they see. I have seen articles here that are half in the American style and have in this "logical quotation" style due to this; some of it, however, is simply due to editors from

5428: 3599: 1748:

Listen "homie," I've explained here why I reverted your misguided edits, and will continue to do so as long as you insist on adding the detrimental lists. This is not personal. —

5455: 5205:

Hi, I agree that my comments are little bit excesive and too much in the form of critics than to commentaries on the edit pages but shouldn't in the articles be something about:

4358:

is that they named themselves after a term from the novel, that is not influence. They are not notable within the context of that article, and wouldn't be (in my opinion) in the

1630:

article, which ultimately rose to featured status. Believe me, I think the information is notable, but we have to present it in the best way possible to preserve our articles. —

9757:

can't interpret anything, we can only present the quote (or not) and then find an external source that says, "the author's use of red here is intended to represent mortality."—

8666:

or the fansites, how can we expect them to not all be deleted? So many editors like yourself have the time and interest to reall contribute and make more Featured Articles like

7531:

ones from Dune (film). But where is the Arrakis map? And why did you deleted my article about Sigma Draconis IV? Because the information already told on the House Ordos page?

6020:(swimming away) So, I'm thinking that it's time to proceed with the merge, since no one's objecting. I've left comments on the talkpage there, let me know what you think? -- 5421: 5400: 2011: 1673:. The Project has an ongoing effort to move these relationships into the collapsible area of the infobox rather than have them as an exhaustive list. This is a result of the 8349: 8250:

is the ultimate example of what a fictional character article should be, but few soap characters will be as notable or have as much media coverage available. Take a look at

6970:

Passions' official website since they no longer owned the series and lost their rights to the show. Why couldn't DirecTV host the official website like all other networks?

3387:

Well, I must say good luck to you and all the other cast members and crew! It was great while it lasted. If I win the lottery I'll try to buy the rights and start again! --

8484:

I was vaguely aware of this (and am glad someone is disputing it) because it is not the norm for an American with a slight background in print such as myself (as noted at

5396: 5263: 7371:

yourself, so I feel you need to better defend your edits and get some consensus before tagging a series of articles into this category. Even in the case of a series like

5361:

was to save these articles from deletion (most of the ones you mentioned were once small or styub articles). A perfect example of how such an article should really be is

4923: 2990:

In terms of what you choose, think of it this way. Suppose someone said, "TAnthony is an idiot." Would you want the information to stay on the page? If they <s: -->

427:

PS regarding the revert. KellyAna may have used the wrong wording but that edit is by a sock that is in the process of being banned. I knew the name sounded familiar.

7663: 4246:

Oh, I know; I wasn't expecting it to last. I was just doing it to see if I could come up with a logical translation. I just though an english translation would be nice.

8694: 7986:, articles on fictional topics cannot be all plot info; they also need info and references to establish real-world context and notability. For example, the article on 2098: 1521:

I don't think that the family and relationship info should be in some infobox. it should be out in open like everything else. Somebody please do something about this.

8922:

Removing the age from the soap opera infoxbox is not just about daytime soap opera characters; there are also primetime soap opera characters, such as characters from

9528:

ages would not be a problem. I realize that you view character ages as unimportant, for some reason. But I never will consider the ages of characters to be trivial;

7746:

For example, without it, anyone in the world could create a biographical article about themselves, or individual articles about every non-speaking extra in the film

5414: 2411:

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.

542:

article. I'd prefer if it were quoted rather than just listed as a link, but I suppose we should preserve the link to allow someone to do just that in the future. —

9631:

Sigh. I'm not saying not to mention fictional facts like super powers. Obviously I'm not able to aptly explain the nuance of in-universe. I am not saying that the

7940: 6377:

have sourced sections regarding their impact and popularity, which are essential to all articles. I recently added information regarding awards and nominations to

5407: 2826:

you consider everyday conversation. Elonka, I always admire your calm under pressure, but I'll have to really consider things before I rescind a single comment. —

205:) has been nominated for deletion and I wondered if you and the guys at the Soaps Wikiproject could help meout with it?Any helpwould be much appreciated - thanks! 8031:

universe itself, but this is a basically undefendable position in a formal deletion discussion. I fully expect to someday have to merge some more of the existing

8422: 4026: 3011:

outweighing the positive, it's probably worth rethinking things. Will the talkpages be more useful to other Wikipedians, with or without those comments there? --

1973:

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.

6115:

point or factoid, it's really supposed to be an overview more than a point-by-point plot summary. I know there are editors out there who are not as big fans of

2615:

But doesn't using Crane in the article title, simply in the article title, go against policy and verifiability? That's my position on it, article title only.

8532: 8372: 5051: 2007: 1293: 5389: 4715:

Sorry I must've deleted part of the imdb link by accident. Thanks for catching that. As to the runtime, Bay State episodes are all 30 min episodes, not 60.

4158:

themselves. A freely-licensed image of an actress on the street does not adequately represent a character she has played, prosthetics or not. An image from a

6424:, for example, has many stubs for characters from decades ago that will eventually be deleted, or forcefully redirected or merged. You may want to check out 5609: 5587: 5558: 2427:

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. —

202: 5431: 8995:

was a requirement so the brain trust desperately trying to insert a birth year derived from original research could see just how valuable their edits are.

7948: 7768: 6774: 6663: 6633: 5424: 5403: 3078: 1232:

Sorry, I meant to respond on the Cramer page ... yeah, I could see her on the "minor characters" page, but kind of want her to do something first, LOL. —

9249: 7623:

Well I have to thank after all, that you helped to improve them. I am planning to upload the planets from Total Annihilation too. Approximately twelve.

5866: 4362:

article either. Bring it up on the talk page if you feel that strongly about it, but the mention of the band has been deleted a few times in the past. —

3992: 1364:

I am currently removing images and considering breaking out sections, please know that I take your concerns seriously and give me a little time today. —

1143:

all article content (with the exception of tags or disambig links). Right now you seem to be adding them after the lead paragraph, which is incorrect. —

660:

Question on a slight tangent though... Why id the "Replaceability" argument in the template for "use" portion and not the template for the overall ID? -

9404:

used as my time frame in these cases, because daytime soap operas go by real world time. To act as though they do not and change Erica's article to the

7869:

freak so I obviously get your motivation, I just don't see how this specific info could be expanded into individual articles. I suggest starting with a

5472:, Images - Item 12. Please familiarize yourself with fair use rules before you upload any more images; you have uploaded dozens of inappropriate images. 4855:

Can you be a little more specific about how to pull up redirects/deleted articles still tagged with Project banners? I tried to follow your description

3220:

Hey, do you know where you got that statement from the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences? I think it'd probably be nice to cite that. --

9041:

as 16 in 2008. Unless the character's age is very irrelevant or unable to be reported due to storyline or legacy reasons (or both), as in the cases of

8502:

following correct formatting ("logical quotation") within their culture. I, too, am glad that "logical quotation" is being disputed here at Knowledge.

5903: 3174: 2584: 339: 9417:

when the aging of a character's child changes that character's age in return? Are we going to call these soap opera writers in-universe as well? When

494: 7169: 5417: 4998: 3983:

Same thing happened with Asa & Olympia Buchanan, but because of Llanviews 7 years LAW, only his 1st marriage to Pamela Oliver Stuart was invalid

3415: 682:

As far as the "Replaceable" parameter, I was thinking that there are cases where this could vary by the nature of the use. Like, a non-free photo of

214: 9839:

Yes, all I have ever really done to that article is cleanup. I will remove that section, and am for you pasting it on the talk page for dissection.

5410: 5369: 4971:

used in article names. Plus, it is standard practice in fictional articles to denote series, film or book/comic for any necessary disambiguation. —

4926:

as "no change" and didn't log the redirected article at all. I believe I have everything checked as you say, #REDIRECT entered in "Contains" etc. —

3165:, you seem ill-informed about the status of certain performers and links. In addition, you continue to remove red links, which is inappropriate per 1792:

are a lot of editors out there trying to get rid of many of the soap articles, and to be honest, they have grounds. And the lists aren't helping. —

590:

does. Without that, I believe there are 'bots that will be tagging the 500+ images currently using "image data" as without a valid FUR under IC10c.

125: 7969:

references and will let non-controversial info remain, but technically there is no real "grace period" should someone challenge info or an article.

5722: 4980: 3425: 3323: 3312: 3297: 3287: 2850:). The namecalling was inappropriate, but this kind of revert, without discussion and challenging reasonable sources, is KellyAna's typical M.O. — 2572: 2396: 2381: 2341: 2168: 2136: 2118: 2094: 2047: 2023: 1968: 1953: 1113:

because you don't like to see red. It'd be one thing if you were picking and choosing based on notability, but you're not. And by the way, linking

8711: 6893:

such influence, or the notability of a given reference to the topic. Please do not add this information again, or you may risk a block. Thanks. —

5640: 5577: 3839: 3807: 3775: 1443:

template suggests that they are acceptable in a broader sense than before, perhaps as the result of some discussion somewhere. And yet the recent

9524:. You have got some other character articles you are working on that you would like to see join Pauline as Featured articles, and so do I. These 7681:

or something, keep in mind that only a small amount of images may be used in a single article or list; a dozen in one article/list would violate

7253: 7214: 6835: 6782: 6719: 6711:? There were certainly choices made that didn't feel to me like natural extensions of the plotlines Frank set in motion, but they were going off 6671: 6652: 6641: 6084:

Never been accused of plagiarism before and I’ve written a lot of essay papers. No hard feelings though, I’ve known bigger tragedies in my life.

4778: 4741: 3495:

Thank you much, but don't worry, I'm awesome and will no doubt get another show right away, LOL. I'm not sure how it will look on screen, but if

3067: 1634: 1586: 981: 971: 956: 947: 937: 907: 879: 865: 731: 422: 407: 185: 176: 161: 7939:

I would just hate to see you do a lot of work for nothing. But I would definitely start working on a draft of an article on a user subpage like

7614: 7546: 6525: 5824:

situation, but at some point I'd be interested if you thought I should've handled this differently. Feel free to not hold back any punches ;) —

5196: 4662: 4322: 4312: 3396: 824: 793: 8674: 8658:

I would never hold a grudge over this kind of stuff, though I reserve the right to get annoyed ;) The truth is, I'm not perfect and don't know

8339: 8290: 7413: 6885: 6301:

Excuse me, are you lecturing me on something as obvious as NBC owning the series? Twice uou added "DirecTV announced that it would not pick up

5778: 4856: 4041: 3821: 3789: 3755: 3730: 2610: 1890: 1856: 1796: 1774: 1576: 1510: 1252: 1218: 560: 546: 327: 151: 9788:

On a side note, TAnthony, while we are on the subject of sourcing, I have been worried about something for quite some time: The reference for

7758:

article and list every single instance in which the character has been mentioned or referenced in any TV series, film, book, or magazine ("On

7328:

actually just survived an AfD because we beefed it up, but we were lucky that character is so "well-connected" ... if anybody stumbles across

6616: 6602: 6586: 5547: 5022: 5008: 4700: 4672: 4261: 4241: 3891: 3877: 3693: 3679: 3621: 3575: 3544: 3370: 3361: 3347: 3338: 3269: 3255: 1379: 1368: 1354: 1326: 1312: 1183: 7468: 7136: 7063: 7010: 6477: 6330: 6314: 5916: 5803: 5749: 5628: 5155: 5149: 4458:

unless absolutely necessary, since she lives in LA. In any case, none of the articles about Evans' return specify she's on contract, and the

4372:

No, that's fine by me, you have more experience with what will and won't be acceptable around WP. I was just questioning your edit summary. (

1683: 1561: 1500: 1318: 519: 448: 233: 195: 8304: 6550: 6536: 6003: 5499: 4802: 4770: 4640: 3590: 3503: 3490: 3475: 3465: 3450: 3440: 2869: 2664: 2654: 2634: 2624: 2484: 2469: 2455: 2440: 2431: 2366: 2322: 2281: 2248: 2217: 2191: 2000: 1982: 1822: 1752: 1469:). He continued directing into February too. DirecTV airs only 3 episodes of PSSN a month, so I guess that's why Tomlin's work is still on. 1202: 1198:

doesn't seem to have any recommendations that contradict the MOS guidelines, though, so by all means carry on! Thanks for your hard work. —

1161: 917: 9848: 9834: 9816: 9761: 9722: 9707: 9660: 9607: 9592: 9550: 9472:

not too long ago stated that Erica Kane is around 44 years old (when talking about that's character's controversial romance with character

9370: 9223: 9151: 8937: 8872: 8858: 8835: 8825: 8811: 8772: 8749: 8588: 8573: 8511: 8492: 8479: 8396: 6888:, unsourced factoids noting every time a particular topic is mentioned or parodied do not belong in articles. It is not notable to mention 6242: 6215: 6189: 6167: 6128: 5994: 5985: 5963: 5793: 4618: 4601: 4192: 4125: 1269: 1260: 1246: 1236: 706: 9679: 9261: 9094: 9003: 8801: 8786: 8624: 8563: 8548: 8196: 8146: 8099: 8061: 7924: 7894: 7790: 7762:

in the 1998 episode 'Big Deal,' Roz says that Superman is her favorite superhero.") You see how easily Knowledge could become a huge mess.

7728: 7697: 7643: 7336: 7310: 7291: 7235: 7203: 6469: 5855: 5845: 5098: 5086: 5072: 4939: 4930: 4905: 4891: 4882: 4566: 4547: 4484: 4466: 4178:

rose to Featured status with their images intact because characters are not the same as living people, even if they are portrayed by them.

4115: 4100: 4064: 3166: 3140: 3021: 2958: 2949: 2923: 2854: 2830: 2816: 2800: 1540: 1096: 691: 669: 641: 612: 388: 7878: 7488: 6512:

Yes, I did notice, and it alarmed me! I liked the ABC sources because they seemed the most "official." Some are still available thru the

5680: 5505: 5189: 3090: 842:

I have a source for the spelling of Pamela "Stewart". It is a magazine clipping that I scanned, but it seems that I can't post it here.

602: 7517: 6813:

is stupid, I have friends who agree, and could probably find a bunch more online. I won't fool myself into thinking I'm part of an anti-

6485: 5249: 5230: 5063: 4366: 3970: 1466: 4557:

full of writers (let's say, for example, around 20 writers) that weren't notable, somebody would probably eventually try to delete it.

3117:

character template does not include an "Occupation" parameter (and does not need to), so adding that information is useless. Thanks. —

9532:

I simply cannot view age or age range as not being a defining element of a fictional character, unless it is a case such as Superman,

8251: 6877:

because while I have explained my removals in the edit summaries, you have chosen not to discuss the issue or even defend your edits.

5789:

Hi. Please feel free to add to an open case. This is better than starting multiple open cases about the same puppetmaster. Thanks.

1483: 1031:

has begin an ongoing effort to consolidate articles, especially for minor characters and those no longer on the series in question. —

9143:, LOL. This reminds me to point out that just because the parameter exists and is used in the generic character box does not mean it 8356:

I am thinking of splitting most of this section into its own article, similar to how it partly existed in the now redirected article

7525: 7368: 6624: 6558: 5280: 4798:

being there either, but it has been there for a long time and "To Tame a Land" has been cut from here and other places repeatedly. —

4724: 3745: 3715: 3564: 3534: 3229: 2078:

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.

1679: 743: 379:

and make sure you have the right number based on the source. Sorry if that came off bitchy, didn't mean to, just tired this morning.

9640: 8254:

for some basic advice, but there are several great examples of articles which, though not complete or perfect, give the right idea:

6703:

writing any of these articles to suggest they are making false claims is basically slander, and I'm sure could be argued to violate

6573:. I invite you to read that. In general, the concept of using per character images is not supported such as was the intended use on 5654:. I was just trying to help. Please let me know if I can help you with any resulting problems you're experiencing with this debate. 9746: 8985: 8738: 8652: 8263: 7666:, but of course change the pertinent info, like description, copyright and article the image is used in. I'm not familiar with the 5487: 4047: 3606: 755:

previously were lost in the thousands of TV pages. The fact that you notified the TV Project about the article IrishLass mentioned

568: 6418:

would fail an AfD nom in its current form. You've probably seen many other shows with tons of tiny individual character articles;

5999:

OK, this was the best shot from yesterday's show, it's not the best photo ever but at least it's crisp and her eyes are open ;) —

3913: 3207: 1847:

I don't want to get in a fight over this either. I just don't understand why my work has to be reverted into some stupid info box

269:' ongoing task of removing unnecessary and excessive lists from soap articles. I haven't moved the lists into the infobox for all 157:

Thanks for the heads-up, don't know what they were trying to accomplish there, but as you can probably tell I got into it! LOL. —

110: 6739:? It's nothing of the sort. I'm certainly not trying to paint you as a follower of the invisible flying tea cup, or some kind of 5784: 4626: 4151: 4030: 3931:

paste the articles from my Word document. It happened right after I uploaded pictures of Lozano as the character and Lozano with

504: 219: 131: 8615:

Anyway, anything you ever need to discuss with me about Todd, any other character, or whatever else, you know where to find me.

7020:

production companies and sometimes some of those shows are on other outlets like the way NBC produce shows for other networks.

3723: 3343:

LOL, we have ALL asked questions like that, especially now that we're out of work! But he works from home on the East Coast. —

2420: 2306: 2208:

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

2087: 5617: 5595: 5566: 4303:

pages because there are/were a few "nutty" editors who ignore all input and obsess about plot details, LOL. In the case of the

3121: 2527: 2313:

Carly stuff. Not the HALF of it. You didn't even know Spanish Lullaby was Charity McKay and had been here for several years.

1941: 1687: 442: 8792:

are not even sure of these ages (which is understandable, give soap opera's SORAS incidents) and subsequently guess the ages.

5302: 5091:

Here it is {{+++|1={{+++|1={{#expr:1980 - 1970}}|2={{#expr:1990 - 1985}}}}|2={{#expr:1997 - 1995}}}} which of course gives 17

2727:

If the problems are related to a specific article, consider an article RfC, even if you feel that you know how it'll turn out.

851: 717: 364: 121:

characters to see them in those roles, or someone has to upload a free image (taken personally, licensed or public domain). —

8188:

There are literally hundreds of such user boxes (I created that one just for you, LOL) ... check out the category listing at

7474: 5799:

LOL, the second time I used the auto-tool I was wondering if should've just added it manually ... thanks for the cleanup. —

5767: 5357:

because they have few references and no real-world impact. Many have been deleted over time. The whole reason we created the

5350: 4964: 4834: 4393: 3162: 2353:

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.

1694: 1455: 1265:

I'm on a search for pics myself; remember, screenshots are preferred over promotional images, those usually fail fair use. —

283: 7280: 7097: 7051: 6993: 6054: 1242:

family, but I envision a slight overhaul separating these three characters out a little better. Give me a little time. ;) —

1176: 1147: 6425: 5601:

The pages I cited were not your talk page. And warnings of inappropriate behavior on your talk page are not harrassment. —

5044: 4975: 4935:

Aha, OK, the instruction about making sure "Bypass redirects is off" was missing from your sandbox instructions. Thanks! —

4845: 4819: 4085: 3073: 2700:

and frustrated. Or perhaps picture them as someone who is ill and on medication, and just needs some patience and guidance

1516: 1186:. I have just never seen a biography article that didn't have the infobox up top! As a matter of fact, I was just choosing 1018: 347: 6093: 5446: 4591: 4291: 4004: 1035: 8816:

Can it be changed in a way that the age can still be noted in the infobox during either of the instances I stated above?

7227: 7195: 6897: 5673: 5462: 4786: 4753: 3924: 3047: 1933: 1396: 963: 929: 888: 871: 843: 8230: 8160:

Hali, I saw that you put a TA sign on my page, where can I find those kind of signs? I also started an Empyrrean page.

7449: 6030: 5469: 4015:

YOu're brave to let people know your sexuality. Thanks for helping me with the articles on GH. Your cool. How old r u?

3278:

fabulous. Before I start asking questions, what type of information do you have access to, and what can you reveal? —

3215: 1226: 811:, the first soap article to achieve Featured status. We generally get what needs to be fixed, it's just a daunting task. 9205:

not. You say that none of the fictional character Featured Articles you know of include age in the infobox? What about

8379:

major concern is that much of the section relies on a single source (the Nelson Branco article). Within context of the

7538: 7182: 6919: 5730: 5636:

being harassed, but you do not seem to be — you just seem to continue to engage in behavior that attracts attention. —

4794:

Hey there, thanks for your response ... I really don't mean to be a dick about this either! To be honest, I don't like

4283: 4000: 3956: 369: 7445:

circle that a bold merge or redirect on my part (with explanation) would unlikely be challenged. Thanks in advance! —

5706: 5663: 4825:

Please take a break and return to editing with a calm demeanor and open mind. I am close to reporting both of you for

4427: 3951: 2790:

Okay everyone, enough with the name calling. Please try to get back to discussing articles, instead of each other. --

1109:, she should probably have an article, and when someone gets around to create it, she won't be backlinked properly to 8722: 6574: 6559: 6506: 6453: 5953: 5358: 5318: 5185: 4536: 4140:

Hi TAnthony. Thanks for reminding me that I owed you an answer - I had lost track of your message. Sorry about that.

4022: 3863: 3666: 2550: 1716: 1536: 1024: 621: 584: 308: 9476:). She is off by three years, but, clearly, even the "soap opera experts" acknowledge Erica as younger than 50. The 8868:

be in an infobox are cut-and-dry ones with no contradictions, retconning or SORAS; good luck finding one of those!—

8350: 8221:

The casting and re-casting was mentioned in the ananlysys but whi was it moved up? did I do something wrong, dude?--

7177: 6338: 6293: 5632: 5134: 4338:

I think they are an excellent example of the cultural influence of Dune, and are entirely relevent to the section. (

3181: 3148: 2594: 1478: 1051:

Just so you know, changing dates between "Euro" ] ] and "American" ] ] formats is unnecessary, because they display

815:

when I came along in May 2007 and added the Project to WP 1.0, it had about 300 articles, hardly any of which had a

9670:

annoyed with reverting unsourced age additions. But like I stated, my thoughts on all this have already been made.

8357: 6415: 5627:

was slightly harsh, but it is every editor's responsibility to help other editors. However, if you are saying that

4919: 4863: 4838: 4815: 4381: 4347: 1129: 763: 275:

characters yet, but any you see without lists are probably done. For example, I've reverted your recent additon to

4222: 9530:

as a screenwriter, age or age range is often one of the first things I pen about a character, as do many writers.

9423: 9067:

soap opera character's child is changed, it also changes that character's age. This was most certainly seen with

7796: 7586: 7093: 7047: 6989: 6570: 6437: 6289: 6156: 5828: 5624: 4135: 3701: 3186: 2764: 2517: 1302: 1195: 870:

Okay, sure. With this being Friday, she will most likely be in the closing credits, so I'll check there as well.

312: 259: 6566: 5761:

to say what I've said just now and see it's already come up! (Saves me creating a new section on your talk :D).

5721:

their envy and hatred of every human being that can actually compose his/her own sentences. I am just curious.)

4597:

That's a great idea, there are so many stubs that are just a name, performer and list of fictional relatives. —

4527:

created. Wouldn't it be better if they would all be in once place? And sorry if I'm bothering you my questions.

3352:

This so sad... I guess there's no hope left for the show? I just hope things were wrapped up properly if so. --

1073: 478: 9772: 8180: 7983: 7857: 7686: 7417: 7386: 7165: 5894:

articles from a drab, imageless fate, you have been awarded the Article Rescue Barnstar. Kudos to you, sir!

5532: 4749: 2784: 1337: 472: 6267: 4454:

for 8 years at her request (she didn't want to be locked in), and I somehow doubt that she would sign one for

4037:

Ah, not so brave, I live in LA where I'm very used to it not being an issue ... I'm older than I look, LOL. —

3961:

Hey, I never got to thank you for updating my article on the Buchanan Family. Thanks. I really appreciate it.

1284:

Hello - I'm afraid this is a common misinterpretation of the policy; minimal use really does mean minimal per

466: 8638: 7246: 6476:

That's good to know, thank you! I will look around these articles. I find them very helpful and educational.

6232: 6179: 6146: 5975: 5943: 5755: 5524: 5129: 5004:

LOL thanks, obviously I didn't write it but we did work really hard. Didja see me in that last shot??!! ;) —

4710: 4613: 4586: 4185: 4059: 3612:

LOL that's great! I was actually going to ask you about that but never got around to it. Glad you got it! --

2906: 2898: 2063: 1551:

article, which is now at Featured status. Can you please explain more as to what you don't like about it? --

1437: 454: 4734:

Hi there, any reason you saw fit to remove the reference to this song from the Dune Universe page? Thanks.

4631:

Could you adjust the template so the image size can be modified? Images smaller than 210px are distorted. --

2740:

ArbCom is also an option, but they're going to want to see that all of the above steps have been tried first

2446:

assumptions. Oh, and insane people are mad, I'm aggravated by your constant "interjections for no reason."

8426: 8176: 8095: 7920: 7853: 7724: 7639: 6402: 6203:

this case, I'm not quite sure why I keep going except perhaps my own twisted need to "win the debate," LOL.

6027: 5842: 3899: 3098: 3018: 2946: 2895: 2813: 2797: 2761: 2496: 1686:

for our "guidelines" and links to the WP guidelines that spawned them. I also encourage you to monitor the

1558: 631: 460: 81: 76: 71: 59: 9049:, I do not see why it should not be mentioned (other than being unsourced, if it s). I definitely see why 6529: 5737: 4760:

The song can hardly be considered part of the universe or canon, it is noted in the article for the novel

9422:

characters being aged). If characters' ages are not being changed, why do we even have an article called

8702:

I'm starting off with Maxie Jones in 3 days. Tomorrow's my wedding and I have to go on honeymoon soon. --

8467: 8405:, when coming from Nelson Branco, being an excellent source, LOL, but I get your point. I point out that 7605:, for example, to see how it works), but Draconis was omitted because it really only exists in the games. 7261: 6915: 5285: 5257: 4830: 4010: 3057: 2954:

Do you mean actually deleting sentences or entire discussions? I sounds like hiding the evidence, LOL. —

2377: 2337: 2329: 2114: 2019: 1949: 1187: 333: 7123:

into thinking the studios/networks are really concerned with continuity, content, or anything like that.

6428:; the names in italics are redirected to other articles, but most have dedicated material. For example, 5740:

to which you're referring was basically just a cleanup ... it looks like that crazy section was readded

3904:

Heya. I made a change to the level for the planet entries and added a new one for Al Dhanab. Look OK? --

3177:) and found the articles now created. It would have been helpful had the links already been in place. — 2971:

You could delete the comment, with an edit summary like, "Refactoring my post now that I've calmed down"

5741: 5346: 5030: 4887:

Ah, thank you! It was step 7 where I had the problem, I didn't realize the Logs function existed ;) —

1646: 1389: 436: 238: 106: 38: 8539:

from Todd's article. I will come back here and ask you what you think about the trim after I am done.

6939:}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ 6521: 3063:

font size amidst other edits, but then it was changed back. The soap character box is unchanged. ;) —

2847: 723:

Sorry, this got lost in my Talk page while I was away, I've just left a belated comment about this at

551:

OK. As they say over here, "Sometimes even monkeys fall from trees". (=Even pros make mistakes!) :) --

7412:

and some others I have pretty much avoided spending too much time, knowing that (as you point out in

7352: 5573:

appear to be condescending or insulting. Believe me, I've learned that lesson myself the hard way! —

5275: 4497:

Hi TAnthony... I have one more question and I don't know anyone else to ask about this certain idea.

4069: 3411: 3308: 3283: 2602: 2583:

Thank you for backing me up, lol. I'm getting very stressed out. I just need to breathe a little. :)

2546: 2071: 1916: 1467:

http://boards.soapoperanetwork.com/index.php?showtopic=24043&pid=537735&st=0&#entry537735

1134: 139: 7775:

and related articles seem to have many References and External links which may be helpful resources.

6035: 5290:

How many years is a cast member considered a senior cast member? P.J. 01:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

4682: 1547:

I actually like the infobox idea, as it was something we developed consensus for during work on the

9405: 8759:'s age to be noted in her infobox and article text, because not only is it well-sourced but her de- 7987: 7590: 6947: 6119:

as you and I are, and would slash the article even further with content guidelines to back them up.

6059: 5613: 5591: 5562: 4951: 4810: 4574: 4163: 3927:. I know I basically promised that I would create this article, and you've been patiently waiting. 3108: 1308:

The article isn't really a list, and no offense, but an FAQ on your own page doesn't satisfy me. —

789: 8286:

of each other around here and I hope you'll come to me again if you have any questions. Thanks! —

708:

So we are nothing more than a vanity project in the minds of some editors? What is up with that?

9209:? Her date of birth and death is listed. Other fictional media-specific infoboxes like those for 8992: 8189: 7674: 7581:

article has no references at all and is in danger of being tagged. We have combined many smaller

7231: 7199: 6778: 6667: 6637: 6015: 4720: 3043: 2712:

They are a good faith effort on your part to try and solve the problem (who knows, it may work!)

2503: 1665:. I wanted to let you know that I've removed your Relationship lists and restored the infobox in 1572: 1003: 967: 933: 892: 875: 847: 713: 657:

Since the concern has been addressed (the cat is showing up on the image page) it's a moot point.

490: 418: 384: 210: 172: 147: 89: 7455:

I'll be glad to run anything further by you. I haven't read all the Dune books (I stopped after

5298:, who has 37 years, and work down from there. Of course, it would vary from series to series. — 9520:

some of the same ideas." The Kendall Hart Slater article is truthful. But, oh, right, there is

8878: 7542: 6849: 6429: 5552: 5436: 5181: 4957: 4729: 4287: 4184:

program content, but it is a grey area that is not spelled out in policy. Even the language in

4076:

Your comments regarding this article's length would be very much appreciated on its talk page.

3996: 3155: 3133: 2751:

If you're on IMs, feel free to send me a message, and I can give you further advice off-wiki.

2641: 1908: 1208: 1085: 834: 724: 701: 7885:

articles? If they are not, it might suggest that they have limited notability even within the

7689:... articles that fail these criteria are eventually nominated for deletion. Even many of the 3942:

If they are retrieved, I feel you'll be pleased with the articles, more so than two rewrites.

1733:

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Knowledge. Your edits appear to constitute

9793: 8707: 8690: 8648: 8335: 8226: 8203: 8123: 7944: 7464: 7391: 7363: 6607:

If they can survive an AfD, then they can survive. AfD isn't run by soap opera watchers :) --

6050: 5342: 5294:

I don't know that there is a specific number, but certainly you have to look at someone like

4387: 3966: 3909: 3835: 3803: 3771: 3741: 3711: 2274: 2157: 1852: 1770: 1712: 1654: 1532: 1496: 556: 515: 304: 245: 229: 102: 9214:

excellent examples in this discussion, but I can certainly give better examples than those.

8272:

you found the image. Also, I'm not sure if it was you I saw doing this, but formatting like

884:

She was credited as "Pamela Stewart" in the closing credits. I also found an online source.

9797:

tweaking of the source in June 2008. That editor's addition had remained in the article as

8485: 8209: 8164: 8083: 8036: 7908: 7874: 7841: 7712: 7627: 7598: 7597:

terms, characters, and such redirect to composite articles like these. There is actually a

7534: 7223: 7191: 7081: 7035: 6977: 6612: 6582: 6277: 5480: 5443: 5268: 5177: 5145: 5018: 4994: 4737: 4696: 4658: 4636: 4492: 4328: 4254: 4215: 4018: 3988: 3918: 3887: 3859: 3689: 3662: 3617: 3560: 3530: 3407: 3392: 3357: 3334: 3304: 3279: 3265: 3225: 3086: 2590: 2542: 2373: 2333: 2299: 2110: 2015: 1945: 1704: 1524: 1427: 1374: 1349: 1297: 1172: 925: 296: 6565:

Hi! Recently, you reverted my removal of the per character images on this article. I know

6410:

somewhere, but not necessarily their own articles. I have personally consolidated as many

1217:

bit more. I didn't know who else to talk to since I'm such a n00b. Thanks for listening.

8: 9362: 8842: 8755:

notable in some way, or not too complicated unless well-explained. For example, I prefer

7324:

regard to policy violations and few people are interested in making actual improvements.

7149: 7089: 7043: 6985: 6398: 6385:

for the same reason (the Jill article was threatened with deletion because it was just a

6323: 6285: 5922: 5899: 5726: 5711: 4269: 3975: 3196: 2939:

deleting posts which were made in the heat of anger, could have longrange benefits. :) --

1734: 1460: 1139:

Before you get going to far, I wanted to let you know that the infobox is supposed to go

1014: 2905:

play out on its own. I actually supported her position in the name change discussion at

224:

Hi. I noticed that change but didn't revert it. Didn't make much sense to me, either. --

8216: 7772: 7742: 7668: 7563: 6927: 6859: 6594: 6546: 6502: 6491: 6378: 5694: 5308: 5112: 4901: 4878: 4826: 4782: 4745: 4716: 3923:

Thanks for holding off on creating this article or creating it, then redirecting it to

3586: 3486: 3461: 3436: 3039: 2983: 2865: 2780: 2650: 2620: 2480: 2451: 2416: 2392: 2318: 2244: 2187: 2132: 2106: 2083: 1978: 1964: 1929: 1568: 751: 709: 637:— that includes "Article" and "Purpose" and thus the categories in question. Thanks. — 486: 414: 380: 360: 206: 168: 143: 47: 17: 3319:

I have half a box of leftover business cards, anybody have a birdcage to line?? ;) —

9844: 9812: 9742: 9718: 9675: 9656: 9603: 9546: 9461: 9257: 9219: 9090: 8981: 8933: 8854: 8849:

wants better sources for it. But, to me, the show itself is as good a source as any.

8821: 8797: 8768: 8620: 8584: 8559: 8544: 8528: 8507: 8475: 8368: 8327: 8135: 8039:, and most of the images will have to go to avoid the appearance of an image gallery. 7998: 7429: 7220:

I'm sorry but i'm an accepted expert . The author herself liked my site very much !

7142: 6420: 6362: 6237: 6184: 6151: 6089: 5980: 5948: 5512: 5124: 4608: 4581: 4518: 4444: 4335: 4111: 4096: 4081: 4070: 4054: 3947: 3237: 3126: 3033: 2270: 1742: 1256: 1222: 1023:

No problem, thanks for writing it. However ... I'm actually merging the article into

785: 777: 773: 376: 6207:

just finished something a few wks ago so I've got a no-pressure holiday ahead of me.

5528: 9135: 9033: 9024: 8703: 8686: 8670:, but instead spend countless hours updating infoboxes and trivia. It's a waste. — 8644: 8331: 8222: 8172: 8091: 7916: 7849: 7720: 7635: 7480: 7306: 7276: 6881: 6513: 6481: 6374: 6334: 6254: 6046: 6024: 5839: 5816: 5762: 5322: 5082: 5059: 5040: 4850: 4607:

redirects as an IP and claimed that someone else used his WiFi and blah blah blah.

4562: 4532: 4480: 4423: 4203:

I just wanted to try to give it an English translation; I mean, we know what CHOAM

4167: 3962: 3905: 3845: 3831: 3799: 3767: 3737: 3707: 3627: 3139:

Please stop removing red links from articles ... they are perfectly acceptable per

3015: 2963:

Well, there are multiple ways to do it, depending on what you're comfortable with:

2943: 2892: 2810: 2794: 2758: 2678: 2182:

You weren't involved in the sock puppet issue and the pain that the page created.

2039: 1848: 1766: 1708: 1603: 1555: 1528: 1492: 1474: 1078: 737: 665: 598: 552: 511: 300: 271: 225: 8052:

As you said earlier, if Frank Herbert isn't immune from deletion, we can't expect

7904:

should be linked to each other. But my original idea was to creat stub articles.

6361:

is the ultimate example of what a soap character article should be; articles like

1285: 181:

Yeah, I recall some of your previous run-ins, thanks again for letting me know. —

9521: 9068: 8967: 8877:

Putting "Age 47" is not as confusing if we put the little note beside it titled "

8434: 8412: 8027:

the only thing keeping them in existence is probably their notability within the

6936: 6608: 6578: 6441: 6382: 6345: 6134: 6111: 5702: 5690: 5659: 5586:

So I'm not allowed to erase people's harrasing messages of off my own talk page?

5141: 5014: 4990: 4870: 4692: 4654: 4632: 4359: 4247: 4208: 3883: 3855: 3685: 3658: 3613: 3556: 3526: 3388: 3353: 3330: 3261: 3221: 3082: 2510: 2102: 1662: 1423: 1411: 1289: 1028: 747: 266: 252: 7837:

After this who knows, I got the idea when I don't find something on wikipedia.

7266:

I'm not operating from magazines or websites, TAnthony, but from the episode of

6827:

rather than say you made them up. I'd defend your position dude, I swear! Hahaha

5583:

So I am not allowed to erase people's harrasing messages from my own talk page?

4910:

Hmm, instead of skipping the redirects and loging them as such, AWB seems to be

1069:) based on user preferences. The difference is only visible in the edit view. — 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

9803: 9469: 9418: 9206: 9158: 9046: 8667: 8430: 8247: 7682: 7460: 7409: 7378: 7161: 7085: 7039: 6981: 6940: 6358: 6354: 6281: 6107: 6042: 5895: 5809: 5790: 5651: 5647: 5394:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of male film actors (A-K) (2nd nomination)

5362: 5225: 5169: 5077:

Thanks,I'll put it in the template name space when I finish my current AWB run

4412: 4399:

Every Friday ABC airs a complete cast list at the end of the episode, and both

4377: 4343: 4175: 2578: 2034: 1738: 1690:, as we often discuss issues which put soap articles under scrutiny. Thanks. — 1674: 1670: 1627: 1548: 1344: 1194:

with an infobox I viewed "violates" these guidelines as far as placement goes.

1100: 1010: 808: 651: 7593:, to save them from being deleted on similar grounds. You will find that many 5490:; you can copy this material, updating the article name and image source info. 3869:

Yeah, the original establishing shots (and some exterior scenes) were shot in

3581:

cut a deal with SoapNet instead of DTV and I had DTV before it switched over.

2718:

If you have to proceed to another step of DR, those talkpage messages will be

2093:

Why would you delete a page instead of redirecting it to the proper article?

885: 857:

OK, but don't you think, considering the more numerous sources that spell it "

9831: 9776: 9758: 9704: 9648: 9637: 9589: 9367: 9148: 9038: 8869: 8832: 8808: 8746: 8671: 8570: 8499: 8489: 8393: 8323: 8301: 8287: 8193: 8143: 8058: 7991: 7891: 7787: 7694: 7611: 7514: 7497: 7446: 7383: 7382:

wait until the final months of 2009 to assess articles for such a category.—

7333: 7288: 7250: 7211: 7174: 7133: 7060: 7007: 6894: 6874: 6832: 6716: 6704: 6649: 6599: 6542: 6533: 6498: 6466: 6445: 6311: 6212: 6164: 6125: 6000: 5991: 5960: 5913: 5852: 5825: 5800: 5775: 5746: 5677: 5637: 5602: 5574: 5544: 5496: 5459: 5366: 5299: 5246: 5193: 5095: 5094:

Hey man, thanks! I really appreciate the effort made to help a stranger ;) —

5069: 5013:

I'm not sure, I looked several times... about where are you in the crowd? --

5005: 4972: 4936: 4927: 4888: 4860: 4842: 4799: 4767: 4669: 4598: 4544: 4463: 4363: 4319: 4309: 4238: 4198: 4189: 4122: 4038: 3932: 3874: 3870: 3818: 3786: 3752: 3727: 3676: 3603: 3582: 3572: 3541: 3500: 3482: 3472: 3457: 3447: 3432: 3422: 3367: 3344: 3320: 3294: 3252: 3204: 3178: 3170: 3145: 3118: 3064: 2955: 2920: 2861: 2851: 2827: 2776: 2661: 2646: 2631: 2616: 2607: 2569: 2524: 2476: 2466: 2447: 2437: 2428: 2412: 2388: 2363: 2314: 2303: 2278: 2240: 2214: 2183: 2165: 2128: 2079: 2044: 1997: 1974: 1960: 1940:

of massive disruption, but when I check the sample soap character infobox at

1925: 1887: 1819: 1793: 1749: 1691: 1666: 1631: 1583: 1507: 1452: 1365: 1334: 1323: 1309: 1266: 1243: 1233: 1199: 1168: 1158: 1144: 1126: 1105: 1070: 1041: 1032: 978: 953: 944: 914: 904: 862: 858: 821: 760: 728: 688: 683: 638: 609: 543: 404: 395: 356: 324: 320: 280: 276: 182: 158: 122: 8807:

template and see if anyone notices?? I mean, I created the darn thing ;) —

3751:

LOL. You wouldn't think so if you were the copyright owner of the images. —

1343:

Hi - it's not my interpretation of policy, it's the Wikimedia Foundation's.

9840: 9808: 9738: 9714: 9671: 9652: 9599: 9542: 9533: 9326:

analysis of facts. Ultimately all that really can be asserted for sure are

9253: 9215: 9131: 9086: 9050: 9028: 8996: 8977: 8929: 8850: 8846: 8817: 8793: 8779: 8764: 8729: 8616: 8580: 8555: 8540: 8524: 8503: 8471: 8380: 8364: 8319: 8259: 7487:

I think I've changed your work numerous times, but have you ever looked at

7373: 7359: 7346: 7329: 7325: 7157: 7114:

experiment. It seems likely that yes, had CBS or another network picked up

6366: 6268:

http://tvseriesfinale.com/articles/passions-directv-cancellation-confirmed/

6227: 6174: 6141: 6085: 5970: 5938: 5520: 5330: 5326: 5295: 5119: 4762: 4404: 4400: 4159: 4148: 4107: 4092: 4077: 3943: 2769: 2688: 2293:

Hey, I clearly don't want to start a war over something this stupid, but I

1622: 1279: 1122: 952:

Oh, and you spelled "accurate" wrong right before you called me a moron. —

816: 3245:

OK, I can reveal my secret now ... since tomorrow is the last tape day of

2982:

You could delete the entire post, via one of the above methods. See also

1700:

Why did you remove my work homie? I don't like that. Leave my work alone.

1095:

edits, but what does how long a link has been red have to do with it? Per

9789: 9473: 8243: 8168: 8127: 8087: 8023: 7952: 7912: 7845: 7716: 7631: 7578: 7425: 7302: 7272: 6870: 6818: 6740: 6433: 6406: 6394: 6369:

are less extensive examples of well-sourced articles. Even articles like

6021: 5923: 5836: 5468:

For your reference, the policy which prohibits this kind of image use is

5078: 5055: 5036: 4897: 4874: 4558: 4528: 4476: 4419: 3012: 2940: 2931:

especially by deleting previous comments of yours which were out of line.

2889: 2807: 2791: 2755: 2535: 2362:

LOL, Spanishlullaby, now I remember the change, you tricked me LOL. ;) —

1552: 1470: 1154: 899: 781: 661: 594: 288: 136: 6747:

were to publish my own version of Dune VII using the notes that FH gave

4188:

is vague enough to arguably allow their use to represent a character. —

3830:

Oh, OK. I didn't know about that. Images get used inappropriately? How?

3651:

You have been awarded the Soap Opera Barnstar for your contributions to

9525: 8756: 8407: 8255: 7505: 7501: 6350: 5698: 5655: 5338: 5334: 5314: 4230: 3636: 2993:

remembering, what you say, and from there the resentment just festers.

2843: 1063: 1056: 343: 2601:

As you can see above, I had an exhaustive discussion with KellyAna on

1418:

are preferred over these types of promo images, more or less based on

922:

For being a perfectionist, you sure do know how to spell "watching".

8417: 7602: 6736: 6686: 6449: 6370: 5220: 4373: 4339: 1626:

Relationship lists were challenged by unbiased editors assessing the

1415: 1400: 7432:. I'm opening up this discussion with you because I'm protective of 6908: 6524:

from the Tina Lord article is dead, but there's an archived version

6436:(and many characters) redirect to the appropriate family section in 3598:

Dougie, you won't believe this, but I actually have the plaque from

3499:

crew made you tear up, you may want to have the tissues ready. ;) —

617:

FYI, in case you're now monitoring these templates at all, it's the

351: 9410: 9122: 9042: 8924: 7755: 4649:

Is there anyway to make the image smaller without getting a little

4450: 4091:

Never mind. If you do not already know, it has been taken care of.

3653: 3247: 2513:

has added a collapsible section for character relationships to the

8763:

is pretty famous and scrutinized within the soap opera community.

7424:

I appreciate the distinction you made between AfD-ing Erasmus and

5929: 5387:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of American soap opera actors

5375: 4924:

List of past Coronation Street characters (1970-1979)#Frank Barlow

116:

Hey there; the actor infobox requires that you ass the image name

9465: 9366:

make tweaks if I'm not going to work on the article as a whole.—

8019: 8010: 5875: 1506:

LOL, I couldn't resist responding to "hello i am the best" ... —

1114: 7160:), which is so important! However, I would ask you to check out 6817:

movement worth noting somewhere. Or I can say that the last few

5429:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of female television actors

1567:

more encyclopedic. I agree with Elonka, it stays where it is.

1317:

Further, the link provided in your FAQ includes a comment that "

394:

Yeah, I wasn't thinking about the number itself; in response to

9699:

think what we are supposed to be doing here is akin to writers

9537: 6923: 4513:

and include a huge list those people, including their credits?

430: 138:

What the hell is up with the page moves? Is there/was there a

6045:

would not be able to function in the most beneficient manner.

5422:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of male television actors

5401:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of male film actors (L-Z)

4354:

I phrased my edit summary wrong, but their only connection to

3706:

Why are you taking the images out of my soap opera userboxes?

2934:

else. New editors who are lurking and not yet participating,

1729: 8760: 8411:

has a decent article built around a single storyline, called

5959:

Just our luck, she hasn't been on since the issue came up! —

7118:, they would cover the series on their site. If NBC dropped 1251:

Sounds good! Maybe I can dig up a picture of Laura Koffman.

9415:

the fans are smart enough to calculate the characters' ages

7951:. You may have a full page of information, but if it's all 7818:

Rougpelt dustbowl, few resources, red (ferric-oxides), Core

7658:

No problem ... as a starting point, upload the images from

7559: 4448:

mags so I'll look thru that. Evans never had a contract on

4408:

Andrea signed a contract, even though only for two months.

1403: 1118: 1066: 1059: 8681:

Roak here, Willing on fixing articles to look like Pauline

6517: 5557:

It was not a personal attack. It was merely a suggestion.

3079:

WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard#Screen caps of end credits

2978:

comment after such as, "Post refactored, see <diff: -->

5415:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of telenovela actors

1684:

Knowledge:WikiProject Soap Operas#Character relationships

7990:... this is obviously a hugely notable topic within the 7659: 7441:-related topics. I'm also well-known enough here in the 5479:

Video and DVD covers: Take a look at how I have updated

5408:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of character actors

2733:

If mediation doesn't do any good, try a User Conduct RfC

2277:. So make sure you fix them when you delete it again. — 2109:

didn't seem to contain anything opposing it, either. —

7489:

Template:Infobox soap character#Relationship parameters

4392:

Hey TAnthony... I have a question about the content on

576:

The reason I ask is that is isn't generating a link to

255:

has added a section for character relationships to the

251:

Hey, thanks for your edits. I wanted to point out that

8122:

LOL, I guess it is luck ;) Simply follow the red link

7997:. This article has many references, but most are from 7750:, or about every one of the 10,000+ daily episodes of 6902: 6124:

Thanks again, and hope to see you more around here. —

5990:

She's on today, but so far she's in her pajamas LOL —

1184:

Knowledge:Manual of Style (infoboxes)#Design and usage

8351:

Todd Manning#Romancing rape victim and rape revisited

5623:

I'm sorry if you were offended by my suggesting that

3540:

I'm the Production Manager, though not for long ;) —

1125:. And sorry if I sound like a jerk, don't mean to. — 7827:

Aqueous Minor dry/wet each season for 200 years, Arm

7767:

You should definitely familiarize yourself with the

7754:

that have aired since 1968. Editors could go to the

6329:

worked on 'Lord Family' you'd maybe know. Thanks...

3935:

as the couple T&T (just check my edit history).

3854:

as Harmony in the closing credits, etc.? Thanks. --

1661:

Hey there, thanks for your ongoing participation in

7955:

plot/decriptions, the article is dead in the water.

3525:So, what did you do for the show? Just curious. -- 2722:

helpful in documenting the history of the situation

2436:LOL, I love how long this discussion is, hahaha. — 1182:Point taken, I do see guidelines to that effect at 293:Why you change my work? I liked it how I left it. 8262:are well-sourced, for example, and I'm working on 8252:Knowledge:WikiProject Soap Operas#Style guidelines 5890:For your outstanding effort in rescuing dozens of 4233:, I may very well be out-voted by the rest of the 1741:. If you would like to experiment, please use the 1009:Thanks for the help. First time creating a page. 7170:Knowledge:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) 6973:When you have time please reply back. Thank you 6571:Knowledge:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles 5208:Differences to the style which used Frank Herbert 4896:Yea, there's a few odd, lurking features of AWB. 2730:If the RfC doesn't do any good, suggest mediation 1680:Knowledge:WikiProject Soap Operas#Prose vs. lists 1422:and a series of related ones at that time. While 8997: 8780: 8734: 8730: 7358:Despite common sense, in my opinion it is still 5676:are dismissed, you know it's a losing battle. — 5321:. Can some of them have their own articles like 2715:They alert other editors that there is a problem 1447:suggests that the issue is still controversial. 9130:and such don't seem to include age either. And 7824:Core Prime artifical, intelligent, Core capital 7553:This is indeed the place to contact me, thanks! 6567:you've been in discussions on this issue before 2693:Always stay civil, never let yourself be goaded 2387:reasons because you assumed without verifying. 573:Just a question... but is this one 'bot proof? 9792:'s Early life section. It was given by editor 9464:' current age (now 25), who was revealed as a 8466:On a side note, TAnthony, what do you make of 4688:" like you said, but I still had it at image1. 3161:Please stop with your unconstructive edits to 1430:) flat out forbid reuse of content elsewhere. 530:review, you are right — I was looking at both 8126:to create a page there; basically just go to 7815:Barathrum young, mineral rich, vulcanic, Core 7662:. Copy and paste all the templates etc. from 6873:article three times, which is a violation of 6569:. The issue is more strictly codified now at 5458:with your own camera, so you don't own it. — 3571:because we were such a well-oiled machine. — 3366:I think the fans will be happy with it ... — 2660:actually left a comment in the discussion. — 1488:(The smiley isn't working out!) :D (There!) 1319:List of characters in Neon Genesis Evangelion 8569:things to do for the next few days anyway.— 8018:universe. By comparison, I would guess that 7812:Tergiverse IV wasteland, drained ocean, Core 6238: 6233: 6228: 6185: 6180: 6175: 6152: 6147: 6142: 5981: 5976: 5971: 5949: 5944: 5939: 5130: 5125: 5120: 4614: 4609: 4587: 4582: 4060: 4055: 3850:Do you know what real-life town was used in 2929:if you were to show the initiative on that, 2709:They alert the editor that there's a problem 578:Category:Non-free images with valid backlink 7830:Nigh Pilago archipelago, drained ocean, Arm 6935:Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ 5933:picture doesn't seem fair to the character 5867:Your have been awarded the Rescue Barnstar! 5470:Knowledge:Non-free content#Unacceptable use 3684:Thank you! I really did love that show. -- 3602:, I'll pose for pics with it later, LOL. — 2105:, I don't think that it was unreasonable. 1942:Knowledge:WikiProject Soap Operas#Templates 886:http://www.soaps.com/onelifetolive/spoilers 9117:child's birthdate is established as 1976" 8401:Some people would disagree with you about 8383:article, the storyline has notability and 8202:Here is a short description, check it out 7821:Dump refuse dump, moon of Core Prime, Core 6755:claims at face value as well? If not, why? 3724:Knowledge:Non-free content criteria#Policy 346:, and I'm desperate for sources. There is 9703:fiction disturbs me more than anything.— 7833:Aegus low gravity, moon of Empyrrean, Arm 7585:-related articles into larger ones, like 7369:Category:2010s American television series 5873: 5488:Image:ForbiddenBroadway-RudeAwakening.jpg 4681: 650:To be honest I was working backward from 8685:I'm gonna do this. Just give me time. -- 8594:would get around to making that article. 8326:articles? thanks. Plus, i'll get on the 8264:Adam Wilson (The Young and the Restless) 8212:comment added 11:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC). 7877:, and I can help you so that links like 4106:great...and I truly thank you for that. 2974:You could delete the comment, and add a 943:Just goes to prove, typos are common. — 898:They did indeed, but they also credited 6886:Knowledge:"In popular culture" articles 4462:ones usually do if that is the case. — 4282:Thanks again and keep up the good work 1121:or whatever has no value, it should be 14: 7558:You mistakenly uploaded the images to 5035:I'll have a look at see what i can do 3882:Thanks, I added it to the article. -- 3798:What kind of abuse has been going on? 3634: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 5216:Of course in more encyclopedian form. 4965:Knowledge:Naming conventions (people) 4835:List of One Life to Live cast members 4394:List of One Life to Live cast members 3421:is, most shows don't last forever! — 3163:List of One Life to Live cast members 3106:Hey, thanks for your interest in the 1491:A bit stressed out? Hang in there! -- 196:Soap character article risks deletion 9409:characters ages and create the show 8643:Hey, I'm sorry. No hard feelings? -- 6426:Category:One Life to Live characters 4418:Please, let me know what you think. 3657:both on Knowledge and in real life! 1091:I'm not going to revert your recent 25: 6432:obviously has her own article, but 5672:and ever-encouraging comments like 5535:. External sources may be used for 5506:Copyright violation at Carlo Hesser 3925:List of One Life to Live characters 2568:Thanks again for your hard work! — 2033:under "Parents." Still, looking at 1397:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Fair use 338:I'm searching for info for the new 23: 7871:List of Total Annihilation planets 7806:Empyrrean lush, green, Arm capital 7802:planet. Here are some basic data: 7679:List of Total Annihilation planets 6907: 4411:Also, during the last two months, 3053:Someone seems to have changed the 2509:Hi, not sure if you're aware, but 1157:if you want to see what I mean. — 24: 9866: 7526:Is this the right way to contact? 7031:once again thanks for the reply 6865:Hey there, you have restored the 6575:One Life to Live minor characters 6560:One Life to Live minor characters 6461:I'm glad you have an interest in 6454:One Life to Live minor characters 5359:One Life to Live minor characters 5319:One Life to Live minor characters 5240:and been debated in nearly every 2541:a faux pas as I'd feared. :) — 2160:, and so appears on nearly every 1025:One Life to Live minor characters 742:Hi, I'm commenting a bit late on 538:and thought I was looking at the 8363:What are your thoughts on this? 8358:Todd Manning and Marty Saybrooke 5874: 5527:using text copied verbatim from 4920:Frank Barlow (Coronation Street) 4683: 4048:Minor minors on General Hospital 3635: 2696:Engage on the editor's talkpage 2147:If I may interject, that is the 1728: 569:re: Template:Non-free image data 348:this article by Firstshowing.net 29: 9424:Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome 7587:Technology of the Dune universe 7379:just picked up for a 2nd season 6438:One Life to Live minor families 5785:Suspected sock puppet reporting 5176:Hi, your extensive comments at 4627:Template:Infobox soap character 505:Hunters external links section? 220:Leto Atreides II caption change 142:page? Something's not right. 132:You really need to look at this 9252:says gets me onboard, anyway. 8845:article does) perhaps because 7984:Knowledge:Notability (fiction) 7166:Knowledge:Notability (fiction) 7110:website for their 156-episode 6448:article, and I've just merged 6405:, and others ... the combined 5917:21:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC) 5904:05:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC) 5641:21:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC) 5618:19:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC) 5596:19:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC) 5578:19:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC) 5567:19:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC) 5370:03:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC) 5351:05:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC) 5262:Please see my comments at the 4438:on contract, I've been saving 4166:, technically not an image of 1765:Don't mock me. It sickens me. 13: 1: 7949:video game article guidelines 7769:video game article guidelines 7509:this is an encyclopedia, not 7475:Excessive detail in infoboxes 7408:articles, but in the case of 7247:Knowledge talk:External links 6836:04:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC) 6783:00:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC) 6720:22:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC) 6672:22:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC) 6653:07:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC) 6243:18:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC) 6216:23:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC) 6190:21:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC) 6168:07:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC) 6157:06:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC) 5303:14:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC) 5281:16:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC) 5250:03:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC) 5231:03:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC) 5211:Inconsistencies in the cannon 5197:02:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC) 4914:the redirect and logging the 4255: 4216: 4186:Template:Non-free promotional 3235:I believe the quote was from 2907:Talk:Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald 2048:16:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 2024:14:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 2001:06:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 1983:05:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 1969:05:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 1959:forces that thought process. 1954:05:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 1934:05:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 1511:02:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 1501:01:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 1479:14:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 1380:20:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC) 1369:19:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC) 1355:19:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC) 1338:18:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC) 1327:00:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC) 1313:00:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC) 1303:00:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC) 1203:18:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 1177:17:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 1162:17:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 1148:17:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC) 1130:03:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC) 1074:04:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 670:19:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 642:18:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 613:05:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 603:23:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC) 328:20:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 313:20:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 284:05:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 234:18:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC) 215:09:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 186:21:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC) 177:21:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC) 162:21:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC) 152:20:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC) 126:18:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC) 111:06:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC) 7809:Thalassean windy, ocean, Arm 7677:beforehand. If you create a 6617:23:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 6603:20:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 6587:15:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 6551:04:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC) 6537:03:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC) 6507:00:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC) 6486:02:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC) 6470:18:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC) 6397:had a short article, as did 6339:07:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC) 6315:23:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC) 6294:23:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC) 6129:17:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC) 6094:08:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC) 6055:22:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC) 6031:19:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC) 6004:21:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC) 5995:20:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC) 5986:05:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC) 5964:05:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC) 5954:04:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC) 5856:19:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC) 5456:Image:Aracely Arámbula 6.jpg 4967:, qualifiers like "Dr." are 4248: 4209: 4147:Hope that helps some. Best, 3074:Your questions were answered 2012:Ethan Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane 1587:16:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 1577:15:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 1562:08:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 1541:07:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 1517:Family and relationship info 1270:21:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC) 1261:05:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC) 1247:21:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC) 1237:21:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC) 1227:20:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC) 1036:00:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC) 1019:00:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC) 982:14:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 972:04:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 957:03:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 948:03:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 938:03:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 918:02:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 908:02:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 880:14:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 866:04:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 852:03:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 825:03:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 794:01:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 764:01:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 732:01:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 692:04:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 561:02:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC) 547:00:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC) 520:03:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 7: 8190:Knowledge:Userboxes#Gallery 7743:is not a paper encyclopedia 6966:host the official website. 6444:has her own section in the 5884:The Article Rescue Barnstar 5846:13:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC) 5829:22:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC) 5804:04:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC) 5794:04:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC) 5779:15:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC) 5768:07:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC) 5750:13:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC) 5731:11:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC) 5707:21:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC) 5681:21:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC) 5664:21:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC) 5650:article simply didn't meet 5548:20:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC) 5500:16:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC) 5463:14:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC) 5381:Lists nominated by TAnthony 5150:05:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC) 5135:04:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC) 5099:22:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC) 5087:20:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC) 5073:19:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC) 5068:Yes! You are a genius ;) — 5064:13:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC) 4976:00:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC) 4940:06:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC) 4931:05:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC) 4906:03:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC) 4892:02:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC) 4883:01:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC) 4864:23:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC) 2273:articles all still link to 718:14:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC) 495:19:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 423:17:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 408:17:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 389:13:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 365:21:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 10: 9871: 9027:. Book and film character 8486:Quotation mark#Punctuation 7183:Pretty Little Liars source 6689:argument I will disregard. 5045:17:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC) 5023:06:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC) 5009:21:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC) 4999:19:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC) 4846:23:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC) 4164:Harry Potter the character 3957:My Buchanan Family article 3504:07:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC) 3491:23:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC) 3476:22:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC) 3466:01:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC) 3451:01:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC) 3441:01:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC) 3426:01:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC) 3416:23:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 3397:22:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 3371:20:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 3362:20:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 3348:17:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 3339:08:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 3324:04:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 3313:20:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 3298:04:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 3288:03:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 3270:02:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 3256:02:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 3230:18:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 3122:23:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 3091:02:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 3068:02:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC) 3048:16:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC) 3022:04:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC) 2959:04:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC) 2950:23:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 2924:22:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 2899:20:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 2870:16:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 2855:11:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 2831:10:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 2817:04:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 2801:04:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 2785:03:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC) 2765:03:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 2665:02:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 2655:02:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 2635:02:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 2625:02:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 2611:02:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 2595:01:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 2528:02:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC) 1456:18:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 744:this archived conversation 370:Days of our Lives ep count 9849:21:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC) 9835:01:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC) 9817:22:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC) 9762:15:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC) 9747:08:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC) 9723:01:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC) 9708:00:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC) 9680:00:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC) 9661:23:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 9641:23:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 9608:22:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 9593:21:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 9551:20:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 9371:17:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 9262:08:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 9224:07:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 9152:04:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 9095:00:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 9004:06:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC) 8986:04:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC) 8938:03:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC) 8873:03:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC) 8859:03:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC) 8836:01:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC) 8826:01:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC) 8812:21:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC) 8802:11:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC) 8787:07:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC) 8773:06:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC) 8750:22:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC) 8739:23:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC) 8723:Character ages, yet again 8712:01:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC) 8695:01:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC) 8675:00:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC) 8653:00:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC) 8625:06:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC) 8589:04:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC) 8574:03:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC) 8564:03:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC) 8549:21:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC) 8533:01:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC) 8512:21:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC) 8493:05:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC) 8480:23:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC) 8397:14:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 8373:07:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 8340:01:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC) 8305:00:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC) 8197:14:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC) 8181:09:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC) 8147:18:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 8100:18:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 8062:17:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 7925:16:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 7895:20:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 7858:19:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 7791:19:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 7729:17:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 7698:14:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 7664:File:Arrakis-Dune2000.jpg 7644:10:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 7615:09:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 7547:08:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 7518:00:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC) 7469:23:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC) 7450:23:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC) 7387:15:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 7353:User talk:Ericthebrainiac 7137:22:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC) 7098:17:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC) 7069:OK let me clarify better 7064:23:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC) 7052:22:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC) 7011:02:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC) 6994:18:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC) 6898:06:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC) 6077:learn is learn by doing. 5880: 5202:Response on my talk page: 4981:You were right about the 4803:03:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 4787:02:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 4771:21:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC) 4754:20:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 4725:08:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 4701:20:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 4673:17:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 4663:17:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 4641:13:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC) 4619:23:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 4602:23:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 4592:20:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 4567:23:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 4548:23:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 4537:16:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC) 4485:15:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC) 4467:15:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC) 4442:-related pages from some 4428:15:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC) 4382:07:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC) 4367:20:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC) 4348:19:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC) 4323:17:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC) 4313:17:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC) 4292:17:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC) 4262:22:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 4242:20:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 4223:18:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 4193:02:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC) 4152:22:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 4126:20:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 4116:20:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 4101:02:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 4086:01:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC) 3694:05:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 3680:05:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 3667:05:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 3641: 3622:01:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC) 3607:01:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC) 3591:23:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 3576:23:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 3565:22:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 3545:05:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 3535:18:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC) 3208:04:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 3182:04:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 3149:15:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC) 2913:not right that much, LOL. 2603:User talk:Spanish lullaby 2573:19:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 2551:05:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 2485:03:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 2470:03:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 2456:00:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 2441:00:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 2432:00:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 2421:00:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 2397:00:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 2382:00:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 2367:00:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 2342:00:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 2323:00:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 2307:00:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC) 2282:23:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 2249:23:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 2218:23:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 2192:23:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 2169:23:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 2137:23:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 2119:23:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 2088:22:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC) 2072:User talk:Spanish lullaby 1917:User talk:Spanish lullaby 1891:06:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC) 1857:06:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC) 1823:06:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC) 1797:05:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC) 1775:05:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC) 1753:05:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC) 1695:16:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC) 1635:05:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC) 140:One Life to Live children 9486:research," would it not? 9468:in 2000 at age 16. Even 8291:22:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC) 8231:21:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC) 7988:Melange (fictional drug) 7591:List of Dune terminology 7337:16:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 7311:06:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 7292:02:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 7281:23:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 7254:20:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC) 7236:19:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC) 7215:19:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC) 7204:19:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC) 5912:Aww shucks, thanks ;) — 4065:06:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC) 4042:03:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC) 4031:01:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC) 4005:03:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 3971:18:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 3952:07:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 3914:00:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 3892:00:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 3878:22:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3864:19:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3840:03:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC) 3822:02:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC) 3808:17:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 3790:21:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 3776:14:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 3756:19:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 3746:17:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 3736:That's a stupid policy. 3731:02:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC) 3716:22:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC) 3260:Wow, that's awesome! -- 3216:BamBam's Emmy nomination 622:Non-free image rationale 585:Non-free media rationale 7687:WP:Notability (fiction) 7685:. Also, take a look at 7675:Talk:Total Annihilation 7418:WP:Notability (fiction) 7178:01:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC) 6642:19:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC) 6541:Thanks for the help! -- 6518:http://web.archive.org/ 5529:his SoapCentral profile 5519:FYI, your creating the 5486:Albums: Take a look at 5118:happy to nominate you. 4691:Thanks for the help. -- 4680:I was doing "| image = 4668:whatever is useless. — 4136:General Hospital images 3702:My Soap Opera Userboxes 3645:The Soap Opera Barnstar 2504:User talk:24.222.149.99 757:and no one got involved 7941:User:Mogzyx/TA Planets 7500:article need the link 6916:Its the Cookie Monster 6912: 6344:Hey there! Yes, we at 5182:Talk:Sandworms of Dune 4958:User talk:KingMorpheus 4646:Thanks for responding. 3156:User talk:70.20.86.192 3134:User talk:74.15.226.88 2518:Infobox soap character 1719:) 21:13, March 4, 2008 1086:User talk:70.17.183.28 725:User talk:AnmaFinotera 319:Are you talking about 260:Infobox soap character 8639:Roak here apologizing 8427:WP:Close paraphrasing 8204:User:Mogzyx/Empyrrean 8124:User:Mogzyx/Empyrrean 8035:planet articles into 7945:User:Mogzyx/Empyrrean 7601:(follow the link for 7502:Samantha "Sami" Brady 6911: 6715:. Give me a break. — 5481:Image:Thalia Rosa.jpg 4711:Bay State (tv series) 4677:Never mind, I got it. 2275:Carly Corinthos Jacks 2269:Fixed the navbox but 2158:Carly Corinthos Jacks 2064:Carly Corinthos Jacks 1655:User talk:King Gemini 1484:"No, you're an idiot" 1196:WikiProject Biography 246:User talk:King Gemini 42:of past discussions. 8468:WP:Logical quotation 8423:Who Killed Tom King? 8037:List of Dune planets 7875:List of Dune planets 7599:List of Dune planets 6713:two and a half pages 5444:User:OriginalCyn3000 5317:have to stay in the 5178:Talk:Hunters of Dune 5052:User:Gnevin/sandbox9 4833:for your actions at 4653:next to the image?-- 4510:Soap opera directors 4162:film is an image of 3900:List of Dune Planets 2966:You could <s: --> 2846:(The Rhani reverted 2156:navbox has the link 2099:all of the redirects 2008:Children of Passions 1438:Non-free promotional 1399:; no response as of 1296:may also be useful. 977:it is what it is. — 9363:Kendall Hart Slater 9037:constantly stating 8843:Kendall Hart Slater 8007:The Science of Dune 7873:along the lines of 7457:God Emperor of Dune 7399:Though I am a huge 7362:and a violation of 7262:Rebecca & Emily 7150:User talk:Remilyfan 6824:"T" Is for Trespass 6809:I personally think 6751:, would you accept 6305:for a tenth season 5736:Hmmm, actually the 5693:being deleted from 5533:copyright violation 5286:Senior Cast members 5258:Lists of actors.... 4918:. For example, for 4522:have articles like 4011:bit More about you! 3197:User talk:Carmaker1 3167:the Manual of Style 3141:the Manual of Style 1097:the Manual of Style 632:Non-free image data 352:Dune 2010 IMDB page 334:Hey random question 203:David Peris Noguera 9462:Bianca Montgomerys 8415:There is also the 8054:Total Annihilation 7773:Total Annihilation 7669:Total Annihilation 7430:Abulurd Harkonnen‎ 7416:) the topics fail 7059:Uh, you lost me.— 6926:! Cookies promote 6922:) has given you a 6913: 6860:User talk:Sean1019 6628:notes/"Alllegedly" 6595:Khan Noonien Singh 6379:Jill Foster Abbott 5695:As the World Turns 5031:Date span template 4504:Soap opera writers 3058:Infobox Television 2497:Relationship lists 2107:Knowledge:Redirect 1647:Relationship lists 1390:Promotional images 746:you had regarding 265:. This is part of 239:Soap relationships 18:User talk:TAnthony 9002: 8785: 8736: 8664:Soap Opera Digest 8328:Michael Corinthos 8184: 8167:comment added by 8103: 8086:comment added by 7928: 7911:comment added by 7861: 7844:comment added by 7732: 7715:comment added by 7647: 7630:comment added by 7560:Wikimedia Commons 7537:comment added by 7511:Soap Opera Digest 7360:original research 7226:comment added by 7194:comment added by 7101: 7084:comment added by 7055: 7038:comment added by 6997: 6980:comment added by 6421:Days of our Lives 6363:Bianca Montgomery 6297: 6280:comment added by 5909: 5908: 5513:User talk:Nuada79 5229: 5161:Sandworms of Dune 4756: 4740:comment added by 4524:Children of Salem 4519:Days of our Lives 4445:Soap Opera Digest 4336:Shai Hulud (band) 4071:Bianca Montgomery 4033: 4021:comment added by 4007: 3991:comment added by 3672: 3671: 3238:Soap Opera Digest 2979:for full version" 2977: 2597: 2010:, which is where 1721: 1707:comment added by 1688:Project talk page 1543: 1527:comment added by 1188:featured articles 1135:Infoboxes via AWB 940: 928:comment added by 315: 299:comment added by 87: 86: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 9862: 9478:One Life to Live 9136:Mireille Bouquet 9034:One Life to Live 9025:Mireille Bouquet 9001: 8999: 8993:WP:Editor review 8784: 8782: 8737: 8735: 8732: 8213: 8183: 8161: 8140: 8134: 8102: 8080: 7982:As expressed in 7927: 7905: 7860: 7838: 7752:One Life to Live 7731: 7709: 7646: 7624: 7610:Thanks again! — 7549: 7493:read the article 7481:User talk:Redtoe 7268:General Hospital 7238: 7206: 7100: 7078: 7054: 7032: 6996: 6974: 6514:Internet Archive 6375:Jessica Buchanan 6296: 6274: 6240: 6235: 6230: 6187: 6182: 6177: 6154: 6149: 6144: 6060:Carlo Hesser Bio 5983: 5978: 5973: 5951: 5946: 5941: 5878: 5871: 5870: 5817:User talk:Elonka 5765: 5323:Britney Jennings 5271: 5223: 5132: 5127: 5122: 4952:Dr. Ben Davidson 4811:Edit-warring/3RR 4735: 4687: 4685: 4616: 4611: 4589: 4584: 4575:Cassadine family 4259: 4252: 4220: 4213: 4168:Daniel Radcliffe 4062: 4057: 4016: 3986: 3766:own the images? 3639: 3632: 3631: 3274:Holy crap, that 3188:One Life to Live 3175:Tito Puente, Jr. 3062: 3056: 2975: 2968:out the comments 2588: 2522: 2516: 2213:steamrolling. — 2040:One Life to Live 1732: 1720: 1701: 1522: 1442: 1436: 1190:and random, and 923: 636: 630: 626: 620: 589: 583: 483: 482: 449:deleted contribs 433: 431:FightTheDarkness 340:Dune (2010 film) 294: 272:One Life to Live 264: 258: 103:Onelifefreak2007 68: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 9870: 9869: 9865: 9864: 9863: 9861: 9860: 9859: 9694:Age is trivial 9141:Sixteen Candles 9069:Marty Saybrooke 8725: 8683: 8641: 8435:Trevor St. John 8403:TV Guide Canada 8385:TV Guide Canada 8354: 8219: 8207: 8162: 8138: 8132: 8081: 7999:primary sources 7906: 7839: 7799: 7710: 7625: 7532: 7528: 7477: 7397: 7349: 7264: 7221: 7189: 7185: 7145: 7079: 7033: 6975: 6953: 6945: 6905: 6855: 6630: 6563: 6528:(I replaced it 6494: 6442:Cassie Callison 6383:Carly Corinthos 6326: 6275: 6259: 6137: 6112:Nikki and Paulo 6062: 6038: 6018: 6016:Dool characters 5927: 5869: 5812: 5787: 5763: 5758: 5756:Article cleanup 5714: 5691:Liberty Ciccone 5555: 5508: 5439: 5378: 5311: 5288: 5269: 5260: 5164: 5157:Hunters of Dune 5115: 5054:what you mean? 5033: 4987: 4954: 4853: 4813: 4732: 4713: 4629: 4577: 4495: 4390: 4331: 4272: 4201: 4138: 4074: 4050: 4013: 3978: 3963:The King Gemini 3959: 3921: 3902: 3848: 3832:The King Gemini 3800:The King Gemini 3768:The King Gemini 3738:The King Gemini 3708:The King Gemini 3704: 3675:LOL, thanks! — 3630: 3408:Spanish lullaby 3305:Spanish lullaby 3280:Spanish lullaby 3218: 3192: 3129: 3104: 3076: 3060: 3054: 3036: 2772: 2681: 2581: 2543:Spanish lullaby 2538: 2520: 2514: 2499: 2409:Spanish/Charity 2374:Spanish lullaby 2334:Spanish lullaby 2300:Spanish lullaby 2111:Spanish lullaby 2103:Carly Corinthos 2066: 2016:Spanish lullaby 1946:Spanish lullaby 1911: 1849:The King Gemini 1767:The King Gemini 1702: 1649: 1519: 1486: 1463: 1440: 1434: 1392: 1282: 1214: 1137: 1081: 1044: 1006: 1004:Liz Coleman fix 840: 740: 704: 652:Image:WWMax.png 634: 628: 627:template — not 624: 618: 587: 581: 571: 507: 434: 429: 428: 372: 336: 291: 262: 256: 241: 222: 198: 134: 92: 90:Chris Stack Pic 64: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 9868: 9858: 9857: 9856: 9855: 9854: 9853: 9852: 9851: 9822: 9821: 9820: 9819: 9804:Mandy Musgrave 9783: 9782: 9781: 9780: 9765: 9764: 9730: 9729: 9728: 9727: 9726: 9725: 9689: 9688: 9687: 9686: 9685: 9684: 9683: 9682: 9629: 9628: 9627: 9626: 9625: 9624: 9623: 9622: 9621: 9620: 9619: 9618: 9617: 9616: 9615: 9614: 9613: 9612: 9611: 9610: 9568: 9567: 9566: 9565: 9564: 9563: 9562: 9561: 9560: 9559: 9558: 9557: 9556: 9555: 9554: 9553: 9502: 9501: 9500: 9499: 9498: 9497: 9496: 9495: 9494: 9493: 9492: 9491: 9490: 9489: 9488: 9487: 9470:Carolyn Hinsey 9442: 9441: 9440: 9439: 9438: 9437: 9436: 9435: 9434: 9433: 9432: 9431: 9430: 9429: 9428: 9427: 9419:Michael Malone 9406:weasel wording 9386: 9385: 9384: 9383: 9382: 9381: 9380: 9379: 9378: 9377: 9376: 9375: 9374: 9373: 9345: 9344: 9343: 9342: 9341: 9340: 9339: 9338: 9337: 9336: 9335: 9334: 9333: 9332: 9305: 9304: 9303: 9302: 9301: 9300: 9299: 9298: 9297: 9296: 9295: 9294: 9293: 9292: 9275: 9274: 9273: 9272: 9271: 9270: 9269: 9268: 9267: 9266: 9265: 9264: 9235: 9234: 9233: 9232: 9231: 9230: 9229: 9228: 9227: 9226: 9207:Pauline Fowler 9193: 9192: 9191: 9190: 9189: 9188: 9187: 9186: 9185: 9184: 9171: 9170: 9169: 9168: 9167: 9166: 9165: 9164: 9163: 9162: 9159:Alicia Minshew 9102: 9101: 9100: 9099: 9098: 9097: 9077: 9076: 9075: 9074: 9073: 9072: 9059: 9058: 9057: 9056: 9055: 9054: 9047:Jason Voorhees 9015: 9014: 9013: 9012: 9011: 9010: 8972: 8971: 8959: 8958: 8957: 8956: 8955: 8954: 8953: 8952: 8951: 8950: 8949: 8948: 8947: 8946: 8945: 8944: 8943: 8942: 8941: 8940: 8901: 8900: 8899: 8898: 8897: 8896: 8895: 8894: 8893: 8892: 8891: 8890: 8889: 8888: 8887: 8886: 8885: 8884: 8883: 8882: 8724: 8721: 8719: 8717: 8716: 8715: 8714: 8682: 8679: 8678: 8677: 8668:Pauline Fowler 8640: 8637: 8636: 8635: 8634: 8633: 8632: 8631: 8630: 8629: 8628: 8627: 8604: 8603: 8602: 8601: 8600: 8599: 8598: 8597: 8596: 8595: 8521: 8520: 8519: 8518: 8517: 8516: 8515: 8514: 8461: 8460: 8459: 8458: 8451: 8450: 8449: 8448: 8441: 8440: 8439: 8438: 8431:Michael Malone 8413:Who Shot Phil? 8353: 8348: 8347: 8346: 8345: 8344: 8343: 8342: 8310: 8309: 8308: 8307: 8294: 8293: 8282: 8281: 8268: 8267: 8248:Pauline Fowler 8239: 8238: 8218: 8215: 8200: 8199: 8158: 8157: 8156: 8155: 8154: 8153: 8152: 8151: 8150: 8149: 8111: 8110: 8109: 8108: 8107: 8106: 8105: 8104: 8069: 8068: 8067: 8066: 8065: 8064: 8045: 8044: 8043: 8042: 8041: 8040: 7975: 7974: 7973: 7972: 7971: 7970: 7961: 7960: 7959: 7958: 7957: 7956: 7932: 7931: 7930: 7929: 7898: 7897: 7835: 7834: 7831: 7828: 7825: 7822: 7819: 7816: 7813: 7810: 7807: 7798: 7795: 7794: 7793: 7782: 7781: 7777: 7776: 7764: 7763: 7705: 7704: 7703: 7702: 7701: 7700: 7651: 7650: 7649: 7648: 7618: 7617: 7607: 7606: 7574: 7573: 7568: 7567: 7555: 7554: 7527: 7524: 7522: 7485: 7484: 7483: 7476: 7473: 7472: 7471: 7410:Erasmus (Dune) 7396: 7390: 7364:WP:CRYSTALBALL 7356: 7355: 7348: 7345: 7344: 7343: 7342: 7341: 7340: 7339: 7316: 7315: 7314: 7313: 7295: 7294: 7263: 7260: 7259: 7258: 7257: 7256: 7218: 7217: 7184: 7181: 7154: 7153: 7152: 7144: 7141: 7140: 7139: 7128:NBC cancelled 7125: 7124: 7067: 7066: 7014: 7013: 6952: 6946: 6932: 6906: 6904: 6901: 6869:trivia to the 6863: 6862: 6854: 6848: 6847: 6846: 6845: 6844: 6843: 6842: 6841: 6840: 6839: 6838: 6831:fun debate! — 6828: 6811:Grey's Anatomy 6792: 6791: 6790: 6789: 6788: 6787: 6786: 6785: 6763: 6762: 6761: 6760: 6759: 6758: 6757: 6756: 6727: 6726: 6725: 6724: 6723: 6722: 6695: 6694: 6693: 6692: 6691: 6690: 6677: 6676: 6675: 6674: 6656: 6655: 6629: 6623: 6622: 6621: 6620: 6619: 6562: 6557: 6556: 6555: 6554: 6553: 6493: 6490: 6489: 6488: 6473: 6472: 6458: 6457: 6391: 6390: 6359:Pauline Fowler 6355:Luke and Laura 6325: 6322: 6320: 6318: 6317: 6258: 6253: 6252: 6251: 6250: 6249: 6248: 6247: 6246: 6245: 6208: 6204: 6195: 6194: 6193: 6192: 6136: 6133: 6132: 6131: 6121: 6120: 6108:Pauline Fowler 6102: 6101: 6061: 6058: 6043:Deaths in 2008 6037: 6036:Reilly's death 6034: 6017: 6014: 6013: 6012: 6011: 6010: 6009: 6008: 6007: 6006: 5926: 5921: 5920: 5919: 5907: 5906: 5887: 5886: 5881: 5879: 5868: 5865: 5863: 5861: 5860: 5859: 5858: 5821: 5820: 5819: 5811: 5808: 5807: 5806: 5786: 5783: 5782: 5781: 5757: 5754: 5753: 5752: 5713: 5710: 5686: 5685: 5684: 5683: 5648:Melanie Layton 5644: 5643: 5610:Phenomenon8980 5606: 5605: 5588:Phenomenon8980 5581: 5580: 5559:Phenomenon8980 5554: 5553:Phenomenon8980 5551: 5517: 5516: 5515: 5507: 5504: 5503: 5502: 5493: 5492: 5491: 5484: 5473: 5451: 5450: 5438: 5437:Image guidance 5435: 5434: 5433: 5426: 5419: 5412: 5405: 5398: 5391: 5383: 5382: 5377: 5374: 5373: 5372: 5363:Pauline Fowler 5313:How long does 5310: 5307: 5306: 5305: 5287: 5284: 5259: 5256: 5255: 5254: 5253: 5252: 5234: 5233: 5217: 5214: 5213: 5212: 5209: 5203: 5174: 5173: 5170:User talk:Ceha 5163: 5154: 5153: 5152: 5114: 5111: 5110: 5109: 5108: 5107: 5106: 5105: 5104: 5103: 5102: 5101: 5032: 5029: 5028: 5027: 5026: 5025: 4986: 4979: 4961: 4960: 4953: 4950: 4949: 4948: 4947: 4946: 4945: 4944: 4943: 4942: 4933: 4852: 4849: 4812: 4809: 4808: 4807: 4806: 4805: 4774: 4773: 4731: 4730:To Tame a Land 4728: 4712: 4709: 4708: 4707: 4706: 4705: 4704: 4703: 4689: 4684:File:PHOTO.jpg 4678: 4647: 4628: 4625: 4624: 4623: 4622: 4621: 4576: 4573: 4572: 4571: 4570: 4569: 4551: 4550: 4494: 4491: 4490: 4489: 4488: 4487: 4475:Okay, thanks. 4470: 4469: 4413:Melissa Fumero 4389: 4386: 4370: 4369: 4330: 4327: 4326: 4325: 4315: 4271: 4268: 4267: 4266: 4265: 4264: 4200: 4197: 4196: 4195: 4180: 4179: 4176:Pauline Fowler 4174:Articles like 4172:living people. 4137: 4134: 4133: 4132: 4131: 4130: 4129: 4128: 4073: 4068: 4049: 4046: 4045: 4044: 4012: 4009: 3977: 3974: 3958: 3955: 3920: 3917: 3901: 3898: 3897: 3896: 3895: 3894: 3847: 3844: 3843: 3842: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3811: 3810: 3795: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3779: 3778: 3759: 3758: 3734: 3733: 3703: 3700: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3670: 3669: 3648: 3647: 3642: 3640: 3629: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3596: 3595: 3594: 3593: 3553:Meet the Press 3548: 3547: 3523: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3481:speed to you. 3385: 3384: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3272: 3243: 3217: 3214: 3212: 3200: 3199: 3191: 3185: 3159: 3158: 3137: 3136: 3128: 3125: 3103: 3097: 3095: 3075: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3035: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2980: 2972: 2969: 2915: 2914: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2820: 2819: 2803: 2771: 2768: 2745: 2744: 2741: 2738: 2734: 2731: 2728: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2716: 2713: 2710: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2694: 2691: 2687:Read/memorize 2680: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2587:9 March 2008 2580: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2566: 2558: 2537: 2534: 2532: 2507: 2506: 2498: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2462: 2434: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2122: 2121: 2076: 2075: 2065: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2035:Ethan Winthrop 2030: 2014:redirects. — 1993: 1989: 1921: 1920: 1910: 1909:Soap infoboxes 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1746: 1737:and have been 1723: 1722: 1675:Pauline Fowler 1671:Kevin Buchanan 1659: 1658: 1648: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1628:Pauline Fowler 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1549:Pauline Fowler 1518: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1485: 1482: 1462: 1459: 1407: 1406: 1391: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1358: 1357: 1330: 1329: 1315: 1281: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1239: 1213: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1165: 1164: 1136: 1133: 1101:Linda Gottlieb 1089: 1088: 1080: 1077: 1049: 1048: 1043: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1021: 1005: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 997: 996: 995: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 988: 987: 986: 985: 984: 950: 839: 833: 832: 831: 830: 829: 828: 827: 812: 809:Pauline Fowler 799: 798: 797: 796: 739: 736: 735: 734: 703: 702:Check this out 700: 699: 698: 697: 696: 695: 694: 675: 674: 673: 672: 658: 655: 645: 644: 615: 570: 567: 566: 565: 564: 563: 506: 503: 502: 501: 500: 499: 498: 497: 371: 368: 335: 332: 331: 330: 290: 287: 249: 248: 240: 237: 221: 218: 197: 194: 193: 192: 191: 190: 189: 188: 133: 130: 129: 128: 91: 88: 85: 84: 79: 74: 69: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 9867: 9850: 9846: 9842: 9838: 9837: 9836: 9833: 9828: 9827: 9826: 9825: 9824: 9823: 9818: 9814: 9810: 9805: 9800: 9795: 9791: 9787: 9786: 9785: 9784: 9778: 9777:Starr Manning 9774: 9769: 9768: 9767: 9766: 9763: 9760: 9756: 9751: 9750: 9749: 9748: 9744: 9740: 9734: 9724: 9720: 9716: 9711: 9710: 9709: 9706: 9702: 9697: 9693: 9692: 9691: 9690: 9681: 9677: 9673: 9668: 9667: 9666: 9665: 9664: 9663: 9662: 9658: 9654: 9650: 9645: 9644: 9643: 9642: 9639: 9634: 9609: 9605: 9601: 9596: 9595: 9594: 9591: 9586: 9585: 9584: 9583: 9582: 9581: 9580: 9579: 9578: 9577: 9576: 9575: 9574: 9573: 9572: 9571: 9570: 9569: 9552: 9548: 9544: 9539: 9535: 9531: 9527: 9523: 9518: 9517: 9516: 9515: 9514: 9513: 9512: 9511: 9510: 9509: 9508: 9507: 9506: 9505: 9504: 9503: 9484: 9479: 9475: 9471: 9467: 9463: 9458: 9457: 9456: 9455: 9454: 9453: 9452: 9451: 9450: 9449: 9448: 9447: 9446: 9445: 9444: 9443: 9425: 9420: 9416: 9412: 9407: 9402: 9401: 9400: 9399: 9398: 9397: 9396: 9395: 9394: 9393: 9392: 9391: 9390: 9389: 9388: 9387: 9372: 9369: 9364: 9359: 9358: 9357: 9356: 9355: 9354: 9353: 9352: 9351: 9350: 9349: 9348: 9347: 9346: 9329: 9324: 9319: 9318: 9317: 9316: 9315: 9314: 9313: 9312: 9311: 9310: 9309: 9308: 9307: 9306: 9289: 9288: 9287: 9286: 9285: 9284: 9283: 9282: 9281: 9280: 9279: 9278: 9277: 9276: 9263: 9259: 9255: 9251: 9247: 9246: 9245: 9244: 9243: 9242: 9241: 9240: 9239: 9238: 9237: 9236: 9225: 9221: 9217: 9212: 9208: 9203: 9202: 9201: 9200: 9199: 9198: 9197: 9196: 9195: 9194: 9181: 9180: 9179: 9178: 9177: 9176: 9175: 9174: 9173: 9172: 9160: 9155: 9154: 9153: 9150: 9146: 9142: 9137: 9133: 9129: 9124: 9120: 9115: 9110: 9109: 9108: 9107: 9106: 9105: 9104: 9103: 9096: 9092: 9088: 9083: 9082: 9081: 9080: 9079: 9078: 9070: 9065: 9064: 9063: 9062: 9061: 9060: 9052: 9048: 9044: 9040: 9039:Starr Manning 9036: 9035: 9030: 9026: 9021: 9020: 9019: 9018: 9017: 9016: 9007: 9006: 9005: 9000: 8994: 8989: 8988: 8987: 8983: 8979: 8974: 8973: 8969: 8965: 8964: 8963: 8939: 8935: 8931: 8927: 8926: 8921: 8920: 8919: 8918: 8917: 8916: 8915: 8914: 8913: 8912: 8911: 8910: 8909: 8908: 8907: 8906: 8905: 8904: 8903: 8902: 8880: 8876: 8875: 8874: 8871: 8867: 8862: 8861: 8860: 8856: 8852: 8848: 8844: 8839: 8838: 8837: 8834: 8829: 8828: 8827: 8823: 8819: 8815: 8814: 8813: 8810: 8805: 8804: 8803: 8799: 8795: 8790: 8789: 8788: 8783: 8776: 8775: 8774: 8770: 8766: 8762: 8758: 8753: 8752: 8751: 8748: 8743: 8742: 8741: 8740: 8733: 8720: 8713: 8709: 8705: 8701: 8700: 8699: 8698: 8697: 8696: 8692: 8688: 8676: 8673: 8669: 8665: 8661: 8657: 8656: 8655: 8654: 8650: 8646: 8626: 8622: 8618: 8614: 8613: 8612: 8611: 8610: 8609: 8608: 8607: 8606: 8605: 8592: 8591: 8590: 8586: 8582: 8577: 8576: 8575: 8572: 8567: 8566: 8565: 8561: 8557: 8552: 8551: 8550: 8546: 8542: 8537: 8536: 8535: 8534: 8530: 8526: 8513: 8509: 8505: 8501: 8496: 8495: 8494: 8491: 8487: 8483: 8482: 8481: 8477: 8473: 8469: 8465: 8464: 8463: 8462: 8455: 8454: 8453: 8452: 8445: 8444: 8443: 8442: 8436: 8432: 8428: 8424: 8420: 8419: 8414: 8410: 8409: 8404: 8400: 8399: 8398: 8395: 8391: 8386: 8382: 8377: 8376: 8375: 8374: 8370: 8366: 8361: 8359: 8352: 8341: 8337: 8333: 8329: 8325: 8324:Robin Scorpio 8321: 8316: 8315: 8314: 8313: 8312: 8311: 8306: 8303: 8298: 8297: 8296: 8295: 8292: 8289: 8284: 8283: 8279: 8275: 8270: 8269: 8265: 8261: 8257: 8253: 8249: 8245: 8241: 8240: 8235: 8234: 8233: 8232: 8228: 8224: 8214: 8211: 8205: 8198: 8195: 8191: 8187: 8186: 8185: 8182: 8178: 8174: 8170: 8166: 8148: 8145: 8137: 8129: 8125: 8121: 8120: 8119: 8118: 8117: 8116: 8115: 8114: 8113: 8112: 8101: 8097: 8093: 8089: 8085: 8077: 8076: 8075: 8074: 8073: 8072: 8071: 8070: 8063: 8060: 8055: 8051: 8050: 8049: 8048: 8047: 8046: 8038: 8034: 8030: 8025: 8021: 8017: 8012: 8008: 8004: 8000: 7996: 7994: 7989: 7985: 7981: 7980: 7979: 7978: 7977: 7976: 7967: 7966: 7965: 7964: 7963: 7962: 7954: 7950: 7946: 7942: 7938: 7937: 7936: 7935: 7934: 7933: 7926: 7922: 7918: 7914: 7910: 7902: 7901: 7900: 7899: 7896: 7893: 7888: 7884: 7880: 7876: 7872: 7868: 7864: 7863: 7862: 7859: 7855: 7851: 7847: 7843: 7832: 7829: 7826: 7823: 7820: 7817: 7814: 7811: 7808: 7805: 7804: 7803: 7792: 7789: 7784: 7783: 7779: 7778: 7774: 7770: 7766: 7765: 7761: 7757: 7753: 7749: 7744: 7740: 7735: 7734: 7733: 7730: 7726: 7722: 7718: 7714: 7699: 7696: 7692: 7688: 7684: 7680: 7676: 7671: 7670: 7665: 7661: 7657: 7656: 7655: 7654: 7653: 7652: 7645: 7641: 7637: 7633: 7629: 7622: 7621: 7620: 7619: 7616: 7613: 7609: 7608: 7604: 7600: 7596: 7592: 7588: 7584: 7580: 7576: 7575: 7570: 7569: 7565: 7561: 7557: 7556: 7552: 7551: 7550: 7548: 7544: 7540: 7536: 7523: 7520: 7519: 7516: 7512: 7507: 7503: 7499: 7498:Marlena Evans 7494: 7490: 7482: 7479: 7478: 7470: 7466: 7462: 7458: 7454: 7453: 7452: 7451: 7448: 7444: 7440: 7435: 7431: 7427: 7422: 7419: 7415: 7411: 7407: 7402: 7394: 7389: 7388: 7385: 7380: 7376: 7375: 7370: 7365: 7361: 7354: 7351: 7350: 7338: 7335: 7331: 7327: 7322: 7321: 7320: 7319: 7318: 7317: 7312: 7308: 7304: 7299: 7298: 7297: 7296: 7293: 7290: 7285: 7284: 7283: 7282: 7278: 7274: 7269: 7255: 7252: 7248: 7243: 7242: 7241: 7240: 7239: 7237: 7233: 7229: 7228:84.195.19.239 7225: 7216: 7213: 7209: 7208: 7207: 7205: 7201: 7197: 7196:84.195.19.239 7193: 7180: 7179: 7176: 7171: 7167: 7163: 7159: 7151: 7147: 7146: 7138: 7135: 7131: 7127: 7126: 7121: 7117: 7113: 7109: 7104: 7103: 7102: 7099: 7095: 7091: 7087: 7083: 7074: 7070: 7065: 7062: 7058: 7057: 7056: 7053: 7049: 7045: 7041: 7037: 7029: 7025: 7021: 7017: 7012: 7009: 7005: 7000: 6999: 6998: 6995: 6991: 6987: 6983: 6979: 6971: 6967: 6963: 6959: 6956: 6950: 6944: 6942: 6938: 6933: 6929: 6925: 6921: 6917: 6910: 6900: 6899: 6896: 6891: 6887: 6883: 6878: 6876: 6872: 6868: 6861: 6857: 6856: 6853: 6837: 6834: 6829: 6825: 6820: 6816: 6812: 6807: 6802: 6801: 6800: 6799: 6798: 6797: 6796: 6795: 6794: 6793: 6784: 6780: 6776: 6775:Mangajunglist 6771: 6770: 6769: 6768: 6767: 6766: 6765: 6764: 6754: 6750: 6746: 6742: 6738: 6735: 6734: 6733: 6732: 6731: 6730: 6729: 6728: 6721: 6718: 6714: 6710: 6706: 6701: 6700: 6699: 6698: 6697: 6696: 6688: 6683: 6682: 6681: 6680: 6679: 6678: 6673: 6669: 6665: 6664:Mangajunglist 6660: 6659: 6658: 6657: 6654: 6651: 6646: 6645: 6644: 6643: 6639: 6635: 6634:Mangajunglist 6627: 6618: 6614: 6610: 6606: 6605: 6604: 6601: 6596: 6591: 6590: 6589: 6588: 6584: 6580: 6576: 6572: 6568: 6561: 6552: 6548: 6544: 6540: 6539: 6538: 6535: 6531: 6527: 6523: 6519: 6515: 6511: 6510: 6509: 6508: 6504: 6500: 6487: 6483: 6479: 6475: 6474: 6471: 6468: 6464: 6460: 6459: 6455: 6451: 6447: 6446:Cramer family 6443: 6439: 6435: 6431: 6427: 6423: 6422: 6417: 6416:Charlie Banks 6413: 6408: 6404: 6400: 6396: 6393: 6392: 6388: 6384: 6380: 6376: 6372: 6368: 6364: 6360: 6356: 6352: 6347: 6343: 6342: 6341: 6340: 6336: 6332: 6321: 6316: 6313: 6308: 6304: 6300: 6299: 6298: 6295: 6291: 6287: 6283: 6279: 6270: 6269: 6263: 6257: 6244: 6241: 6236: 6231: 6224: 6219: 6218: 6217: 6214: 6209: 6205: 6201: 6200: 6199: 6198: 6197: 6196: 6191: 6188: 6183: 6178: 6171: 6170: 6169: 6166: 6161: 6160: 6159: 6158: 6155: 6150: 6145: 6130: 6127: 6123: 6122: 6118: 6113: 6109: 6104: 6103: 6098: 6097: 6096: 6095: 6091: 6087: 6082: 6078: 6074: 6070: 6066: 6057: 6056: 6052: 6048: 6044: 6033: 6032: 6029: 6026: 6023: 6005: 6002: 5998: 5997: 5996: 5993: 5989: 5988: 5987: 5984: 5979: 5974: 5967: 5966: 5965: 5962: 5958: 5957: 5956: 5955: 5952: 5947: 5942: 5937:the actress. 5936: 5931: 5925: 5918: 5915: 5911: 5910: 5905: 5901: 5897: 5893: 5889: 5888: 5885: 5882: 5877: 5872: 5864: 5857: 5854: 5849: 5848: 5847: 5844: 5841: 5838: 5833: 5832: 5831: 5830: 5827: 5818: 5814: 5813: 5805: 5802: 5798: 5797: 5796: 5795: 5792: 5780: 5777: 5772: 5771: 5770: 5769: 5766: 5751: 5748: 5743: 5739: 5735: 5734: 5733: 5732: 5728: 5724: 5718: 5709: 5708: 5704: 5700: 5696: 5692: 5682: 5679: 5675: 5670: 5669: 5668: 5667: 5666: 5665: 5661: 5657: 5653: 5649: 5642: 5639: 5634: 5630: 5626: 5622: 5621: 5620: 5619: 5615: 5611: 5604: 5600: 5599: 5598: 5597: 5593: 5589: 5584: 5579: 5576: 5571: 5570: 5569: 5568: 5564: 5560: 5550: 5549: 5546: 5542: 5538: 5534: 5531:is a blatant 5530: 5526: 5522: 5514: 5510: 5509: 5501: 5498: 5494: 5489: 5485: 5482: 5478: 5477: 5474: 5471: 5467: 5466: 5465: 5464: 5461: 5457: 5448: 5445: 5441: 5440: 5432: 5430: 5427: 5425: 5423: 5420: 5418: 5416: 5413: 5411: 5409: 5406: 5404: 5402: 5399: 5397: 5395: 5392: 5390: 5388: 5385: 5384: 5380: 5379: 5371: 5368: 5364: 5360: 5355: 5354: 5353: 5352: 5348: 5344: 5340: 5336: 5332: 5328: 5324: 5320: 5316: 5304: 5301: 5297: 5293: 5292: 5291: 5283: 5282: 5279: 5278: 5277: 5273: 5272: 5265: 5251: 5248: 5243: 5238: 5237: 5236: 5235: 5232: 5227: 5222: 5218: 5215: 5210: 5207: 5206: 5204: 5201: 5200: 5199: 5198: 5195: 5191: 5187: 5183: 5179: 5172: 5171: 5168:Comment from 5166: 5165: 5162: 5158: 5151: 5147: 5143: 5139: 5138: 5137: 5136: 5133: 5128: 5123: 5100: 5097: 5093: 5092: 5090: 5089: 5088: 5084: 5080: 5076: 5075: 5074: 5071: 5067: 5066: 5065: 5061: 5057: 5053: 5049: 5048: 5047: 5046: 5042: 5038: 5024: 5020: 5016: 5012: 5011: 5010: 5007: 5003: 5002: 5001: 5000: 4996: 4992: 4984: 4978: 4977: 4974: 4970: 4966: 4959: 4956: 4955: 4941: 4938: 4934: 4932: 4929: 4925: 4921: 4917: 4913: 4909: 4908: 4907: 4903: 4899: 4895: 4894: 4893: 4890: 4886: 4885: 4884: 4880: 4876: 4872: 4868: 4867: 4866: 4865: 4862: 4858: 4848: 4847: 4844: 4840: 4839:Vincent Jones 4836: 4832: 4831:violating 3RR 4828: 4823: 4821: 4817: 4804: 4801: 4797: 4793: 4792: 4791: 4790: 4789: 4788: 4784: 4780: 4772: 4769: 4765: 4764: 4759: 4758: 4757: 4755: 4751: 4747: 4743: 4739: 4727: 4726: 4722: 4718: 4717:Justinkrivers 4702: 4698: 4694: 4690: 4686: 4679: 4676: 4675: 4674: 4671: 4666: 4665: 4664: 4660: 4656: 4652: 4648: 4645: 4644: 4643: 4642: 4638: 4634: 4620: 4617: 4612: 4605: 4604: 4603: 4600: 4596: 4595: 4594: 4593: 4590: 4585: 4568: 4564: 4560: 4555: 4554: 4553: 4552: 4549: 4546: 4541: 4540: 4539: 4538: 4534: 4530: 4525: 4521: 4520: 4514: 4512: 4511: 4506: 4505: 4498: 4486: 4482: 4478: 4474: 4473: 4472: 4471: 4468: 4465: 4461: 4457: 4453: 4452: 4447: 4446: 4441: 4437: 4432: 4431: 4430: 4429: 4425: 4421: 4416: 4414: 4409: 4406: 4402: 4397: 4395: 4388:OLTL question 4385: 4383: 4379: 4375: 4368: 4365: 4361: 4357: 4353: 4352: 4351: 4349: 4345: 4341: 4337: 4324: 4321: 4316: 4314: 4311: 4306: 4302: 4297: 4296: 4295: 4293: 4289: 4285: 4280: 4276: 4263: 4260: 4258: 4253: 4251: 4245: 4244: 4243: 4240: 4236: 4232: 4227: 4226: 4225: 4224: 4221: 4219: 4214: 4212: 4206: 4194: 4191: 4187: 4182: 4181: 4177: 4173: 4169: 4165: 4161: 4156: 4155: 4154: 4153: 4150: 4145: 4141: 4127: 4124: 4119: 4118: 4117: 4113: 4109: 4104: 4103: 4102: 4098: 4094: 4090: 4089: 4088: 4087: 4083: 4079: 4072: 4067: 4066: 4063: 4058: 4043: 4040: 4036: 4035: 4034: 4032: 4028: 4024: 4020: 4008: 4006: 4002: 3998: 3994: 3990: 3984: 3973: 3972: 3968: 3964: 3954: 3953: 3949: 3945: 3940: 3936: 3934: 3933:Roger Howarth 3928: 3926: 3916: 3915: 3911: 3907: 3893: 3889: 3885: 3881: 3880: 3879: 3876: 3872: 3871:Camden, Maine 3868: 3867: 3866: 3865: 3861: 3857: 3853: 3841: 3837: 3833: 3829: 3828: 3823: 3820: 3815: 3814: 3813: 3812: 3809: 3805: 3801: 3797: 3796: 3791: 3788: 3783: 3782: 3781: 3780: 3777: 3773: 3769: 3765: 3761: 3760: 3757: 3754: 3750: 3749: 3748: 3747: 3743: 3739: 3732: 3729: 3725: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3713: 3709: 3695: 3691: 3687: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3678: 3674: 3673: 3668: 3664: 3660: 3656: 3655: 3650: 3649: 3646: 3643: 3638: 3633: 3623: 3619: 3615: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3605: 3601: 3592: 3588: 3584: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3574: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3562: 3558: 3554: 3546: 3543: 3539: 3538: 3537: 3536: 3532: 3528: 3505: 3502: 3498: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3488: 3484: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3474: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3463: 3459: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3449: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3438: 3434: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3424: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3413: 3409: 3404: 3401:Same here... 3400: 3399: 3398: 3394: 3390: 3386: 3372: 3369: 3365: 3364: 3363: 3359: 3355: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3346: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3336: 3332: 3327: 3326: 3325: 3322: 3318: 3314: 3310: 3306: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3296: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3285: 3281: 3277: 3273: 3271: 3267: 3263: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3254: 3250: 3249: 3244: 3240: 3239: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3227: 3223: 3213: 3210: 3209: 3206: 3198: 3194: 3193: 3189: 3184: 3183: 3180: 3176: 3172: 3171:Kortney Kayle 3168: 3164: 3157: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3147: 3142: 3135: 3131: 3130: 3124: 3123: 3120: 3116: 3111: 3110: 3101: 3096: 3093: 3092: 3088: 3084: 3080: 3069: 3066: 3059: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3045: 3041: 3023: 3020: 3017: 3014: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3004: 3003: 3002: 2989: 2985: 2981: 2973: 2970: 2965: 2964: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2957: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2948: 2945: 2942: 2937: 2932: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2922: 2917: 2916: 2912: 2908: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2900: 2897: 2894: 2891: 2885: 2881: 2871: 2867: 2863: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2853: 2849: 2845: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2832: 2829: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2818: 2815: 2812: 2809: 2804: 2802: 2799: 2796: 2793: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2782: 2778: 2767: 2766: 2763: 2760: 2757: 2752: 2749: 2742: 2739: 2735: 2732: 2729: 2726: 2721: 2717: 2714: 2711: 2708: 2707: 2704: 2698: 2697: 2695: 2692: 2690: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2666: 2663: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2652: 2648: 2643: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2633: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2622: 2618: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2609: 2604: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2596: 2593:was added at 2592: 2586: 2574: 2571: 2567: 2564: 2559: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2548: 2544: 2533: 2530: 2529: 2526: 2519: 2512: 2505: 2501: 2500: 2486: 2482: 2478: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2468: 2463: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2453: 2449: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2439: 2435: 2433: 2430: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2418: 2414: 2410: 2398: 2394: 2390: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2365: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2320: 2316: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2305: 2301: 2296: 2283: 2280: 2276: 2272: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2250: 2246: 2242: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2219: 2216: 2211: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2193: 2189: 2185: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2170: 2167: 2163: 2159: 2155: 2150: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2138: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2085: 2081: 2074: 2073: 2068: 2067: 2049: 2046: 2042: 2041: 2036: 2031: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2004: 2003: 2002: 1999: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1966: 1962: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1943: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1919: 1918: 1913: 1912: 1892: 1889: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1824: 1821: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1798: 1795: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1776: 1772: 1768: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1754: 1751: 1747: 1744: 1740: 1736: 1731: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1718: 1714: 1710: 1706: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1693: 1689: 1685: 1681: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1667:Joey Buchanan 1664: 1657: 1656: 1651: 1650: 1636: 1633: 1629: 1624: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1605: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1588: 1585: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1574: 1570: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1560: 1557: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1542: 1538: 1534: 1530: 1526: 1512: 1509: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1498: 1494: 1489: 1481: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1468: 1458: 1457: 1454: 1448: 1446: 1439: 1431: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1405: 1402: 1398: 1394: 1393: 1381: 1378: 1377: 1373:No problem. 1372: 1371: 1370: 1367: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1356: 1353: 1352: 1346: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1336: 1328: 1325: 1320: 1316: 1314: 1311: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1301: 1300: 1295: 1291: 1287: 1271: 1268: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1245: 1240: 1238: 1235: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1211: 1204: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1174: 1170: 1163: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1146: 1142: 1132: 1131: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1107: 1106:Dirty Dancing 1102: 1098: 1094: 1087: 1083: 1082: 1076: 1075: 1072: 1068: 1065: 1061: 1058: 1054: 1046: 1045: 1037: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1007: 983: 980: 975: 974: 973: 969: 965: 964:70.17.178.143 960: 959: 958: 955: 951: 949: 946: 942: 941: 939: 935: 931: 930:70.17.178.143 927: 921: 920: 919: 916: 911: 910: 909: 906: 901: 897: 896: 894: 890: 889:70.17.178.143 887: 883: 882: 881: 877: 873: 872:70.17.178.143 869: 868: 867: 864: 860: 859:Pamela Stuart 856: 855: 854: 853: 849: 845: 844:70.17.178.143 838: 826: 823: 818: 813: 810: 805: 804: 803: 802: 801: 800: 795: 791: 787: 783: 779: 775: 770: 769: 768: 767: 766: 765: 762: 758: 753: 749: 745: 733: 730: 726: 722: 721: 720: 719: 715: 711: 707: 693: 690: 685: 684:Jennifer Grey 681: 680: 679: 678: 677: 676: 671: 667: 663: 659: 656: 653: 649: 648: 647: 646: 643: 640: 633: 623: 616: 614: 611: 607: 606: 605: 604: 600: 596: 591: 586: 579: 574: 562: 558: 554: 550: 549: 548: 545: 541: 537: 533: 529: 524: 523: 522: 521: 517: 513: 496: 492: 488: 480: 477: 474: 471: 468: 465: 462: 459: 456: 455:nuke contribs 453: 450: 447: 444: 441: 438: 432: 426: 425: 424: 420: 416: 411: 410: 409: 406: 401: 397: 393: 392: 391: 390: 386: 382: 378: 367: 366: 362: 358: 353: 349: 345: 342:adapation by 341: 329: 326: 322: 321:Joey Buchanan 318: 317: 316: 314: 310: 306: 302: 298: 286: 285: 282: 278: 277:Joey Buchanan 274: 273: 268: 261: 254: 247: 243: 242: 236: 235: 231: 227: 217: 216: 212: 208: 207:theolimeister 204: 187: 184: 180: 179: 178: 174: 170: 165: 164: 163: 160: 156: 155: 154: 153: 149: 145: 141: 137: 127: 124: 119: 115: 114: 113: 112: 108: 104: 99: 95: 94:Hey TAnthony 83: 80: 78: 75: 73: 70: 67: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 9798: 9754: 9735: 9731: 9700: 9695: 9632: 9630: 9534:Bart Simpson 9529: 9482: 9477: 9414: 9327: 9322: 9250:Collectonian 9210: 9144: 9140: 9132:Jason Bourne 9127: 9118: 9113: 9051:Todd Manning 9032: 9029:Jason Bourne 8960: 8923: 8865: 8726: 8718: 8684: 8663: 8659: 8642: 8522: 8416: 8406: 8402: 8389: 8384: 8381:Todd Manning 8362: 8355: 8320:Jason Morgan 8277: 8273: 8260:Todd Manning 8220: 8201: 8159: 8053: 8032: 8028: 8015: 8006: 8002: 7992: 7886: 7882: 7866: 7836: 7800: 7759: 7751: 7747: 7738: 7706: 7690: 7667: 7594: 7582: 7539:89.104.11.30 7529: 7521: 7510: 7492: 7486: 7456: 7442: 7438: 7433: 7428:vs. PRODing 7423: 7405: 7400: 7398: 7392: 7377:, which was 7374:Nurse Jackie 7372: 7357: 7330:Rebecca Shaw 7326:Ethan Lovett 7267: 7265: 7219: 7186: 7158:Rebecca Shaw 7155: 7129: 7119: 7115: 7111: 7107: 7075: 7071: 7068: 7030: 7026: 7022: 7018: 7016:Hi Tanthony 7015: 7003: 6972: 6968: 6964: 6960: 6957: 6955:Hi Tanthony 6954: 6948: 6937:subst:Cookie 6934: 6914: 6889: 6879: 6866: 6864: 6851: 6823: 6814: 6810: 6805: 6752: 6748: 6744: 6712: 6708: 6631: 6625: 6564: 6495: 6462: 6419: 6411: 6386: 6367:Todd Manning 6327: 6319: 6306: 6302: 6271: 6264: 6260: 6255: 6222: 6138: 6116: 6083: 6079: 6075: 6071: 6067: 6063: 6039: 6019: 5934: 5928: 5891: 5883: 5862: 5822: 5788: 5759: 5719: 5715: 5687: 5645: 5625:this comment 5607: 5585: 5582: 5556: 5540: 5536: 5521:Carlo Hesser 5518: 5452: 5376:AfD comments 5331:Brody Lovett 5327:Noelle Ortiz 5312: 5296:Erika Slezak 5289: 5276: 5274: 5267: 5261: 5241: 5175: 5167: 5160: 5156: 5140:I agree. -- 5116: 5034: 4988: 4982: 4968: 4962: 4915: 4911: 4854: 4827:edit-warring 4824: 4814: 4795: 4775: 4761: 4733: 4714: 4650: 4630: 4578: 4523: 4517: 4515: 4509: 4508: 4503: 4502: 4499: 4496: 4493:Article idea 4459: 4455: 4449: 4443: 4439: 4435: 4417: 4410: 4405:Brian Kerwin 4401:Andrea Evans 4398: 4391: 4371: 4355: 4332: 4329:Dune (novel) 4304: 4300: 4284:74.15.226.88 4281: 4277: 4273: 4256: 4249: 4237:police ;) — 4234: 4217: 4210: 4204: 4202: 4171: 4160:Harry Potter 4146: 4142: 4139: 4075: 4051: 4014: 3993:TimothyBanks 3979: 3960: 3941: 3937: 3929: 3922: 3919:T`ea Delgado 3903: 3851: 3849: 3763: 3735: 3705: 3652: 3644: 3597: 3552: 3549: 3524: 3496: 3402: 3275: 3246: 3236: 3219: 3211: 3201: 3187: 3160: 3138: 3114: 3107: 3105: 3102:middle names 3099: 3094: 3077: 3037: 2935: 2930: 2910: 2886: 2882: 2878: 2773: 2754:Good luck, 2753: 2750: 2746: 2719: 2682: 2642:common names 2582: 2562: 2539: 2531: 2508: 2408: 2407: 2294: 2292: 2209: 2161: 2153: 2148: 2077: 2069: 2038: 1922: 1914: 1745:. Thank you. 1660: 1652: 1623:Cord Roberts 1520: 1490: 1487: 1464: 1449: 1445:template tfd 1432: 1408: 1375: 1350: 1331: 1298: 1283: 1215: 1209: 1191: 1166: 1140: 1138: 1123:January 2006 1110: 1104: 1092: 1090: 1053:the same way 1052: 1050: 841: 836: 786:AnmaFinotera 756: 741: 705: 592: 575: 572: 539: 535: 531: 527: 508: 475: 469: 463: 457: 451: 445: 439: 399: 373: 337: 292: 279:. Thanks. — 270: 250: 223: 199: 135: 117: 100: 96: 93: 65: 43: 37: 9799:Early years 9794:Lauriedbluw 9790:Agnes Nixon 9773:John McBain 9474:Ryan Lavery 8704:Leslie Roak 8687:Leslie Roak 8645:Leslie Roak 8332:Leslie Roak 8330:article. -- 8244:Maxie Jones 8223:Leslie Roak 8208:—Preceding 8163:—Preceding 8128:User:Mogzyx 8082:—Preceding 8024:Giedi Prime 7953:in-universe 7907:—Preceding 7840:—Preceding 7711:—Preceding 7626:—Preceding 7579:House Ordos 7564:WP:Fair use 7533:—Preceding 7513:. Thanks.— 7426:Iblis Ginjo 7222:—Preceding 7190:—Preceding 7080:—Preceding 7034:—Preceding 6976:—Preceding 6941:subst:munch 6871:Dune (film) 6819:Sue Grafton 6741:Pastafarian 6434:Hank Gannon 6407:Lord family 6395:Victor Lord 6324:Victor Lord 6276:—Preceding 6047:Star Garnet 5924:Talia Sahid 5764:Coldmachine 5712:House Ordos 5537:information 4916:destination 4777:attention. 4736:—Preceding 4516:Soaps like 4023:70.52.44.92 4017:—Preceding 3987:—Preceding 3976:Dorian Lord 3906:SandChigger 2991:</s: --> 2984:WP:REFACTOR 2967:</s: --> 2589:—Preceding 2585:Alexisfan07 1709:King Gemini 1703:—Preceding 1604:King Gemini 1529:King Gemini 1523:—Preceding 1493:SandChigger 1461:Gary Tomlin 1155:Jason Graae 924:—Preceding 900:Tari Signor 553:SandChigger 512:SandChigger 301:King Gemini 295:—Preceding 226:SandChigger 36:This is an 9526:no-brainer 8757:Erica Kane 8660:everything 8408:EastEnders 8256:Erica Kane 8242:As far as 8217:Roak here. 8142:traffic.— 7506:Sami Brady 6850:Trivia in 6609:Hammersoft 6579:Hammersoft 6492:References 6351:Erica Kane 5539:, but not 5339:Moe Stubbs 5335:Lee Ramsey 5315:Ray Montez 5309:Ray Montez 5142:Dougie WII 5113:Adminship? 5015:Dougie WII 4991:Dougie WII 4922:it logged 4859:but ... — 4693:Silvestris 4655:Silvestris 4633:Silvestris 4231:Talk:CHOAM 3884:Dougie WII 3856:Dougie WII 3726:Item 9. — 3686:Dougie WII 3659:Dougie WII 3614:Dougie WII 3600:your image 3557:Dougie WII 3527:Dougie WII 3389:Dougie WII 3354:Dougie WII 3331:Dougie WII 3262:Dougie WII 3222:Dougie WII 3144:future. — 3083:Dougie WII 2844:Sami Brady 2330:good faith 1424:Abu badali 1416:screencaps 1395:Posted at 1376:Black Kite 1351:Black Kite 1299:Black Kite 1286:WP:NFCC#3a 1064:February 5 1057:5 February 835:Pamela on 778:WP:FICTION 774:WP:EPISODE 473:block user 467:filter log 377:WP:CRYSTAL 350:, and the 344:Peter Berg 9411:timelines 9211:Star Wars 9128:Star Wars 8968:WP: TENSE 8879:Retconned 8418:Emmerdale 7879:Empyrrean 7603:Lankiveil 7461:Abductive 7143:Soap plot 7086:Cantai101 7040:Cantai101 6982:Cantai101 6882:WP:TRIVIA 6737:straw man 6687:straw man 6522:this link 6450:Mel Hayes 6389:of plot). 6371:Tina Lord 6282:Canto2009 5896:Kralizec! 5791:Jehochman 5738:2006 edit 5723:Alperkaan 5633:this edit 5629:this edit 5541:sentences 5495:Thanks — 5442:Left for 4912:following 4294:samusek2 4270:Red Links 3127:Red links 3040:IrishLass 3034:Infoboxes 2563:who cares 2557:thinking. 2043:, LOL. — 1735:vandalism 1569:IrishLass 1401:14 August 1290:WP:NFCC#8 1212:and Addie 1192:every one 1103:directed 1011:65852002o 752:IrishLass 710:IrishLass 540:Sandworms 536:Sandworms 487:IrishLass 479:block log 415:IrishLass 381:IrishLass 169:IrishLass 144:IrishLass 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 72:Archive 3 66:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 9832:TAnthony 9759:TAnthony 9705:TAnthony 9701:creating 9649:Gungadin 9638:TAnthony 9590:TAnthony 9522:WP:TRUTH 9483:relative 9368:TAnthony 9328:relative 9149:TAnthony 9123:Superman 9043:Superman 8925:The O.C. 8870:TAnthony 8833:TAnthony 8809:TAnthony 8761:SORASing 8747:TAnthony 8672:TAnthony 8571:TAnthony 8490:TAnthony 8421:article 8394:TAnthony 8302:TAnthony 8288:TAnthony 8274:boldface 8194:TAnthony 8177:contribs 8165:unsigned 8144:TAnthony 8136:db-owner 8096:contribs 8084:unsigned 8059:TAnthony 7995:universe 7921:contribs 7909:unsigned 7892:TAnthony 7854:contribs 7842:unsigned 7788:TAnthony 7756:Superman 7725:contribs 7713:unsigned 7695:TAnthony 7640:contribs 7628:unsigned 7612:TAnthony 7535:unsigned 7515:TAnthony 7447:TAnthony 7395:articles 7384:TAnthony 7334:TAnthony 7289:TAnthony 7251:TAnthony 7224:unsigned 7212:TAnthony 7192:unsigned 7175:TAnthony 7134:TAnthony 7130:Passions 7120:Passions 7116:Passions 7112:Passions 7108:Passions 7094:contribs 7082:unsigned 7061:TAnthony 7048:contribs 7036:unsigned 7008:TAnthony 7004:Passions 6990:contribs 6978:unsigned 6949:Passions 6928:WikiLove 6895:TAnthony 6833:TAnthony 6717:TAnthony 6650:TAnthony 6600:TAnthony 6543:OLTL2002 6534:TAnthony 6499:OLTL2002 6467:TAnthony 6399:Meredith 6346:WP:SOAPS 6312:TAnthony 6303:Passions 6290:contribs 6278:unsigned 6256:Passions 6213:TAnthony 6165:TAnthony 6126:TAnthony 6001:TAnthony 5992:TAnthony 5961:TAnthony 5914:TAnthony 5853:TAnthony 5826:TAnthony 5801:TAnthony 5776:TAnthony 5747:TAnthony 5678:TAnthony 5674:this one 5638:TAnthony 5603:TAnthony 5575:TAnthony 5545:TAnthony 5523:article 5511:Left at 5497:TAnthony 5460:TAnthony 5367:TAnthony 5300:TAnthony 5270:Schmidt, 5247:TAnthony 5226:razgovor 5194:TAnthony 5096:TAnthony 5070:TAnthony 5006:TAnthony 4983:Passions 4973:TAnthony 4937:TAnthony 4928:TAnthony 4889:TAnthony 4861:TAnthony 4851:AWB task 4843:TAnthony 4800:TAnthony 4779:Thtuskey 4768:TAnthony 4750:contribs 4742:Thtuskey 4738:unsigned 4670:TAnthony 4651:|210px]] 4599:TAnthony 4545:TAnthony 4464:TAnthony 4451:Passions 4364:TAnthony 4360:Sandworm 4320:TAnthony 4310:TAnthony 4239:TAnthony 4190:TAnthony 4123:TAnthony 4039:TAnthony 4019:unsigned 4001:contribs 3989:unsigned 3875:TAnthony 3852:Passions 3846:Question 3819:TAnthony 3787:TAnthony 3753:TAnthony 3728:TAnthony 3677:TAnthony 3654:Passions 3628:Barnstar 3604:TAnthony 3583:KellyAna 3573:TAnthony 3542:TAnthony 3501:TAnthony 3483:KellyAna 3473:TAnthony 3458:KellyAna 3448:TAnthony 3433:KellyAna 3423:TAnthony 3403:Passions 3368:TAnthony 3345:TAnthony 3321:TAnthony 3295:TAnthony 3253:TAnthony 3248:Passions 3205:TAnthony 3179:TAnthony 3146:TAnthony 3119:TAnthony 3065:TAnthony 2956:TAnthony 2921:TAnthony 2862:KellyAna 2852:TAnthony 2828:TAnthony 2777:KellyAna 2679:Disputes 2662:TAnthony 2647:KellyAna 2632:TAnthony 2617:KellyAna 2608:TAnthony 2570:TAnthony 2525:TAnthony 2511:WP:SOAPS 2477:KellyAna 2467:TAnthony 2448:KellyAna 2438:TAnthony 2429:TAnthony 2413:KellyAna 2389:KellyAna 2364:TAnthony 2315:KellyAna 2304:TAnthony 2279:TAnthony 2241:KellyAna 2215:TAnthony 2184:KellyAna 2166:TAnthony 2164:page! — 2129:KellyAna 2080:KellyAna 2045:TAnthony 1998:TAnthony 1975:KellyAna 1961:KellyAna 1926:KellyAna 1888:TAnthony 1820:TAnthony 1794:TAnthony 1750:TAnthony 1739:reverted 1717:contribs 1705:unsigned 1692:TAnthony 1663:WP:SOAPS 1632:TAnthony 1584:TAnthony 1537:contribs 1525:unsigned 1508:TAnthony 1453:TAnthony 1420:this ifd 1412:WP:SOAPS 1366:TAnthony 1335:TAnthony 1324:TAnthony 1310:TAnthony 1292:; a FAQ 1267:TAnthony 1244:TAnthony 1234:TAnthony 1200:TAnthony 1169:Leofric1 1159:TAnthony 1153:I fixed 1145:TAnthony 1127:TAnthony 1079:Redlinks 1071:TAnthony 1033:TAnthony 1029:WP:SOAPS 979:TAnthony 954:TAnthony 945:TAnthony 926:unsigned 915:TAnthony 905:TAnthony 863:TAnthony 822:TAnthony 761:TAnthony 748:WP:SOAPS 738:WP:SOAPS 729:TAnthony 689:TAnthony 639:TAnthony 610:TAnthony 544:TAnthony 443:contribs 405:TAnthony 396:KellyAna 357:Zidel333 325:TAnthony 309:contribs 297:unsigned 281:TAnthony 267:WP:SOAPS 253:WP:SOAPS 183:TAnthony 159:TAnthony 123:TAnthony 9841:Flyer22 9809:Flyer22 9739:Flyer22 9715:Flyer22 9672:Flyer22 9653:Flyer22 9633:concept 9600:Flyer22 9543:Flyer22 9466:lesbian 9254:Flyer22 9216:Flyer22 9087:Flyer22 8998:AniMate 8978:Rocksey 8930:Flyer22 8851:Flyer22 8847:Rocksey 8818:Flyer22 8794:Flyer22 8781:AniMate 8765:Flyer22 8731:AniMate 8617:Flyer22 8581:Flyer22 8556:Flyer22 8541:Flyer22 8525:Flyer22 8504:Flyer22 8500:Britain 8472:Flyer22 8390:trimmed 8365:Flyer22 8278:italics 8210:undated 8020:Caladan 8011:Arrakis 7760:Frasier 7748:Titanic 7683:WP:NFCC 7414:the AfD 7162:WP:PLOT 6951:website 6867:MST3000 6135:AniMate 6086:Nuada79 5652:WP:NOTE 4149:Gwernol 4108:Flyer22 4093:Flyer22 4078:Flyer22 3944:Flyer22 3115:Dynasty 3109:Dynasty 3100:Dynasty 2591:comment 2095:ABC.com 1743:sandbox 1345:WP:NFCC 1253:Jbt1138 1219:Jbt1138 1115:January 532:Hunters 118:without 39:archive 9696:enough 9538:gender 9331:rules. 9145:should 8866:should 8169:Mogzyx 8088:Mogzyx 7913:Mogzyx 7865:I'm a 7846:Mogzyx 7797:Part 2 7717:Mogzyx 7632:Mogzyx 7303:ABCxyz 7273:ABCxyz 7168:, and 6924:cookie 6903:Cookie 6875:WP:3RR 6815:Grey's 6709:Dune 7 6705:WP:BLP 6478:Bmf777 6331:Bmf777 6223:really 5810:Phenom 5337:, and 5079:Gnevin 5056:Gnevin 5050:Hi is 5037:Gnevin 4985:ending 4898:Nifboy 4875:Nifboy 4869:How's 4559:Dmarex 4529:Dmarex 4477:Dmarex 4420:Dmarex 4257:Shadow 4218:Shadow 3762:Wait. 3190:images 2911:you're 2720:really 2579:thanks 1471:Dmarex 1141:before 662:J Greb 595:J Greb 580:which 9114:based 7504:when 7148:From 6943:}}! 6858:From 6452:into 5815:From 5699:Rm994 5656:Rm994 4334:page: 4205:means 4199:CHOAM 3195:From 3154:From 3132:From 2976:small 2737:cases 2689:WP:DR 2502:From 2332:. — 2271:these 2149:point 2070:From 1988:them. 1915:From 1653:From 1602:was. 1428:NBC's 1414:that 1084:From 1047:From 1042:Dates 1027:, as 817:WP:TV 780:, or 244:From 16:< 9845:talk 9813:talk 9743:talk 9719:talk 9676:talk 9657:talk 9604:talk 9547:talk 9361:the 9323:OLTL 9258:talk 9220:talk 9134:and 9091:talk 9045:and 8982:talk 8934:talk 8855:talk 8822:talk 8798:talk 8769:talk 8708:talk 8691:talk 8649:talk 8621:talk 8585:talk 8560:talk 8545:talk 8529:talk 8508:talk 8476:talk 8457:in). 8433:and 8369:talk 8336:talk 8322:and 8276:and 8258:and 8227:talk 8173:talk 8092:talk 8033:Dune 8029:Dune 8022:and 8016:Dune 8003:Dune 7993:Dune 7917:talk 7867:Dune 7850:talk 7721:talk 7691:Dune 7660:here 7636:talk 7595:Dune 7589:and 7583:Dune 7543:talk 7465:talk 7443:Dune 7439:Dune 7434:Dune 7406:Dune 7401:Dune 7393:Dune 7347:2010 7307:talk 7277:talk 7232:talk 7200:talk 7090:talk 7044:talk 6986:talk 6920:talk 6890:Dune 6884:and 6880:Per 6852:Dune 6806:Dune 6779:talk 6668:talk 6638:talk 6626:Dune 6613:talk 6583:talk 6547:talk 6530:here 6526:here 6503:talk 6482:talk 6463:OLTL 6430:Viki 6412:OLTL 6403:Tony 6401:and 6381:and 6373:and 6353:and 6335:talk 6286:talk 6239:Mate 6186:Mate 6153:Mate 6117:OLTL 6090:talk 6051:talk 5982:Mate 5950:Mate 5930:This 5900:talk 5892:Dune 5742:here 5727:talk 5703:talk 5660:talk 5631:and 5614:talk 5592:talk 5563:talk 5525:here 5447:here 5347:talk 5343:P.J. 5242:Dune 5221:Čeha 5190:here 5188:and 5186:here 5180:and 5159:and 5146:talk 5131:Mate 5083:talk 5060:talk 5041:talk 5019:talk 4995:talk 4963:Per 4902:talk 4879:talk 4871:this 4857:here 4841:. — 4837:and 4820:here 4818:and 4816:Here 4796:Doon 4783:talk 4766:. — 4763:Dune 4746:talk 4721:talk 4697:talk 4659:talk 4637:talk 4615:Mate 4588:Mate 4563:talk 4533:talk 4481:talk 4456:OLTL 4440:OLTL 4424:talk 4403:and 4396:... 4378:talk 4374:ATOE 4356:Dune 4344:talk 4340:ATOE 4305:OLTL 4301:Days 4288:talk 4250:Half 4235:Dune 4211:Half 4112:talk 4097:talk 4082:talk 4061:Mate 4027:talk 3997:talk 3967:talk 3948:talk 3910:talk 3888:talk 3873:. — 3860:talk 3836:talk 3804:talk 3772:talk 3742:talk 3712:talk 3690:talk 3663:talk 3618:talk 3587:talk 3561:talk 3531:talk 3497:SB's 3487:talk 3462:talk 3437:talk 3412:talk 3393:talk 3358:talk 3335:talk 3309:talk 3284:talk 3266:talk 3226:talk 3173:and 3087:talk 3044:talk 2866:talk 2848:here 2781:talk 2770:STOP 2651:talk 2621:talk 2547:talk 2481:talk 2452:talk 2417:talk 2393:talk 2378:talk 2338:talk 2319:talk 2245:talk 2188:talk 2133:talk 2115:talk 2084:talk 2020:talk 1979:talk 1965:talk 1950:talk 1930:talk 1853:talk 1771:talk 1713:talk 1682:and 1669:and 1573:talk 1533:talk 1497:talk 1475:talk 1404:2008 1294:here 1288:and 1280:NFCC 1257:talk 1223:talk 1210:OLTL 1173:talk 1119:2006 1117:and 1111:OLTL 1093:OLTL 1067:2008 1062:and 1060:2008 1015:talk 968:talk 934:talk 893:talk 876:talk 848:talk 837:OLTL 790:talk 782:WP:N 727:. — 714:talk 666:talk 599:talk 557:talk 534:and 516:talk 491:talk 461:logs 437:talk 419:talk 400:Days 385:talk 361:talk 305:talk 230:talk 211:talk 173:talk 148:talk 107:talk 9119:not 8206:. 8192:.— 7943:or 7739:all 6440:. 6387:lot 6365:or 6307:for 5264:AFD 4969:not 4610:Ani 4583:Ani 4507:or 4460:SOD 4436:not 4056:Ani 3985:. 3764:You 3555:-- 3242:LOL 3081:-- 2936:are 2536:Hey 2101:to 528:NYT 289:Why 101:PJ 9847:) 9815:) 9755:we 9745:) 9721:) 9678:) 9659:) 9606:) 9549:) 9260:) 9222:) 9093:) 8984:) 8936:) 8857:) 8824:) 8800:) 8771:) 8710:) 8693:) 8651:) 8623:) 8587:) 8562:) 8547:) 8531:) 8510:) 8478:) 8371:) 8338:) 8229:) 8179:) 8175:• 8139:}} 8133:{{ 8098:) 8094:• 7923:) 7919:• 7887:TA 7883:TA 7856:) 7852:• 7727:) 7723:• 7642:) 7638:• 7545:) 7467:) 7309:) 7279:) 7234:) 7202:) 7164:, 7096:) 7092:• 7050:) 7046:• 6992:) 6988:• 6781:) 6753:my 6749:me 6670:) 6640:) 6615:) 6585:) 6549:) 6505:) 6497:-- 6484:) 6337:) 6292:) 6288:• 6234:ni 6226:-- 6181:ni 6148:ni 6110:, 6092:) 6053:) 6028:ka 6025:on 6022:El 5977:ni 5945:ni 5935:or 5902:) 5843:ka 5840:on 5837:El 5729:) 5705:) 5662:) 5616:) 5594:) 5565:) 5349:) 5341:? 5333:, 5329:, 5325:, 5219:-- 5148:) 5126:ni 5085:) 5062:) 5043:) 5021:) 4997:) 4904:) 4881:) 4873:? 4822:. 4785:) 4752:) 4748:• 4723:) 4699:) 4661:) 4639:) 4565:) 4535:) 4483:) 4426:) 4384:) 4380:) 4350:) 4346:) 4290:) 4114:) 4099:) 4084:) 4029:) 4003:) 3999:• 3969:) 3950:) 3912:) 3890:) 3862:) 3838:) 3806:) 3774:) 3744:) 3714:) 3692:) 3665:) 3620:) 3589:) 3563:) 3533:) 3489:) 3464:) 3439:) 3414:) 3395:) 3360:) 3337:) 3311:) 3286:) 3276:is 3268:) 3228:) 3089:) 3061:}} 3055:{{ 3046:) 3019:ka 3016:on 3013:El 2947:ka 2944:on 2941:El 2896:ka 2893:on 2890:El 2868:) 2814:ka 2811:on 2808:El 2806:-- 2798:ka 2795:on 2792:El 2783:) 2762:ka 2759:on 2756:El 2653:) 2623:) 2549:) 2521:}} 2515:{{ 2483:) 2454:) 2419:) 2395:) 2380:) 2340:) 2321:) 2295:am 2247:) 2210:GH 2190:) 2162:GH 2154:GH 2135:) 2117:) 2086:) 2022:) 1981:) 1967:) 1952:) 1932:) 1855:) 1773:) 1715:• 1575:) 1559:ka 1556:on 1553:El 1539:) 1535:• 1499:) 1477:) 1441:}} 1435:{{ 1259:) 1225:) 1175:) 1017:) 970:) 936:) 913:— 895:) 878:) 850:) 792:) 776:, 750:; 716:) 668:) 635:}} 629:{{ 625:}} 619:{{ 601:) 593:- 588:}} 582:{{ 559:) 518:) 510:-- 493:) 421:) 387:) 363:) 311:) 307:• 263:}} 257:{{ 232:) 213:) 175:) 150:) 109:) 9843:( 9811:( 9741:( 9717:( 9674:( 9655:( 9602:( 9545:( 9256:( 9218:( 9089:( 8980:( 8970:. 8932:( 8853:( 8820:( 8796:( 8767:( 8706:( 8689:( 8647:( 8619:( 8583:( 8558:( 8543:( 8527:( 8506:( 8474:( 8367:( 8334:( 8225:( 8171:( 8090:( 7915:( 7848:( 7719:( 7634:( 7541:( 7463:( 7305:( 7275:( 7230:( 7198:( 7088:( 7042:( 6984:( 6918:( 6777:( 6745:I 6666:( 6636:( 6611:( 6581:( 6545:( 6516:( 6501:( 6480:( 6456:. 6333:( 6284:( 6229:A 6176:A 6143:A 6088:( 6049:( 5972:A 5940:A 5898:( 5725:( 5701:( 5658:( 5612:( 5590:( 5561:( 5449:: 5345:( 5228:) 5224:( 5184:( 5144:( 5121:A 5081:( 5058:( 5039:( 5017:( 4993:( 4900:( 4877:( 4829:/ 4781:( 4744:( 4719:( 4695:( 4657:( 4635:( 4561:( 4531:( 4479:( 4422:( 4376:( 4342:( 4286:( 4110:( 4095:( 4080:( 4025:( 3995:( 3965:( 3946:( 3908:( 3886:( 3858:( 3834:( 3802:( 3770:( 3740:( 3710:( 3688:( 3661:( 3616:( 3585:( 3559:( 3529:( 3485:( 3460:( 3435:( 3410:( 3391:( 3356:( 3333:( 3307:( 3282:( 3264:( 3224:( 3085:( 3042:( 2864:( 2779:( 2649:( 2619:( 2565:! 2545:( 2479:( 2450:( 2415:( 2391:( 2376:( 2336:( 2317:( 2243:( 2186:( 2131:( 2113:( 2082:( 2018:( 1977:( 1963:( 1948:( 1928:( 1851:( 1769:( 1711:( 1571:( 1531:( 1495:( 1473:( 1255:( 1221:( 1171:( 1055:( 1013:( 966:( 932:( 891:( 874:( 846:( 788:( 712:( 664:( 597:( 555:( 514:( 489:( 481:) 476:· 470:· 464:· 458:· 452:· 446:· 440:· 435:( 417:( 383:( 359:( 303:( 228:( 209:( 201:( 171:( 146:( 105:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index