User:IrishLass0128/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

I don't understand what kind of copyright information I need to upload images

I still haven't gotten a clue of what information I need to add in the description and this fair use thing. I see everybody else seems to be adding movie and tv screenshots but I don't understand what info and how I add it. I don't understand the templates and how they work. bilttd_biscoi (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I know it can be very confusing, as can be how to title. I had to revert your change, retcon is an opinion regarding Stefano, the title as I had it is correct also, in titles you have to be lowercase after the first word unless it is a proper noun. TV screenshots have to have a source or a logo. You can't claim something is a screenshot without a logo or a source, like NBC.com. You are claiming ownership, which you cannot do. You claim something is from a video tape, but there's no logo on it. Every minute of the soaps have a logo, either NBC, Global, or Soapnet. Without that logo, you cannot claim something is a screenshot unless it is sourced from NBC.com. It is very confusing and why most of us wait months before uploading pictures. My advise, as the Stefano page already has many issues, is to wait and learn Wikipedia before changing things and adding illegal images. Thank you for understanding. IrishLass (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

They are from video tapes. The one with Stefano & Celeste are from a video tape received from Canada and is also recorded from the episodes from Canada and the one with RoJohn & Stefano was recorded 1988 and transfered from VHS to DVD and I ripped it into my computer. I bought those tapes and then transfered it to my computer as a clip and then took a screencap. But let's say I'm going to upload an image from when RoJohn & Marlena reunited on the pier 1991 and I take a screenshot and when I upload it. Always when it is about Days, I shold leave NBC as source (when it has no logo) except from when it comes from a web page?

And when you said "You are claiming ownership" was that the first pic I uploaded when I chose the "I made it..." license? That was just a bad tip from a friend he says he always gets away with it.bilttd_biscoi (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What you have just told me is that you have illegal copies of old videotapes, the only ones allowed to sell tapes of Days is NBC and they've never done it. See that word ILLEGAL, that is what makes them unusable. Your friend may think he's getting away with stuff, but for those of us watching, we aren't letting things like that happen. You actually twice claimed ownership, "from a video" is also claiming ownership and it's illegal.

I can't express it enough, your videos are illegal copies and should not be used and should not be falsely sourced. When you get screen caps from NBC they have a URL, you can't just make it up. Last, if you want to be taken seriously, do not call John RoJohn, this is not a message board. IrishLass (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand now. And when I said that others are posting screencaps from tv series I was referring to Smallville, Seinfeld & Friends etc. The ones from Smallville are screen caps from DVDs released by the company itself. I finally got the picture and what it is all about why you can't post images from that. It is so much more clearer now than before. I feel embarrassingly stupid by now. Thank you for making me understand! Bilttd biscoi (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't feel stupid at all. You're new and you were willing to learn when offered help. That's a good thing. I'll browse the other programs to see what might be going on. As far as soaps go, we have a project that is specifically dedicated to making sure they look their best. That's why your uploads were caught so fast. Thank you for being willing to learn. If you have any questions in the future, feel free to ask. IrishLass (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Desperate Housewives

I understand what you mean and take your point on board about the commentry. I just thought it was appropriate and considered it to be almost a fact ,as the show hasn't screened the solution to the mystery yet, so I thought there may be twists that not everybody is going to figure out beforehand? (If you're going to reply, please refrain from any spoilers/your theory, I'm still wondering! :P) EvMark, 15:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for that. Shaln't do that in future. It's so unfortunate that the writers strike is interrupting what I consider to be the strongest season since the first. Even if the strike ended today, it would probably take months before a new episode is aired. Is there any news on whether that's it for now until September. Is Welcome To Kangawa the last of Season 4 or has nothing been confirmed as of yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EvMark (talk • contribs) 15:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply

You also seemed to have missed my point, because like I said she couldn't be blocked for 3RR. First off, I was not inserting myself into anything, I noticed the war going on and saw how hostile the user was, and she even went as far as accusing another editor of ownership issues. Even if the fourth one is in dispute, she DID have three reverts, which is enough for a warning, so I thought I had better warn her so that in the future she would be less open to edit warring. I also left a message about assuming good faith. However, the editor took this the complete wrong way and acted like I was the bad guy. You've been here a while, and you should know that editors should be discouraged from edit warring, so I hardly think I did anything wrong. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll reply here even though I clearly request any comments I make be replied to in their original location. Sorry, but as I see it, you were the bad guy. You did not see what was going on, you assumed. At least that's my summation of what I saw regarding your edits, the edits you CLAIMED were in violation of 3RR particularly the fourth which anyone should clearly take issue with your accusations regarding the returned link to a new article. Clearly no form of violation occurred on that fourth edit, note edit not revert, and was even agreed upon by Survivorfan. Additionally, you insinuated yourself into the issue several hours after the issue had been resolved and amends made. Clearly a hostile (your word, not mine) move on your part. Furthermore, you clearly need to learn more when tossing accusations at people. Edit warring? No, that would be a continued pattern, not a single occurance that lead to healthy discussion. A war does not lead to healthy discussion and resolution is less than an hour or so. At issue, you insinuated yourself for no good reason into a situation that had already involved an administator, an issue that was resolved before you got involved (unlike the one I addressed this morning as it is clear the two of you have unresolved issues still pending including but not limited to your continued accusations and misinterpretation of facts).

At continued issue is your staunch position you did nothing wrong and your implication that KellyAna has not been here long and or/as long or longer than I. As I see it, you showed up late for the party and caused trouble after any previous issues had been settled, based on comment timelines, edits, and available evidence contrary to your assertions. You further choose to not take responsiblity for your false accusations.

As to the ownership comments, again, not your place to address after the fact and after the issue was settled and was addressed in front of an admin. While I understand how I got involved, it is still a mystery how and why you got involved and immediately sought to cause trouble. Even when it was clearly indicated that KellyAna had removed your comments, you pushed further. At that point it was all on you. She removed your comments after replying, a perfectly acceptable practice, but you reverted her removal and made further comment. At that point the onus was on you and you were the one instigating the situation. And while KellyAna can be a pain in the butt, fact not a non-good faith assumption, when a situation has been settled and/or comments removed and you put them back, at that point you become the instigator. IrishLass (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be missing my point so I'm finished. All I saw was a newer user who was edit warring and I felt she should be warned so that in the future she would start discussing instead of edit warring. And yes, four reverts within 2 hours IS an edit war. You seem to think that people should be allowed to edit war all they like without being warned, so whatever. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Newer user? Did you see how many edits and how many contributions she has? She has over 3200 edits and has been here as a logged in user since August 1st according to her stats. I think your facts are not in place. Out of curiousity where did you come to the assumption that she was new? And you're still wrong about the fourth "so called" revert. It was not and you should look at the whole picture before accusing people without merit. Seriously, you need to look at what you call the fourth revert and swallow some humble pie, it wasn't a revert or an edit war edit, it was even thanked for by Survivorfan. But apparently you don't want to see that.IrishLass (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"But apparently you don't want to see that", now you're assuming bad faith. Even if the fourth revert is in question, she had three reverts, which is enough for a warning and it's not my fault she took it the wrong way. And, I consider anyone who has been here a few months to be a newer user and it was not meant as an insult. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Admit you are wrong about the fourth edit and I can assume good faith, view what happened, view the comments from Survivorfan thanking her for finding the article. What was she supposed to do after she found the article? Leave the link out of the article even though an article for Cirie existed? That goes against all that I've ever been taught by those that know a heck of a lot, and goes against the decision on the talk page. Face it, you were/are wrong about the fourth edit to your own logic. You state to not edit war, discuss. However, when the edit was made AFTER the discussion and agreed to be acceptable, you still claim it to be violation. Which is it? They discussed it, it was agreed to be added, where did she violate policy if she was told to do it and thanked for finding the article? You are not following what happened or the 3RR policy correctly.

Few is a relative number, 3200 edits, however, is not. I guess IMO "new" is an insult and I doubt I'm the only one that would find that the case in the manner in which you are using it. IrishLass (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Tyler Palko

The all boys club strikes again. Hopefully you'll see this first because you won't like the cigars and steam room buddy buddy sorry lady you're wrong answers. Good luck if you decide to pursue it, I'm done. Tyler's not worth it. KellyAna (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Las Vegas Episode List

Please do not revert my edits again. I don't know why you think it's vandalism when I am just adding legitimate episodes as listed on TheFutonCritic.com. Unlike most other sites, this one is a very reliable website, as they get everything straight from the source. 24.47.198.164 (talk) 10:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I will continue to remove your vandalism, Robin, as the Futoncritic.com IS NOT, as you've been told many times, and therefor they are unsourced and vandalism. You know that as many people have told you before. IrishLass (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And I will continue adding it back until the episodes have aired. TheFutonCritic IS a reliable source whether you think so or not. You are the only person whos said anything and the site gets all their information from NBC's official site . 24.47.198.164 (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No, many people have told you, ROBIN, that it is not reliable. I'll either revert it before I go as I would not surpass 3RR or I'll have someone else revert it. Bignole has told you, as has Paul that it is not reliable. You are in violation, not me. IrishLass (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

My Recent "Vandalism"

Sorry that I removed the TBAs from Las Vegas episode List but I do believe that if nothing is known about an upcoming episode, than it should not be there. Comicbook30 (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Your continued vandalism, removing verified content, has again been reverted and you will be reported if you continue to vandalise the page. IrishLass (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Dispute

The following was moved from the Las Vegas talk page as it is not relevant to the discussion and includes questionable claims, personal attacks to other editors, and needs to be checked by an admin:

Let me speak, as a former Wikipedia administrator, that I’m very disappointed in the mess of comments between DJS24, KellyAna, and Irishlass on many pages. Let me mention some info about myself, as I don’t like working under false impressions. I was a Wiki. Admin. for 2 years before my password was hacked and my info was changed a couple of days ago. I worked mainly on TV sites such as the Law and Order franchise. With that, I have never seen such disrupted behavior like this on any discussion page. Now I’m surprised that no admin. has intervened on this issue. Because of that, I have called on some admin to come and discuss this behavior with the three of you. From this point on, I’m not throwing out personal attacks but telling you what I’ve seen of this mess. DJS24 let me start by saying your grammar skills are very weak, as they were mentioned before. Wikipedia is about good articles, and with good articles, comes GOOD grammar. KellyAna, you haven’t once mentioned anything regarding your reasoning on this issue nor your thought process. Instead you’re too busy playing the rules/guidelines queen. How can anyone, especially DJS24, prove a point when you’re only throwing out rules and warnings? Warnings are not to be abused but used when someone is irrational. I’m very upset that, with your irrational behavior, DJS24 has failed to call in for your immediate block. The only reason why DJS24 had to throw out SOME personal attacks is because you were being VERY difficult. The discussion page is for disputes/issues, not to show everyone you know the rules. Irishlass was the only one somewhat civil. As Irishlass and DJS24 are the only two discussing the issue. By the way KellyAna, what is your thesis on this issue? Irishlass, you mentioned that DJS24 was trolling. When instead, he was merely telling people that were discussing the issue to comment. Yes, the Jorja Fox issue is the same thing you’re disputing on this page. Back to DJS24, you need to stay calm and cool, as some of your comments could warrant a block. However, any admin. wouldn’t issue one based on how the people you were talking were acting. Now let me throw in my two cents, as I hope this will resolve the issue. As working on sites for two years, the infoboxes have never contained past characters. Instead they should only contain current information. I’m trying to find the article/discussion page where it was decided on by other admin... In this case the infobox should only contain the current stars, like every other TV show site on Wikipedia. Mentioning other TV sites on this discussion page is not wrong; KellyAna; its proving a point. Now as for the 5 to 1 vote, as you people are calling it, isn’t the way it come to a decision. The people who changed the information before wouldn’t count as votes. As they prob. don’t even know this discussion is happening. Not to mention they prob. don’t even know what the issue is regarding. They gave no reasoning behind their actions. Now when DJS24 gets this message, I’m allowing him to change the stars listed, back to the current stars. Finally let me point out that a discussion page is to prove a point, not to post your position and show the rules. I will be watching this page, as I see anymore more disrupted behavior, I will call in for immediate blocks. P.S. I look forward to working with you Irishlass on the CSI page. In best Regards CARS! --CarsGm5 (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC) CarsGm5 (talk · contribs)

I'm essentially going to have an admin check on that comment as it seems as implausible and just about anything I can think of. I'll get back to you. IrishLass (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

One comment, your attack on Kelly is false, she has stated her opinion. She brought the link to the prior discussion and stated her opinion about fiction being present tense. As I read it, that's what she is basing her thought process on. She has links. And your comments about rules and what not that you say she is throwing around, could you place specific links or do a copy/paste/italics in this dicussion if it is on the Las Vegas discussion. DJS immediately caused issues this past weekend by reverting and re-reverting his own edits and then blamed Kelly for his block which was not her fault. They've not gotten along since. The problem at hand is DJS claims every edit he's done has been reverted but that's not true and if he would concentrate on the other areas of Wiki he claims to like, that would be still further true. Its been asked he wait for comments, he is free to contact other editors of the Las Vegas page but he goes to editors unrelated to the issue who have never touched the page. That's all anyone has asked and I find someone claiming to be a former admin beyond asking someone to ASG. There are several ways to prove things, single statements of I AM are difficult at best to consider accepting. IrishLass (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me point out that Irishlass and KellyAna have removed everything that disagrees with their thought process. When yes, the CarsGm5 is in question, Irishlass shouldn't have removed his/her work. It points out several good points and I'm getting the feeling seeing how they disagreed with Irishlass, he deleted it. KellAna has also deleted my main position, as you can see in the history, several days ago. In fact she deleted a whole 15 message dispute we had, in which I stated my whole thought porcess. During that dispute KellyAna never onced supported the issue, instead throughout several rules and guidlines. Then because I ask her to support her theory, she deleted the entire dispute, with hours of my work. INFORMATION should not be removed. In regards --DJS24 (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Enough

You are in a heated debate with DJS24 that is at this point just generating more anger and upset and is a bunch of pointless Wikidrama. He has reasonable questions that deserve reasonable answers. Don't accuse people of stalking when they look through your contributions, especially when you like to call in admins at the drop of a hat: it is totally reasonable for him to look for that kind of behavior and defend himself. Focus on the infobox issue and the infobox issue alone, and you should be able to work this out. However I have seen you escalating disputes like this before and I'm frankly sick and tired of it: you REALLY need to start following WP:AGF: that is the root of all the problems I've seen you have, and that policy, while it is a common sense suggestion, is really not optional. Take disputes about an article at face value, discuss them in good faith, don't remove talk page comments, and don't comment on the editor, comment on their edits or ideas. Mangojuice^talk 18:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are confusing me with someone else. I've tried to keep all this civil, it's DJS and his new pal that are causing the issues. I'd love for you to show where I've escalated problems or where I've repeatedly "called admins" because the only time I do that is for Grant Chuggle and that's an entirely different issue. I asked your opinion this morning on someone claiming to be a former admin and telling people what to do. So sorry I tried to stay on topic and not talk about other users on the article talk page. By the way, I was told earlier this week it was OKAY to move talk page comments see here [1]. Maybe I misunderstood but it seemed clear to me that it was acceptable. IrishLass (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You've had trouble understanding about moving talk page comments before, so I suggest you simply refrain from it in the future. You should certainly not do this in a dispute, or when it might look like you are trying to remove comments that are embarassing to yourself, that will only escalate things. And in any case not removing a talk page comment is basically never a mistake. Calling DJS's removal of stuff from the infobox earlier "vandalism" was a tactic that led to escalation. And just today you were questioning whether he was stalking you: that is further escalation. You are not dealing with him in a forthright manner: look at this revert, for instance: DJS was not being "disruptive," he was proposing a solution to the dispute, and calling it disruptive escalates things. And I've seen you starting up the same kind of behavior with Cars. Taking a big step back: I just have seen you get into heated disputes with other editors a LOT and I think it happens because you have a tendency to start viewing people who don't agree with you as enemies/vandals/problem editors instead of engaging them constructively. If you would just try harder to be constructive initially most of these disputes would not develop. Mangojuice^talk 19:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Assistance

I know you are busy but I moved part of a conversation from an article talk page to my talk page because a new user is claiming to be an admin. I need your help in figuring this out and what should be done. I find the behaviour to be suspect and the claims of why they are not an admin anylonger suspicious. Can you help. Thanks IrishLass (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

When your looking into this issue, can you please look into the issue regarding the infobox on the Las Vegas (TV series) discussion page. The discussion is going nowhere but downhill. As KellyANa and Irishlass have been very difficult even with me giving several possible solutions. Even though the user CarGm5 is in question, he/she makes sereval good points. In Regards DJS --DJS24 (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you also look into the stalking DJS has done of my posts and edits. I came here, to an admin I have associated with in the past and DJS immediately followed me. I do believe they consider that stalking. IrishLass (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I shall do what I can. If I were to be in your situation, I'd take to the Administrators noticeboard which will help get other views on the situation. Who was the user who claimed to be an administrator? If so, I can run a quick check and see. Regards, Rudget. 20:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

How Can I Help

As you can see by my title I love As the World turns and other soap operas. I see your name is on the soap opera project and I thought I would ask if it is possible for me to join the group. I am still quite unexperienced with editing but I would love to help in any way possible. AsTheWorldTurnsFan4Life (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Just join the project and jump in. Be careful of any edits from non-reliable sources including blogs and fansites. If I can help further, just leave a message here. IrishLass (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikiprojects

I am making a Wikiprojects page. I was wondering if you knew how to make a member partcipant box, like the ones you have on your user page on the right side? If anyone else knows how please leave a message. -Blackwatch21.Blackwatch21 (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dena Higley

Is it confirmed she's co-head writing from a reliable source? Is she scab or Fi-Core. Need to know which way to pray, for or against a strike ending. If she's fi-core, doesn't that mean she stays even after the strike? I know a lot of people don't like her but looking at her dates and storyline history, I don't mind what she's done in the past. KellyAna (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fix this

Alex Marshall it's in sad sad shape. KellyAna (talk) 05:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"Radical change"

Is adding a few equal signs a "radical change"? How does this "change the article's meaning"? I'm grouping relevant information together. I'm flustered by your edit comment. Please elaborate. Thanks, нмŵוτнτ 18:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved to talk page. нмŵוτнτ 18:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

See the article talk page. You did massive changes, not just "added a few equal signs." You changed titles which changed meanings that were actually false especially regarding soap operas. The first noteworthy soap supercouple is also a couple in real life as a result of their teaming and therefor they are not FICTIONAL. The information was already grouped correctly. Major changes are to be discussed, not fettered about willy nilly. IrishLass (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha, "willy nilly"? What's that? нмŵוτнτ 19:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

An expression my mother used. It means put all over the place or done without thinking it through kind of sort of. It's been around so long I don't remember her exact definition. =) IrishLass (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha, okay. I don't mean anything rude by anything I said, just so you know. I think we just keep misunderstanding each other. I wholeheartedly apologize if I offending you, as that was not my intention whatsoever. Thanks for your understanding, and let's get to talking about this article! =) нмŵוτнτ 20:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I can move on, and really, I wasn't hounding. I think we were bordering on EC as I commented and you did just seconds before I did. I agree, big misunderstanding. Happy to move on. IrishLass (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Removing source tags

Answer here. — Jhn* 23:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Montgomery Gent

Did you miss the episode they appeared in on Las Vegas? YOu don't need a citation, I saw them in the episode, wearing cowboy hats. Ask any fan, trust me you don't need to look around for a "citation". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinepowell (talk • contribs) 02:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

List

At this point I'd say to go back in the history, maybe copy it into your own userspace, and source it there. Then you can reinsert it when it's all sourced. I'm a bit busy with some interviews I'm doing, but if you need help with different areas, let me know. Mike H. Fierce! 20:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who told you that you couldn't, but people routinely prepare articles in the space all the time for inclusion later...that way it doesn't clutter the article while that section is in flux. Mike H. Fierce! 20:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Little FYI, no biggie

I removed the comment based on it had no reference. As for the show being cancelled, I've been hearing that a lot lately. It wouldn't surprise me, as the show only has a 3.9 rating every week. I'm just waiting for a reliable source to make it clear their cancelled, before putting it on the page. Yes, I just noticed Bleek's action, at least the user got blocked. Regards DJS--DJS24 (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Good luck

I saw the notice on your userpage. I hope you can check in now and again on the Garden Grove and PHS articles. Best of luck, Alanraywiki (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! If I have to I'll go to the local McDonald's or Panera Bread and use their internet. Hopefully I'll have something soon and at least be able to check in at lunch or something. Thanks for the well wishes. IrishLass (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope that you can have a good luck trying to find a new job. I am sorry that you other job did not worked out for your benefts. I hope that your new job will work better for you. Good Luck--Car5ly858 (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Commas

Hi there. I wonder why you reverted my edit to Degrassi: The Next Generation, regarding the rempoval/insertion of commas in dates. If you are confused about the way in which to format dates, take a look at Wikipedia’s Manual of Style, and in particular WP:DATE. Formatting dates without a comma cause problems for those folk reading articles and who are not logged in. As for Wikipedians who are logged in, they will have set their preferences to their preferred formatting of dates, and so upon reading the article, the edits would not have been noticed. Reformatting dates, spelling and so on "just because" shouldn't happen - they should reflect the nationality of the entire article, or the first major contribution (that was me). Anyway, I'm considering re-formatting them to date-month-year format, which would correctly negate the use of a comma, as Canadian usage allows for either dd/mm/yyyy mm/dd/yyyy. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Simply because, painful comment here because I don't like her, Robin was right and you were wrong. You are looking at the MOS but what you are not seeing is what happens when the commas are removed and the dates are butted against each other. She was right and it's how formatting of dates is prefered to be done. Any unnecessary characters (in this case a comma) should be removed. Also, do not assert ownership over articles, that is frowned upon. Additionally, you are incorrect in your assertion that it causes problems to those not logged it, that is simply not true but could be an issue with your personal browser. Sorry, but you most definitely wrong in this case.IrishLass (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but Wikipedia:DATE#Full date formatting says "Commas are not required to be used in full format American dates, such as February 14, 1976. Their inclusion or exclusion is a stylistic and editorial preference. Either style is acceptable so long as articles are internally consistent. Editors should follow the method already established in an article, so that if the article has dates with commas, then the commas should be left alone and new dates added to the article should have commas. If the dates in the article do not have commas, then they should not be added to existing dates and new dates should not have them. Where there is disagreement or the article currently has a mix of commas and no commas, then the earliest format used should be respected and the article changed to be consistent with that format." If not vandalism, it was still disruptive as commas were only removed from a small section of a large article with established commas. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

7th Heaven

I wasn't the one who decided to put the DVDs alongside the episode listings. Go point the finger somewhere else please. I only changed the title to reflect both items. Robinepowell (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Get over yourself. You are the one who moved the page and that was the wrong thing to do. You just don't know how to edit and should try and learn. IrishLass (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Holding hands up.. I'm not sure if it was me that added the DVD information, or just set it out in a table the way it was. Anyway, there is an established format where LoEs do have that info included; see Featured Lists List of Carnivàle episodes, List of Lost episodes, List of The Simpsons episodes, List of Smallville episodes, List of The Sopranos episodes, List of Stargate SG-1 episodes, List of Desperate Housewives episodes and List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to be a constant annoyance? Do I need to show you the "just because other stuff exists" policy? And if you are incapable of using words, don't come here. I deplore annoying little abbreviations that only mean something to the person that typed them. IrishLass (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. I was just saying, it was me who did it. And I don't think WP:OSE, which is only an essay, not policy or guideline, is the same as following an established format. LoE meant List of Episodes. And hey, let's not argue. We've only just come across each other, and we're both trying to make the best of Wikipedia, so I hope we can continue to edit it without upsetting each other if we do come across each other again. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you've come across me and annoyed me to no end. Established format? You have a link to the page that says "this is what "Lists of Episodes" must look like"? Really? I'd like to see that. Just because some pages have the DVD info doesn't mean they all do and there are thousands of television shows, not just the annoying few you listed including but not limited to "The Simpsons." IrishLass (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hehe.. to be honest, I don't watch the Simpsons. Anyway, I am sorry that I have annoyed you. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm glad you have figured out it wasn't me, too bad you didn't check before you made the accusation last week. Robinepowell (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Robin, the only thing you were accused of you did, you moved the page for no reason. I certainly didn't accuse you of adding the DVD information, I backed up the fact that you moved the page and shouldn't have. You can't deny that you did that, that's for sure. IrishLass (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Medium

What's it to you if I removed a reference that I added? I did because I changed it to one from the The Futon Critic, because that one not only list Rosanna Arquette and airdate but an actual title too. Again what's it to you? My reference, my business. Robinepowell (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You're being reported for removal of good sources, TV Guide beats Futon Critic and Futon Critic is still under review and considered questionable. I suggest you stop bothering me. IrishLass (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Then don't BOTHER me! Why start trouble????? If TFC is so bad, why is still being used a reference???? Btw, it's not a reference for the episode title. Robinepowell (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Comments for IrishLass0128

Hello. Comments about my site were brought to my attention today. Just wanted to go over a few things. I've kept track of the cast credits on "Days of Our Lives" since 1985. Each week the cast is listed by seniority, by the order they sign their contracts. Once in awhile, NBC goofs up, sometimes they even list Frances Reid as Francis or Peggy McCay as McKay, two of my big pet peeves when they do those errors, although recently, they've spelled their names correctly. A lot of contract changes will go unmentioned by the soap press, as you mentioned about Joy Bisco (Gabby). However, she was on contract throughout her entire stay on the show. Now perhaps you may think I made a mistake on that, but then you also had to add this: "Jason is assuming she's on contract as he did with the young lady that played Gabby and he was wrong, generally is." I took exception to that comment, since I pride myself on reporting just the facts of the show, and not any gossip unlike many other sites out there. I will admit in my ten years of running the site, I might average one or two mistakes every two years or so, but that's a pretty good track record for a decade on the Internet. Much better a track record than saying "Jason was wrong, generally is." On another statement you left, just wanted to make a correction on your error. You stated: "Contract status means in the credits everyday, even when you don't air, she is not. She is only listed on days she appears." That is incorrect. Kristen Renton has been listed in the credits every day since December 3, regardless of the weeks she appears in. Many weeks she did not appear in December, January, February and March, yet she was still in the credits every day. If that is not support enough, perhaps when Arianne Zuker (Nicole) is listed in the credits beginning on Thursday, April 3 (since they don't run on April 2 when she debuts), that will be more support. The newest contract actors are: Nadia Bjorlin - Chloe Lane Black...Kristen Renton - Morgan Hollingsworth...Tamara Braun - Ava Vitale...Shawn Christian - Dr. Daniel Jonas...Kevin Dobson - Mickey Horton (I'll admit this is a guess until the 4/1 credits air)...Arianne Zuker - Nicole Walker...Everyone listed up until Arianne Zuker is on contract. She'll be followed by the long-time non-contract vets (Bill & Susan Hayes, Leann Hunley, John Aniston, etc...)

Again not every contract addition/subtraction is mentioned in the soap press. In fact, there have been times when I've seen errors in their magazines as well. As I said above, nobody's perfect. Again, you are entitled to your opinion, but I hope you will reconsider when responding about my site in the future, and think twice before stating that "Jason is generally wrong." I have ten years in this business, so it's unfair to be called that after a decade reporting on "Days" news, 99 percent of the time correct. I forget of it was you or someone else who had mentioned about the actors playing the babies and Theo, but that info came from emails between myself and the show publicist. I don't just make things up at random. Amyrh Harris did appear for one scene on December 26, so that's why I have him listed on the site at the moment. He was the last person to appear in the role. Perhaps Theo won't be seen at all in 2008. Only time will tell. Jason. Jason47a (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As you and the Jason47 site seem to have an admin on your side (although I don't know if she knows your work or not) I'll simply say that I stand by my previous opinion and actually hold it stronger now than before, a claim of only wrong twice in 10 years is impossible for me to believe but also tells me a very great deal. I could list many sites I'm associated with in some form or another that do not allow what you post on your site to be listed as "fact" only as rumor and speculation, much like DaysCafe.com, but never fact. I further stand by the opinion that the Jason47 Days of our Lives site should not be an allowable resource for articles. Say what you want, do what you want, but I'll forever fight to keep that site as a non-referenceable source on the basis of WP:OR if nothing else but more importantly as a strickly fan site and fan sites are not allowed. Good bye. Please don't stop by again as it will only serve to negatively affect my opinion of you. Thank you. IrishLass (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)