User:KellyAna/Archive 4

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Hey KellyAna

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

Supercouples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shawn Brady

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

Carly Corinthos blocked

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

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

Wow! That was a really rude answer! and uncalled for!--99.177.250.140 (talk) 03:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Earl Ratings

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

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

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

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

Hello and thanks

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

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

Survivor Task Force

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

Civility warning

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

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

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

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

And his disparaging comments, which is a personal attack here [1] "flying around here on your broom", wasn't reported nor retaliated to but this stalking, which he admitted to, is getting out of hand. If you really look around you'll find many, many personal attacks made against me by TAnthony, I just haven't reported them.KellyAna (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Comment about recent events

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reliable sources

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

User:John

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

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

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

Bygones

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

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

"Questionable image with questionable licensing"

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

Actually, if you truly look at the licensing, you can't use anything taken after October 22, 2007 and this clearly was taken in January 2008. Additionally, several question the picture being actually Lorenzo Lamas. Even google searches do not hit on this picture and pictures of him don't look anything like that picture. The event was a look-a-like event and there's no indication that it is really LL. Regardless, the licensing doesn't allow for use. Look here at the licensing [2] it doesn't allow anything after 2007.10.22 so you can't actually use that picture. Addendum 2: Luke Ford sold lukeisback.com on October 22, 2007. Thus the rights to the photos on that site extend only to photos that he took prior to that date. And since he sold the site, how do you know the picture is authentic. Here's a 2007 shot of Lorenzo Lamas on Bold and the Beautiful [3], that not him in that picture previously in the Lorenzo Lamas article. KellyAna (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Tools

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Luke's reply in its entirety:

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

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

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

List of supercouples redux

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elonka- This is why. [4]. And this [5]. You can call me rude but I never told anyone to pull their head out of their ass or speculated on how someone deals with people in the real world. Do you see why I left the article when the likes of THAT are trying their best to sabotage the entire thing? KellyAna (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I am Spartacus

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

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

Civility and Assuming Good Faith

Hi, I noticed your comments ([6] [7] [8]) directed toward User:TenPoundHammer on his talk page had a lack of civility. They were quite confrontational, and it appeared as if you were assuming poor faith on his part. You need to calm down, take a look at WP:CIVIL, and try to assume good faith. The comments you have been making are increasingly rude, and cautioning TenPoundHammer for being incivil after he tried to work things out with you is simply unacceptable.

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

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

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

Trace Adkins

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

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

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

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

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

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

As an administrator, I have tried to help mediate this dispute but you are continually ignoring my attempts at calming the situation down. I am now requesting another administrator's opinion on the matter, and if needed I will start a Request for Comment on the matter. Please calm down, stop pointing fingers, and assume good faith on the parts of myself and TenPoundHammer. Malinaccier (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're in the wrong. You waive the "admin" banner well after the fact and make false warnings "editing others comments" and that's bothersome. Your "mediation" was "meddling" and you didn't allow any form of two people working things out, you simply came in, without any indication you were an admin (a misinformed admin who falsely told me I couldn't remove comments from my talk page when I have evidence I can). You actually seem to be set on not allowing TPH and I to work things out, at least in my opinion that's what I see. I tried to remove your comments and work things out but you then falsely accused me of violating policy. If you don't know the policy regarding removal of comments from a talk page, how can I trust you know other policies? KellyAna (talk) 01:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I usually prefer to stay out of disputes like this, but I was asked to look into it and have decided to comment. As far as I can tell, this stems from a content dispute regarding Trace Adkins. To be honest, other than knowing that he is a country singer, I don’t know a thing about the man. After reading edit summaries and talk page comments, I would like to suggest that both you and TPH step away from the article for a couple of days. If the incivility and edit warring continues, blocks will be issued, and I don’t think any of us are looking forward to that. Cheers —Travis ^talk 01:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Editing other users

On your own user talk page, you may remove others' comments, although archiving is generally preferred.
On your own user talk page, you may remove others' comments, although archiving is generally preferred. Just wanted to repeat it since I was accused of wrongful doing. KellyAna (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

KellyAna is correct, I did indeed tell her that if she found messages on her talkpage to be of concern, that she can simply delete them. By deleting them, she is acknowledging that she has read them, so there is no need for anyone to put them back on her page.

Regarding the anon IP that was posting about IRC, Kelly, I wouldn't worry about it. It was doing what was called trolling, meaning it was posting things in a deliberate attempt to cause trouble. The IP has now been blocked, so it shouldn't cause you any further problems.

Lastly, Kelly, I know you feel you're being attacked from all sides here. Then when you feel attacked, you lash out, and then more people come and tell you to stop lashing out, and things start escalating, exponentially. My recommendation is, to break the cycle, just don't react for an hour or so. Delete messages if you must, but don't try and respond to everyone, because that way lies madness. ;)

I find that when I'm stressed on Wikipedia, but still want to be on Wikipedia, that it's calming to go and do something that's a bit mechanical. For example, I'll pick a page at random at Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup. If it looks too hard, I'll skip it and pick something else. ;) There's usually something easy somewhere on the list. And getting a task done, even a minor one, is often very therapeutic and calming. Or maybe go to Category:Articles that need to be wikified. If you scan through all those articles, you'll usually quickly find something that's an easy fix, even if it's nothing more than just bolding a title or adding a couple section headers. :)

Another advantage to working on a cleanup category, is that it can show you that there are places in Wikipedia where people are actually grateful for the help. And when one is normally working in very stressful/controversial areas, it can be a welcome vacation.

Okay, that's my $0.02, hope it helps... El on ka 02:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Thank you, Elonka, for adding another calm voice to this. —Travis ^talk 02:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. KellyAna, I will agree to back out of this argument. I can see that I should have waited longer before saying anything (or anything at all) to you, but I thought that by cautioning both of you to cool it down a bit, I could head-off a much larger argument. Instead I should have waited.

I didn't give you an official warning or anything about removing my comment, but it seemed disruptive and against the talk page guidelines. Probably the only reason that I minded was because my comment was directed toward TenPoundHammer also. You were arguing over whether the use of Twinkle mattered or not. I simply sought to head-off another avenue of enflamed argument coming from you both.

I'm sorry that my comments coupled with TenPoundHammer's appeared to be ganging up on you and backing you into a corner. Once again, I should have waited before stepping in. I guess Elonka was right about the lashing out thing—for all the involved parties: Me, you, and TenPoundHammer.

I do object to your saying that I do not know talk page policy. The policy does say that editing other user's comments is unacceptable, and because my comment was not only directed toward you; was not a warning; and (as I thought at the time) was helping stop a larger argument, I believed that you should not have removed it.

Once again, I'm sorry for butting in. I'll say it again: I should have waited before stepping in. And I'll add to it: I should have gotten your side of the story first before warning you for incivility.

With that, unless someone requests that I continue to remain in this argument (let's hope not), I respectfully withdraw. I would like to note, however, that my warning about your incivility still remains. Please assume good faith and argue in a calm and civil manner. Happy editing from now on, Malinaccier (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sam Wilder

You did a great job on the cleanup, I must say I'm impressed. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It needs more work but it's getting there. KellyAna (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Formatting edits

I wasn't aware that my edit summary was either snotty or rude. I simply like bringing a little levity to what is otherwise a very droll thing. I'm sorry that you interpreted it as such, but no, it was not intended that way. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you explaining your thoughts. My apologies if I took them in a way they were not intended. As I'm sure you are most aware, it's often times hard to communicate humour over the internet and mistakes sometimes occur. I know we can move past this little misunderstanding. Thank you for taking the time to reply. KellyAna (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Apology

By the way, I just wanted to apologize for the grief I gave you earlier on the Trace Adkins article. It was really stupid of me to do a little bit of original research and split hairs about what kind of guitar he plays. I would have apologized sooner, but my sister was hogging the computer and I couldn't get on to Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate you saying that. I also wanted you to know that I appreciate your removal of the "merge" on the Rascal Flatts boys. I really think their articles can stand alone. They all have a little notability to themselves. Hopefully, despite the rocky start, we can work together on some country articles. KellyAna (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Good to know that you're willing to forgive. Maybe you could help with Rascal Flatts and the pages on their members -- I'm surprised that, as popular as they are, their page goes virtually untouched for so long. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I can look into doing that. I would love to find the transcript of the Oprah show where Gary told the story of getting Jamie Fox on the new album. I think that's a good thing to add and helps "boost" the notability of he as the lead. And I definitely want to "pretty it up." The more I look at all four pages the more I see what can be done and should. Question for you, do you consider album jackets "reliable sources" because it's the one band we have all the CD's for. I know for shows we use DVD features but I've never done expansion on a group like this. KellyAna (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop warning me.

Your warnings are ridiculous. Todd Bridges doesn't need a filmography longer than Brad Pitt's. Also, This isn't satire. The vocalist for this band is named Gary LeVox, which literally means “Gary the Voice.” This is a truth, it is a Latin name. This is not comedic and false, as you so eloquently put. You cannot have me blocked for these edits, so spare me the templates. The Equilibrium (talk) 04:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

KellyAna, Equilibrium has a point, though he (she?) could express it better. I don't much care about the Latin, but it was not appropriate for you to have given him a warning. Good faith edits are not vandalism, and this edit summary was also inappropriate, and you might want to consider apologizing.[9] If you disagree with the inclusion of the Latin information at Gary LeVox (and I don't have a strong preference on this either way), the proper way to handle it, is to work it out in a civil manner on the talkpage. Talk it out, see if you can find a compromise that everyone can live with. If you're deadlocked, and anyone feels it's that important, file an article RfC or do something to get more opinions into the mix. Also, please read WP:BITE? Consider that to Equilibrium, you are a more "senior" Wikipedian. If you see a more junior Wikipedian doing something that you feel is wrong, please consider that it would be more effective to teach them, than threaten them. --El on ka 19:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried to weigh in but it seems to be rather pointless. An admin is determined to scold anyone with an opinion contrary to Equilibrium's. I was scolded for biting while just offering an opinion. If you are so inclined, Elonka, maybe you could offer an opinion just to get a more diverse group. I feel like "Why did I come back to Wikipedia?" after the exchanges this morning. Kelly - Elonka is right. You need to stop. Now, I'm going back to my California articles. Biography just isn't my cup of tea. IrishLass (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

LaraLove may be an admin, but to my knowledge she is participating on that page as a normal editor. Sometimes we can take off the admin hat, and be just as rowdy as everyone else. :) Which means that on that page she has no special privileges, and is not allowed to use her admin tools to advance her own position. However, that she is an admin does speak to the fact that she has considerable experience with Wikipedia guidelines, so she may be worth listening to. But if you think she's wrong, just (in a civil way) tell her -- she's probably pretty open to a frank discussion. If you are able to make your case in a civil way, backing it up with an understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, she'll probably listen with an open mind, and maybe even change her position. In other words, it's best to assume good faith, that a compromise is possible, and that it's just necessary to figure out what it is. :) --El on ka 21:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Extremely disappointing. I use The_Equilibrium as solely a legit article space editor. But it was an lesson learned. Kelly bites. Irish felt the brunt. Elonka feels I could express it better (wrong). I don't take it personally. I simply feel bad for newcomers. Trying to keep my edits separate from other duties was an exercise in futility. I feel sorry for newcomers. No one was privy to my alt account, nor did they need to be. In this case, everyone here should take a step back an re-evaluate their tactics. the_undertow ^talk 07:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Jebco

Kelly, can you please show me the talkpage discussion, that shows that Jebco's edits are incorrect? If there is deliberate vandalism, there are ways to address this, but if it's just a difference in opinion, a different tack may be needed. Thanks, --El on ka 01:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not deliberate vandalism, it's that he isn't changing the ep counts correctly and I've offered to show him he needs to not only change the number and the date, he has to change the reference or it says "10,321 eps as of March 25, 2008. Reference tv.com accessed on February 28th." (dates and numbers made up) So he needs to change the number, the date, AND the retrieved on date in the reference. I'll change it correctly and maybe you can see what I mean. KellyAna (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's updated and you can see that by the reference [10], which is only updated through Friday, the ep count is right. I got blasted for changing ep numbers in the past and was told I had to go by a reference, I'm passing that on. All that's "asked" is he update the number, the date, and the reference date but if the reference isn't updated to wait. I mean, what if the show doesn't air or whatever, without going by the valid reference the entry is wrong (as I have been told way too many times). KellyAna (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you show where people have attempted to work things out with him normally? Warnings that have been ignored? Because so far his edits appear to be in good faith. Possibly wrong, but not a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. As such, a vandalism warning isn't appropriate. Better would be to start a thread at the talkpage, explain your reasoning for why the episode numbers should be as they are, and see what other editors say. If you can get multiple editors who agree with your perception, but Jebco continues to edit against consensus, then further action can be taken. But it may just be a case of confusion on Jebco's part. Again, it's best to go by WP:BITE. S/he might even be completely oblivious to talkpage messages, it's hard to tell. --El on ka 02:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

He's also an IP. I've tried but it seems to not do any good. I'm past biting because this tis beyond annoying. How do you ignore the big orange banner that says NEW MESSAGE? He's blanked his page, so he knows it exists. Attempts to explain have just fallen of deaf ears. He makes one edit, every day, incorrectly. I've tried to explain it and it doesn't work. I don't care if he does it, just as long as it's done right. KellyAna (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I just realized, I haven't given him a vandal warning, just a written out warning and I actually offered to help him learn how to do it. KellyAna (talk) 02:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Crane archives

Take the talkpage that's on the redirect (Crane?) and move it to be a subpage of the active talkpage: /Archive 1. Then post a note on the "real" talkpage saying what you did. --El on ka 02:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC) on the central talkpage.

Nothing's redirected. They both exist. The issue is Dougie moving the page based on personal opinion and the fact that there are now two talk pages. KellyAna (talk) 02:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, but to help untangle, I recommend archiving one of them, and then post a note saying what you did. --El on ka 02:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration request

Please be aware that I have filed a request with the arbitration committee regarding the titling of Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane. -- Dougie WII (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Good, I have all the evidence and you have none. Your request to move was ignored, common name policy is on my side, NBC is on my side and even your screen caps contradict your argument. What a waste of the committee's time but go for it so I can present the evidence from the official site. KellyAna (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that ArbCom will accept the case, so I wouldn't spend too much time on evidence. They are almost certainly going to say that other steps in Dispute resolution should be tried first, such as an article RfC, and mediation. Of course, I can't speak for the arbs, but that's just my $0.02. --El on ka 03:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I will state my case and see what happens. The issue is where the article is titles, not the contents. TAnthony, Spanish lullaby, and I all say "leave it without Crane" in the title of the article but allow it in the body. Dougie is the only descending vote. KellyAna (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Trace Adkins again

Regarding this diff, I don't think that it's acceptable to place external links within the text of the article -- I have never seen this in, say, GA-class articles, so I believe that it's discouraged. If you want to move that link to the "External links" section, that would probably be preferable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That's okay, I'll leave it -- I wasn't sure, which is why I undid your edit. (Also, I forgot you don't like Twinkle.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

See, you are just so cute and I can work with you. You aren't a Tweedle and you have good things to contribute. Give me tomorrow and I'll create an article because it is notable as a national charity and then change the link. I only added the link to the external site because we don't have an article already. The MSNBC article works as a source of notability. If you want to start it tonight, that's great otherwise, I'll start it tomorrow. I'm sure we can figure out the best way but for now, I think leaving the link is acceptable. And, yeah, I really hate that TW thing. It goes back a long way. KellyAna (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Final warning

KellyAna, I'm sorry, but all of the following comments by you are unacceptable in terms of civility.[11][12][13] This is your last warning. If you continue with this type of language, you will be blocked. --El on ka 02:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Block

Based on the diffs in my above warning, plus your comments since then,[14][15] which are a violation of Wikipedia's policies on civility and no personal attacks, your account is blocked for 3 hours. Please reconsider your behavior. --El on ka 03:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC) My

KellyAna, please ensure that your next comment is in compliance with Wikipedia's policies on civility and no personal attacks. Right now, you are blocked from Wikipedia but you are still allowed to post on your own talkpage. However, if you continue to post personal attacks or uncivil comments, that privilege will be taken away as well. You can either post calmly, or not at all. --El on ka 03:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think that Randy Jaiyan (talk · contribs) is the same as Jason47a (talk · contribs) ? --El on ka 03:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This talkpage has been protected for two hours. Please take a break. When you return, please ensure that your posts remain civil, and that you do not engage in attacks on other editors. --El on ka 04:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This[16] was clearly a personal attack. Please review Wikipedia's policy on no personal attacks, and Wikipedia's policy on civility. I'm serious. Please read both of them. --El on ka 01:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to see that you put the comment back on the page. It is still a personal attack, and, if the individual sees it, will probably just further escalate the situation. I am removing the comment again, please do not put it back. Your next block, if necessary, will probably be for 12 hours. --El on ka 01:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Yamla to weigh in and since the grammar is EVIDENCE that he's the sock you are removing it as your personal attack on my editing. You need to get some objectivity back. You were nice before but that guy who commented to you turned you into an admin I don't ever want to see on my page again. The comment is EVIDENCE that he's a sock, you are effectively siding with the sock by removing it. It's in reference to a "please unblock me" and editors are ALLOWED to comment on why they believe someone is a sock. You removing my comments removes evidence that he's a sock. Have you even bothered to look at all the damage Randy has done? KellyAna (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I would welcome another opinion from Yamla. As for the (toned down) comment that you replaced, thank you for editing it. Though I'm not sure what good it'll do since the particular user has already been permanently blocked. Now, I see that you're going through deleting other people's uncivil comments. Please be careful with this. If it's on your own talkpage, you can remove anything you want, at any time. If it's on someone else's talkpage though, the etiquette is usually to let that user deal with it, unless it is something really blatant. And if you remove something, and another editor puts it back, you most definitely should not edit war about it. Instead, get another opinion on things. This page might also be useful (and entertaining): WP:MASTODONS. --El on ka 02:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Irish has had my back many times and she's a good person. I'm not letting someone talk to her and accuse her of ownership and I sure as hell am not letting anyone accuse me of being a sock again especially since the last person that did it was a sock himself, User:Bleek25. There's a post somewhere where we've both said to remove uncivil comments from one another's pages and it was approved by an admin, Daniel I think. Some IP with one edit says nasty things sure as hell, I'm going to revert them. Some other editor accuses me of being a sock, sure as *&^% I'm going to revert it. She's do it for me and has and I appreciate it so when it happens to her (which is really, really rare), I'm going to do it for her. We got clarification a long time ago that it was okay to edit a user page if we had permission so I didn't do anything wrong. I'm sure if she's working next week (pray for her that she is) she'll say what I did was okay. KellyAna (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Deleted comments from earlier

Hello KellyAna. What a surprise after going to bed and waking up this morning to see what you said about me overnight. I don't engage in name-calling and other rudeness since that is childish behavior, so this will be my final comment on your page. I'm sorry you feel that I am a joke. In my ten years of doing my website, you're the first to say that. I do have a life, as "Days" is just a hobby for me. I have had many sources throughout the years and have been the first to report much information about the show. I also used to post scripts months in advance until I was asked by the show to stop, since it was spoiling too much too soon. I'm sorry you feel that I am an idiot. I provide tons of information about "Days" unavailable anywhere else on the Internet, so I don't see why you would feel that way. I've made available the weekly Nielsen ratings since 1989, a guest star gallery of every guest since 2006, biographies and pictures of all 27 head writers since 1965, a listing of the 269 preemptions since 1965, a contract archive since 1986, a listing of every Emmy nominee in Days history, a listing of every Soap Opera Digest article and cover about Days, a 1965 tribute including the entire first week of scripts, as well as the first-ever episode scripts of Deidre Hall (1976), James Reynolds (1981) and upcoming will be celebrating Suzanne Rogers' 35th anniversary as Maggie on Days this August by releasing her first episode script from August 1973. You seem to be a Days fan as well, so I thought perhaps you would enjoy some of those features, or at least not think I'm an idiot because of them. And yes, this is Jason47, not someone pretending to be him. All of the message boards I visit always have nice things to say about me, so it was surprising to me when you said that I've "been denounced as a source by intelligent people everywhere." They must be Days boards that I have not visited before. I hope you'll enjoy my tribute to Suzanne Rogers over the summer. All the best, Jason47 Jason47a (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Answering a question

Way up there, you asked: "Question for you, do you consider album jackets "reliable sources" because it's the one band we have all the CD's for. I know for shows we use DVD features but I've never done expansion on a group like this."

As far as I know, album liner notes are considered reliable sources -- I use them as sources when I create a page on an album, for example. They're primary sources, but I don't see any reason not to use them. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Confused??

How can you possibly know this information about Irishlass if she never mentioned it yesterday to anyone? [17] Also, why is it, you feel the need to remove comments off of Irishlass's talk from another user? If I was Irishlass, I would want to see comments left to me from other users. Thanks DJS--DJS24 (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ever heard of this thing called EMAIL? LOL. She and I are also on a message board together where she's an admin and I'm a member. That's how we ended up at Wikipedia the main admin asked for help with a "couples" article on here. As for the stuff I removed, it was a personal attack and I would remove any personal attack from a random IP address on any of the talk pages I watch. Anyone can see comments that were removed, just look in history. Fact is there was a personal attack in the removed comment and I removed it as others have done for me and she's done for me. Personal attacks aren't allowed and no one wants to see them and Irish certainly doesn't deserve to see them especially when they are false accusations. Even if someone leaves a comment and it's removed, you get the big orange message that you have a message, she'll see it if she wants to. Removing it just keeps others from making mean comments. By the way, what do you care and why are you questioning me? No one's challenged you and Blackwatch being brothers. Should I? KellyAna (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not the first one to question your actions these past 2 days. I found your actions listed above very questionable. I'm sure you would be all over my page if I did the same thing. You seem to be defending yourself against being a sock. I never mention/accused you of that. I just questioned your actions and knowledge of Irishlass. I'm also glad to here that I can count on you to remove personal attacks from my talk page when I'm not on. As for your last comment, which I consider a personal attack/threat even after that long speech you gave about personal attacks. I have nothing to hide considering my relationship with blackwatch. We are related, as it's been posted since the first day he joined. As being related, we never vote together nor comment on a situation together. You will never find our user names in the same conversation, that's against wiki. rules. Think what you want, you're the only one questioning it. By the way, I went to email you and you don't have an email address setup. Thanks Again DJS.--DJS24 (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

There are so many words I could use that I'm not allowed to. Liar would be the only one I'm allowed to because I do have an email set up because I was grateful last week that I did because I lost my password and needed to use my daughter's computer. ALSO, I emailed Elonka and while she might not like what I said she can back that I emailed her and you can't email anyone unless you have an email set up so that's a lie. I didn't EVEN personally attack you, I pointed out that your comments were unwarranted and that no one has challenged you and Blackwatch. You challenging me about Irish is like asking if cottage cheese and milk are related. It's an over and done with subject. The guy that made the comment last night admitted a mistake, he thought we were someone else. And I didn't question anything until you came here today being a jerk for no reason. Why do you care if Irish and I are friends? Why are you being like this? KellyAna (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No one has challenged Blackwatch or me because there's no reason too. We're following the rules. I've said what I needed to say, after this I'm done discussing it. You threaten me with Blackwatch and called me a jerk, which is a huge personal attack. It's funny how you spend all day warning and yelling at other users for personal attacks, yet you think nothing of doing it yourself and when you do, you think its ok. By the way, watch your grammar/spelling; you seem to be typing in a panic these last 2 days. It's unlike you to have spelling mistakes. Good Day DJS--DJS24 (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, for your viewing [18]. One thing I don't do is LIE. Regards DJS --DJS24 (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont know who's page that's from but I damn skippy have an email associated with my account so stop lying about that. Elonka will tell you, I have an email. Maybe you don't which would mean you can't email me but I have one so don't lie about that. And provide a link where I called you a jerk. Without that you have no case. As for the spelling, not even. I can't even complete a post without spell check stopping me. Back the heck off or I'll just report you for harassment. KellyAna (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I think you're talking about two different things... DJS24, I think what KellyAna is saying is that she has other off-wiki ways of communication with IrishLass0128. But it doesn't mean that they're the same person. KellyAna, what DJS24 is saying is that he's trying to contact you by clicking on the "E-mail this user" link in the lefthand toolbox, but it's not working for him for some reason. It doesn't work for me either, which means that either you don't currently have your email address entered into your preferences, or that it's disabled for some reason. To check it, click on "My preferences" at the top of your browser, and check to see what the "Email" section down at the bottom of the page says. My bet is that there's a an error message or an unchecked box or a "confirmation failed" message or something like that, but it shouldn't be difficult to get it fixed. --El on ka 00:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, thank you for pointing that out, I don't like being called a liar. By the way, that's another personal attack KellyAna, along with "back the heck off", you're on a roll today. I'm done discussing this issue. However I'm sure I'll here from you Monday morning, sorry I'm mean I'll hear from Irishlass Monday morning. Good Day DJS --DJS24 (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out, I like you're personal attacks below "Do you have a job", that's completly rude and not allowed on wikipedia. I hope Elonka reads that. Regards DJS--DJS24 (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

DJS24, I understand if you're feeling frustrated, but being uncivil, is not the way to get someone else to be civil. ;) If you feel that KellyAna has been uncivil to you though, please provide a diff of any comments that you have concerns about. As for the links between KellyAna and Irishlass's accounts, this was already brought up in February. Here's a link to the SSP (Suspected sockpuppet) report.[19] If you believe that the accounts are being used in an inappropriate manner, you can file another SSP case, or perhaps a CheckUser report. You can find information on this at WP:RFCU. But do please be sure to read the first report, to avoid having to duplicate anything. And if you do file, please post to the talkpages of the users, so that they have an opportunity to explain. Thanks, El on ka 01:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Trace Adkins

You've failed to elaborate why Trace's case is any different from every single candidate that has been on the show before. The final two are not handled differently by any means; there is not a "runner-up" status for the one Trump doesn't choose. He is listed as "Fired" like every other losing finalist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tam001 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you actually have a job? Have you ever been in the running for a job? Trump NEVER looked at Trace and said "You're fired" and that's what it's about. I don't give a diddly squat about the other seasons. Trace's article is about him, not the show. He wasn't fired by Trump and removing the sentence is a violation of Wikipedia policy. KellyAna (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not going to make your arguments stronger. I've mentioned more than once that the candidate doesn't have to hear "you're fired" to be considered as fired. He didn't win, so he is fired. Also, the job insult is pretty inappropriate; do you really think The Apprentice mirrors a real job interview? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tam001 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You really don't get Wikipedia, do you? KellyAna (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You're completely missing the point; the text you wrote is nothing more than your personal POV, which has no place on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tam001 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that

I've warned the user who's repeatedly reverting the warning on your Talk page that their repeated reversions is bordering on harrassment and they need to stop. Corvus cornix_talk 22:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess it didn't matter since some how I've been falsely convincted. Apparently no one is looking at the article. I added, not removed and didn't 3RR but I've been falsely blocked. Maybe you can help. If so, thanks. By the way, the person that was "warning" me used your signature as one of the warnings. You should be not happy about that.KellyAna (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Shell ^babelfish 22:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Agreed to stop reverting. Shell ^babelfish 22:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Request handled by: Shell ^babelfish 22:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, someone just mentioned to me that you might have come to an agreement on that passage; if that's the case, I'll be happy to unblock you. By the way, no one reported you and I was actually on my way to block the other party in the dispute as well... Shell ^babelfish 22:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't block either of us, that would be my thoughts. Yes, there's a content dispute on the Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald article but neither of us violated 3RR, which means at 4 we get blocked, we were both at three. I added content to clarify and I did attempt to discuss but this issue has been going on for a very, very long time. Thank you for reconsidering. I'll even stay away from TLF and just watch my Days articles if that will help. KellyAna (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You are not entitled to three reverts. Corvus cornix_talk 22:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to let Shell make the decision. My understanding is you revert, or remove in this case, but try to discuss. I did try but Dougie is historically resistant to discussion. As I understand it, however, it's only after the third revert where blocking is warranted. But I could be wrong. Again, I'll let Shell decide. KellyAna (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you can be blocked for any amount of edit warring because it is disruptive; WP:3RR doesn't entitle you to three reverts. Are you agreeing not to perform any further reverts? And please discuss next time until you come to a conclusion instead of edit warring? Shell ^babelfish 22:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I won't touch the TLF article (Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald). I did try and discuss, I have tried. We're just both really committed to our points on this particular isssue. But I will refrain from editing TLF for now.KellyAna (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Awesome; I've unblocked you. Have you tried a third opinon or request for comment to get some outside opinions on the issues on Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald? Usually when two (or a few) people get stuck on an issue, requesting some fresh eyes can help sort things out. Shell ^babelfish 22:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

HELP ~ I tried to edit and it says I'm blocked still and cannot edit. Please unblock me for real. Obviously you meant to but it didn't work. KellyAna (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

My mistake

Hi KellyAna. I wanted to apologize for the error I made in reverting the 3rr comment. I was working on multiple screens and was a bit distracted. The second note was a cut and paste error due to conflicting edits within the page. The diff shows the comment I intended to make as well as the cut-and-paste error I made by reincluding the 3rr comment. Corvus cornix reverted that comment too, so I don't know if you ever saw it. Corvus cornix was completely correct in reverting the 3rr part because that was my mistake but they overreacted in refusing to accept the explanation which was given in good faith. I hope this explanation is acceptable to you, but if you would like additional clarification please let me know. Thanks. --- Taroaldo (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It's okay. I get the multiple window thing. We'll just move on and work it through. KellyAna (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald

Hi, I understand the underlying debate... and don't really care one way or the other (I have never seen the programe). The point is that the screen cap demonstrates (reliably) that, at one point at least, the name Caine (or what ever it is) was used for the character. If the character had another name at a different time, that can (and should) be mentioned as well. Actually, the screen cap is not even needed... a simple citation to the episode date is enough to reliably source a statement that, as of that date, the character had that name. As to the underlying debate... I am more than willing to let you all argue over what the page name should be (Note that whichever name ends up not being used should be listed in bold as an "alternative", per Naming conventions and MOS). Happy Wiki-ing. Blueboar (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

KellyAna (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Shell indicates she/he unblocked me but the autoblock is still on (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Block message:

original block message

Blocking administrator: not provided (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: According to your block log, you have been unblocked. If this is not the case, please follow these directions exactly to lift any autoblocks that may still apply to your account:
Clearing an autoblock

Due to the nature of the block applied, we need additional information before we can decide whether to unblock you. It is very likely that you are not personally blocked. If you are prevented from editing, it may be because you are autoblocked or blocked because of your IP address. Without further details, there is nothing further we can do to review or lift your block. Please follow these instructions:

If you have a Wikipedia account, please ensure that you are logged in.
Your account name will be visible in the top right of this page if you are.

If it isn't, try bypassing your web browser's cache.
Try to edit the Sandbox.
If you are able to edit the sandbox, you are not blocked from editing. Either the autoblock on your IP address has already expired, or you weren't blocked in the first place. Either way, you can resume editing.
If you are still blocked, follow the directions below:
1. Copy the {{unblock-auto|...}} code generated for you under the "Unblock request" section.
2. Paste the code at the bottom of your user talk page, and click save.
  If you cannot edit your own talk page, use the Unblock Ticket Request System to make your request.

— Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Found and removed a lingering autoblock; try now? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Works now. Thank you. KellyAna (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Image

Hi, thanks for the question, though I'll be honest that I don't have time to look at this right now, and "fair use" on images is a really touchy subject. I recommend that you post your query at the Wikipedia:Help desk. You'll probably get an answer there within minutes. --El on ka 02:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey there, Elonka asked me if I could field this one since she's not available at the moment. Fair-use is a bit difficult to understand, but essentially, it allows us to use images that are copyrighted in very special circumstances. The first thing this means is that the image in question isn't a copyright violation right off the bat. Beyond that, you then have to look at the rules for non-free content to make sure its being used in the right manner in the article. In this case, its used to identify how a particular character visually appeared and discuss that character and its portrayal. In my experience, this meets the criteria. However, there's a page called Wikipedia:Media copyright questions which is watched by editors with a lot of experience in this area who could check the image if you still have any concerns. Shell ^babelfish 02:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I know for fact, JPI owns the image and Wiki isn't allowed to use it. They go on set and take pictures and using the images after SOD pays for them IS illegal. VERY ILLEGAL. JPI owns the image in question and it doesn't fall into any kind of fair use without JPI's written consent. KellyAna (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually that's exactly what it means - fair-use does not require anyones consent, it is a justification for using otherwise copyrighted images. It might help if you take a look at Fair use to see what its all about. Please do not revert my removal of the copyright violation notice you placed -- if you have a concern, that is not the proper way to deal with it and as an administrator, I may review any article or image tagged with a copyvio notice and make a decision on it. This might also be a good time to point out that you're reverting again and if it keeps up, you're going to be blocked again. Shell ^babelfish 03:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We've been through the use of SOD images before and it's been stated they are not to be used. What's changed? Fair use doesn't apply to shots that are staged for a photo shoot which all pictures from SOD are. Soap Opera Digest is a magazine with an online site but their primary function is a paper magazine. We've had many other images removed that were uploaded from websites, what makes that one image so special? If I use any other JPI image, it's immediately removed. Why is this one image the exception? It makes no sense that all other JPI images are removed but this one isn't. I really think TAnthony needs to weigh in on this one. He knows all the rules about pictures for soap articles. And claiming it's a screen cap is false, it is not. There are many times that SOD has pictures that are not seen on screen images. There seems to be something totally wrong with this being allowed and so many others being deleted. KellyAna (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you please provide links to some of these previous discussions? --El on ka 12:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

KellyAna: I'm sure you're acting in good faith on this but I don't think you're understanding what Shell is saying. Fair Use is a legal doctrine that permits certain uses of copyrighted works without the permission of the copyright holder, where otherwise such uses would be infringing. A classic case of Fair Use is the use of a copyrighted photo of a TV show character in an educational/critical article about that character. Wikipedia's non-free content policy allows such uses and there is long history of doing so; where the photo originally comes from is irrelevant. -- Hux (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)