Sparrowhawkseven
Welcome
editHello, Sparrowhawkseven, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Active Banana (bananaphone 19:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Content must be from reliable sources
editHello, please read our guideline for what constitutes a reliable source; soapnet does not meet the qualifications. Active Banana (bananaphone 21:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the mishap, I'll try again then. Sparrowhawkseven (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Using content you find using news.google.com (except for the blogs) or from books.google.com (except for the Inc Icon wikipedia mirror publish on demand) are generally acceptable sources. Active Banana (bananaphone 21:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. But I did have a question, almost all of the pages for these soap characters have references from ABC.com, soapcentral.com, soaps.net and soapnet.com because that's the primarily place to get information for these characters, so I was just wondering if any of those would be acceptable? Thanks for the help. Sparrowhawkseven (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- ABC.com is acceptable, but since it is the parent station it does not count as a third party source which is required for an article to be stand alone. I am fairly certain that soapcentral.com, soaps.net and soapnet.com do not pass the reliable source criteria. Active Banana (bananaphone 21:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. But I did have a question, almost all of the pages for these soap characters have references from ABC.com, soapcentral.com, soaps.net and soapnet.com because that's the primarily place to get information for these characters, so I was just wondering if any of those would be acceptable? Thanks for the help. Sparrowhawkseven (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- I see, so would it be more efficient to merge all the character pages into the List of General Hospital characters page, because few actually qualify as stand alone articles? Sparrowhawkseven (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Probably. Active Banana (bananaphone 21:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- I see, so would it be more efficient to merge all the character pages into the List of General Hospital characters page, because few actually qualify as stand alone articles? Sparrowhawkseven (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hello again, I'm just confused because when we talked before you said ABC.com was a reliable source, but now it's not? Could you please clarify that for me, because I've been working hard on trying to hunt down reliable sources for the pages I am working on. Also I've been working on other pages such as the Robin Scorpio page, the Olivia Falconeri page, the Michael Corinthos page, and the Kristina Corinthos-Davis page and those pages have few sources. The sources they do have are more of the same like the ones found on the Sam McCall page, and are from places like soapcentral, sopanet, soaps.com and soap opera digest, so will I have to find new sources for those pages as well? One last question and I think I asked it before, but not must scholarly information can be found from Google Scholar searches concerning Soap Opera characters. Most of the information that you can find on these particular characters come from soap sites, so why aren't these sites considered legit when it comes to this topic. Thanks for the help and I have read the page about what sites are considered legit sources or not and the reliable source criteria, but I'm still left wondering why these sites are not considered reliable given the topic. Sparrowhawkseven (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not completely sure what Active Banana is saying, but SOAPnet.com certainly does count as a reliable source for soap opera information, and is not just some fansite. It has a staff for fact-checking and is run by a company. As WP:Reliable sources states, "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." The same goes for ABC.com and Soap Opera Digest (the magazine or the website). SoapCentral.com has been debated more than once at Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas and it was even taken to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, where it was decided that it was reliable for news, soap opera actor biographies and interview information. Because as WP:Reliable sources also states, "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." The news from SoapCentral.com is fact-checked, has a staff, and is mostly relayed to us by the site's creator. That applies to its biographies on soap opera stars as well. Soap opera stars also give exclusive interviews to SoapCentral.com, so SoapCentral.com has become more than just a "fansite." It is the character biographies that are not considered reliable from SoapCentral.com because those are written by the fans.
- Hello again, I'm just confused because when we talked before you said ABC.com was a reliable source, but now it's not? Could you please clarify that for me, because I've been working hard on trying to hunt down reliable sources for the pages I am working on. Also I've been working on other pages such as the Robin Scorpio page, the Olivia Falconeri page, the Michael Corinthos page, and the Kristina Corinthos-Davis page and those pages have few sources. The sources they do have are more of the same like the ones found on the Sam McCall page, and are from places like soapcentral, sopanet, soaps.com and soap opera digest, so will I have to find new sources for those pages as well? One last question and I think I asked it before, but not must scholarly information can be found from Google Scholar searches concerning Soap Opera characters. Most of the information that you can find on these particular characters come from soap sites, so why aren't these sites considered legit when it comes to this topic. Thanks for the help and I have read the page about what sites are considered legit sources or not and the reliable source criteria, but I'm still left wondering why these sites are not considered reliable given the topic. Sparrowhawkseven (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- All that said, Sparrowhawkseven, some of the sources you have been adding to List of fictional supercouples (and have even added to Jason Morgan and Sam McCall) are not reliable sources. The list clearly states that the sources must call these couples supercouples. Well, SOAPnet is not calling them a supercouple. And the other sources? listal.com is not a reliable source. And though Soap Opera Weekly is a reliable source, it is calling them "a budding supercouple" (which is not the same thing as "a supercouple"), and that source would be more reliable if its url was not to a fansite backing the claim. I only left the About.com source because it can be a reliable source. However, I would not call it reliable in this case because it is just a fan piece. If you haven't noticed, just about all of the General Hospital couples have a section there. They are put under the title of "supercouple"...but not through the article text. It's obvious that the title is nothing more than just a title. This is why this source was not used on the Wikipedia supercouples list until you added it. Flyer22 (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm also pretty sure that Newsblaze.com does not qualify as a reliable source, since they advertise for writers -- meaning quite possibly anyone calling themselves a writer can write for this site. But I might have to check that out at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I do want to thank you, though, for making your Jason Morgan and Sam McCall article encyclopedic. Making such articles encyclopedic has been a problem for the majority of new users here, but not for you. So thank you for looking at the more encyclopedic soap opera couple articles as examples. Flyer22 (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- All that said, Sparrowhawkseven, some of the sources you have been adding to List of fictional supercouples (and have even added to Jason Morgan and Sam McCall) are not reliable sources. The list clearly states that the sources must call these couples supercouples. Well, SOAPnet is not calling them a supercouple. And the other sources? listal.com is not a reliable source. And though Soap Opera Weekly is a reliable source, it is calling them "a budding supercouple" (which is not the same thing as "a supercouple"), and that source would be more reliable if its url was not to a fansite backing the claim. I only left the About.com source because it can be a reliable source. However, I would not call it reliable in this case because it is just a fan piece. If you haven't noticed, just about all of the General Hospital couples have a section there. They are put under the title of "supercouple"...but not through the article text. It's obvious that the title is nothing more than just a title. This is why this source was not used on the Wikipedia supercouples list until you added it. Flyer22 (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Daytime Confidential is no more reliable than NewsBlaze or Crushable. Both are opinionated sites that advertise to writers. Anyone who calls themselves a writer and registers with the staff, can write their own articles on the Daytime Confidential site and they aren't obligated to be unbiased. The Daytime Confidential sources that you added are not very credible either because I don't see how they are any different from NewsBlaze or Crushable. If you read their articles you'll be able to tell that they are very biased and make no apologies for it, so I cannot see how a biased news site can be used as a reliable source. The context of that Daytime Confidential source doesn't seem very credible to me, it simply named Jason and Elizabeth a supercouple without any backing, so I'm just going to revert the supercouple page back to how it was when all the supercouples listed were from credible sources. I'd also just like to add that I did not create the Jason and Sam article, I just edited, I also didn't add all those sources (listal, newsblaze, etc..) that you said that I did, I only tried to find more sources to make it credible. I originally added the Jason and Sam page to the "see also" section, but someone came and added them to the actual supercouple list so I only added sources. If we are going to use Daytime Confidential as a credible source then I think NewsBlaze should be used as well. The Soap Opera Weekly source was not from a fansite, the article was transcribed on a fansite because Soap Opera Weekly does not have a website, but the actual article was in the magazine. Sparrowhawkseven (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sparrowhawkseven, in my view, Daytime Confidential counts as a reliable source for soap opera news and interviews information. Just like SoapCentral, soap opera stars give exclusive interviews to that site. Those two things are what we mostly use it for. And I'm not sure what Daytime Confidential sources you are suggesting I added. Nk3play2 added the couples you removed. As such, I will inform Nk3play2 of your removals, so you two can work it out...if you decide to. I am not interested into getting into a General Hospital couple edit war. But let me make clear that you also removed soapoperasource.com (which is debatable but can be reliable) and TV Guide, the two other sources Nk3play2 used to back his or her couples. Sure, the TV Guide source is Nelson Branco naming them, but he still counts as a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. What you say about the Daytime Confidential source "just naming Jason and Elizabeth a supercouple without any backing" is exactly the type of issues that have been discussed at the talk page. A source that passes WP:Reliable sources doesn't need any "backing" because they count as the "backing." I call them "random supercouple mentions." See Talk:List of fictional supercouples#Section break: See alsos and random supercouple mentions and Talk:List of fictional supercouples#Examiner.com , and random supercouple mentions Part 2. After all, how are couples determined "supercouples"? While I say it's by the fans and popularity, it still takes a reliable source calling them one to make the claim "credible."
- Daytime Confidential is no more reliable than NewsBlaze or Crushable. Both are opinionated sites that advertise to writers. Anyone who calls themselves a writer and registers with the staff, can write their own articles on the Daytime Confidential site and they aren't obligated to be unbiased. The Daytime Confidential sources that you added are not very credible either because I don't see how they are any different from NewsBlaze or Crushable. If you read their articles you'll be able to tell that they are very biased and make no apologies for it, so I cannot see how a biased news site can be used as a reliable source. The context of that Daytime Confidential source doesn't seem very credible to me, it simply named Jason and Elizabeth a supercouple without any backing, so I'm just going to revert the supercouple page back to how it was when all the supercouples listed were from credible sources. I'd also just like to add that I did not create the Jason and Sam article, I just edited, I also didn't add all those sources (listal, newsblaze, etc..) that you said that I did, I only tried to find more sources to make it credible. I originally added the Jason and Sam page to the "see also" section, but someone came and added them to the actual supercouple list so I only added sources. If we are going to use Daytime Confidential as a credible source then I think NewsBlaze should be used as well. The Soap Opera Weekly source was not from a fansite, the article was transcribed on a fansite because Soap Opera Weekly does not have a website, but the actual article was in the magazine. Sparrowhawkseven (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- As for not adding Newsblaze, you're right that it was not you who added that source. I didn't say you added it; I just wanted to be clear about it, since it is used in the Jason and Sam article. The editor who added Newsblaze was Nk3play2, and I already talked with Nk3play2 about that. I'm not sure about Daytime Confidential picking up writers in the same way that Newsblaze does, but I will check that out. And while you didn't add Newsblaze, I am quite certain that you are the IP who added listal. You showed up after that IP three times, and it doesn't make sense that Nk3play2 was arguing against his or her own additions. The Soap Opera Weekly source, though? I said its url is that of a fansite. I said that the "source would be more reliable if its url was not to a fansite backing the claim." And I see you took care of that by removing its url from the Jason and Sam article. It still, however, says "budding supercouple," not "supercouple. To me "budding" means "on the verge of, but not quite there." Flyer22 (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm quite certain that I didn't add the listal link because I did not go to that website and there was another IP that was editing the page as well. I showed up after the IP because I was editing other things on the page and trying to make it more official, you can check that out if you don't believe me. You can track my edits if you want, but I think I would know what I added and didn't add. That link that you added to the page with the two revisions is not me. Whenever I edit on Wikipedia, I am always logged in, so you're dealing with three editors here, not two. There was no problems with the supercouple page before everyone started to add others, so like I said before I'm just going to revert the page back to how it was when all the sources were credible and if Nk3play2 wants to talk to me about it then they can feel free. I'm not interested in any war either, that's not what I'm trying to do here. In my opinion Daytime Confidential is a poor source for reliability and that was the point I was trying to get across. I do see what you mean by "budding supercouple" vs. "supercouple" but that article was published in 2005 and I think it's safe to say that they have passed the budding stage in six years time. I also see your point about "random supercouple mentions" but there were "random supercouple mentions" in some of the other more reliable sources that got removed for some reason or another. Sparrowhawkseven (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I understand what you mean about Daytime Confidential being a poor source, and more experienced editors of soap opera topics like myself (TAnthony, AniMate, and Rocksey) have stated the same thing, but it has not been banned and we still use it on occasion. For example, if a soap opera star has given an exclusive interview (which of course means to that site only). I also cannot see anything on Daytime Confidential indicating that they hire any person claiming to be a writer, such as what is stated of Examiner.com by AniMate in the Talk:List of fictional supercouples#Examiner.com , and random supercouple mentions Part 2 section. So it's clearly not the same things as NewsBlaze.com. And in any case, your objection to Daytime Confidential still does not negate the fact that Nk3play2 also used sources such as soapoperasource.com and TV Guide. That's my point about your removals. Nk3play2's additions had more than one source backing his or her additions, and all of those sources are more reliable than the ones that were backing Jason and Sam. Further, what you state about "budding supercouple" vs. "supercouple" is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. It's not up to us to say that "it's safe to say that they have passed the budding stage in six years time." It's up to reliable sources to name them a supercouple. What I mean by "random supercouple mentions" is what I stated in the Examiner.com section linked above -- authors just randomly calling couples "supercouples" and then that counting as validation that these couples are supercouples. A reliable source can call a couple a supercouple even if they are not, and there is nothing we can do to fight against that inaccuracy because...a reliable source is a reliable source. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. That is why, in the Examiner section, we were saying that we should maybe require that the supercouple list display more than once source validating each other couple as a supercouple. Our reasoning is that if more than one source is calling the couple a supercouple, then it is more than likely that the couple is actually a supercouple. However, it's not really up to us to enforce such a thing. And some sources copy each other and name a pairing a supercouple simply because whatever other source did. This happened in the case of Reese and Bianca, even though the pairing was/is mostly unpopular with fans and critics. Flyer22 (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm quite certain that I didn't add the listal link because I did not go to that website and there was another IP that was editing the page as well. I showed up after the IP because I was editing other things on the page and trying to make it more official, you can check that out if you don't believe me. You can track my edits if you want, but I think I would know what I added and didn't add. That link that you added to the page with the two revisions is not me. Whenever I edit on Wikipedia, I am always logged in, so you're dealing with three editors here, not two. There was no problems with the supercouple page before everyone started to add others, so like I said before I'm just going to revert the page back to how it was when all the sources were credible and if Nk3play2 wants to talk to me about it then they can feel free. I'm not interested in any war either, that's not what I'm trying to do here. In my opinion Daytime Confidential is a poor source for reliability and that was the point I was trying to get across. I do see what you mean by "budding supercouple" vs. "supercouple" but that article was published in 2005 and I think it's safe to say that they have passed the budding stage in six years time. I also see your point about "random supercouple mentions" but there were "random supercouple mentions" in some of the other more reliable sources that got removed for some reason or another. Sparrowhawkseven (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Erin-Chambers-JPI-2010-E-L.jpg
edit
Thanks for uploading File:Erin-Chambers-JPI-2010-E-L.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for assistance on Jason and Sam
editThanks for the assistance with the background information on the article. If you could, can you help expand the other two articles I've started, Sonny and Carly and Lucky and Elizabeth, it would be a really big help. --Nk3play2 my buzz 02:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:SMcCall.jpg
edit
Thanks for uploading File:SMcCall.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
- I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
- I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
- If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
- To opt out of these bot messages, add
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}to your talk page. - If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Category:Baldwin family
editCategory:Baldwin family, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Category:Corinthos family
editCategory:Corinthos family, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Category:Quartermaine family
editCategory:Quartermaine family, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)