User talk:Flyer22 Frozen

If you leave me a message on this page, I will reply on this page.

Archive

• Archive 1 (from May 8 2007 - June 20 2007)
• Archive 2 (from June 24 2007 -

Re: BAM

I'll see what I can do. Soaps are not my forte, but that may be a benefit. I'm slightly familiar with Bianca, my mother is big into soaps, so I won't be flying completely blind. I'll try and give it a good read over tonight before I go to bed, and look at the peer review so as not to repeat anything else that is said.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Awesome, Bignole, thank you. I knew that I could count on you on this as to my request for your assessment of this article. Flyer22 01:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I've only given a partial review, I'm still in the "Writing" section of the article, and it's getting late so I'll have to pick it up after work tomorrow. But, asking me to review an article also means you get my credence on IU information, and I'm a stickler for severe summarization of such stuff. I've always felt that if it was important, then it would have OOU information attached to it. You may want to contact User:Paul730 and User:Zythe also for help in trimming it. Paul has been working on Buffy Summers in his sandbox, and taken 7 seasons worth of information for a main character and summarized it into concise paragraphs. I'd also suggest using the semicolon trick instead of subheadings for the various stages in the character's fictional life. It makes the table of contents more attractive. Also, on a bigger note, there are far too many images in that area as well. The first kiss is probably the most "impacting" moment for the characters, after and before that, it's pure eye candy. I'll pick up reading the article when I get off work tomorrow. Even though it's heavy criticism, you have done an excellent job with it. Even though it still needs some major work, I'd put this article over Andrew Van De Kamp in a heart beat. ;)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay, Bignole. I'll try my best to tackle your concerns, in a way that we can come to agreements that what we remove from this article is not taking away from this article, of course, but is rather improving it, and I know that you have a good sense of direction on those matters. I'll get right to contacting User:Paul730 and User:Zythe as to ask for their possible assistance on this article. I saw User:Paul730's mention of the Buffy Summers article on User:Elonka's talk page and then on your talk page also. And, yes, he is doing a good job on summarizing that article's plot. I've thought about cutting down on some of the plot of this article as well, of course, but then I wasn't sure on if it really needs to be cut down. I mean, most of it seems so significant to the relationship of these two characters, but the fact that I see it that way could also be that I'm too attached to this article and that I've been working on it constantly, without too much of a break from it and without other editors thoughts on it as well, unless one counts the "Article looks good" statement that I got from two editors when this article was featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did you know? section. Talk with you later. Flyer22 02:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Noticed your reply before I hit the hay...I'll read that section as well and see if I can summarize it also. It's things like - "People, even then-enemy and sister Kendall Hart, crowd around Bianca to make sure that Bianca is okay. - that can go. It's all written in detail, when it could be easier to summarize the events in a more general tone. You could summarize that first bit to say: "Mary Stone comes to Pine Valley to investigate the murder of her twin sister, Frankie, whom Bianca immediately mistakens her for at first sight." -- All the quotes and details about Bianca falling down when she sees her, they aren't necessary. People can watch SoapNet and find out what happens, or read it on a Wikia page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
• Laughing out loud, Bignole. I like the mention of Bianca falling down at first sight of Maggie though. I mean...the drama. Oh, well. I want to keep the two youtube links there that are within this article's plot though. Flyer22 03:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Flyer, yeah I remember you. I have never even heard of these characters before (I'm Scottish, and American soaps don't get a whole load of coverage over here), but I found the article very interesting and was impressed with the amount of out-of-universe info that is so rare in fictional character pages. I have left advice for summarising plot sections and character histories at the Andrew Van De Kamp featured article review, if you want to take a look. Other advice/criticism of the article include:

• The links to youtube - I'm no expert on policies, but I think those are a no-no.
• The sentence "rattle on cluelessly" in the "writing" section seems a little informal to me - maybe reword.
• The dates of these character's first appearances should be included in the lead. Maybe it's mentioned later, but you shouldn't have to dig through an article for crucial info like that.
• Too many subheading in the "chemistry" section.

Those are my only major concerns after a quick skim through the article. I'll read it over more thoroughly later, and if you have any specific questions or need help summarising the plot, just ask. :) Paul730 04:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Thank you, Paul. I'm going to get right to tackling the parts of the article that you and Bignole have pointed out as needing to be improved. I'm working on this article, all of the other soap opera couple articles here at Wikipedia that need fixing up to at least meet Wikipedia policy, and I'm perfecting a screenplay that I'm working on, so all of this is a little hectic for me at this time. As for youtube, I read Wikipedia's policy on that, that a few links are okay to include within an article on Wikipedia, as long as they are not excessive. But as for including youtube links within an article's plot, yeah, that may not be too common here on Wikipedia. Still, I feel that that issue may be okay, when it's only one, two...or three youtube links. This article only has two youtube links within its plot, of course. Talk with you later. And thanks to both of you guys' compliments on this article, even as it is now (before its further fixing up). Flyer22 05:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've never heard of the character, but summarisation shouldn't be impossible... you'll find most of plot summary can just go.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 09:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Hey, Zythe, good to see you. Flyer22 09:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You tube links have to go. It's copyrighted content, that even YouTube shouldn't be posting. If the studio wants, they can have them removed, as there is no fair use justification for their usage. As for the "drama", that has to go out of the wording. Wiki is supposed to have a neutral eye, and if we are adding dramaticized wording to text then it comes off like we are promoting the material. Also, the part in the first sentence, "popular Maggie and Bianca couple..." that has to go. You shouldn't open the lead with a sentence that has subjective material in it. It should only state the basic info, which is "who they are" and not "what is their impact". Bianca's birthday, not important. It has no relevance in the real world. Also, what is "earlier development since 1988.."? Is that when Agnes created the character? If so, it should say that. If not, then it's unclear as to what it means. I'll try and finish up the review today, and reply to your comments on the PR. I'll have to start the review over since you've made changes to the top.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Hey, Bignole. I'll get back to you in the peer review soon. Right now, I'm about to give the Jesse Hubbard and Angie Baxter supercouple article an overhaul. As for on the topic of youtube, but Wikipedia states that it's okay to use youtube clips...as long as it's not excessive use. Also, my leaving in the Bianca-faints part in the Storyline section was not so much about adding drama, but stating the gravity of the situation, the immediate effect it had on Bianca, which is a notable moment in their history. As for Bianca's birth date, I left that in because Paul mentioned that I should list in the lead when these two characters were created, and, well, even though Bianca was created in 1988, that doesn't reflect her age, although, sure, that can be said about several soap opera characters. I know that you don't feel that her age should be relevant, but it seems noting to point out that she isn't actually that age and that her birth date was revised to 1984. Flyer22 22:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Where does it say that? Those are copyrighted pieces of material though, not original creations, and they definitely shouldn't be external linked in the middle of the article. At best, they should be in the "External links" section, with the other stuff. She's notable for fainting? Was the viewer aware of who Maggie was from the beginning, or were they lead to believe that it was Frankie returning from the grave? Her creation has nothing to do with her age. Jason Voorhees was created in 1979, but his "fictional" birthdate is far older. Readers should know the difference between saying "the character was created on ..." and "the character was born.." One implies the thought process of a writer, and the other obviously means she was wet, bloody, and blind. lol. Have faith the reader understands. Her age is only important if there was some controversy over it. You can simply specify something to the effect of: "So-n-so created Bianca ____, as a 4 year old girl, in 1988". Her birth date is irrelevant, as they were simply trying to adjust for the fact that she was noticeable not a newborn, I assume.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Here's the Wikipedia policy on linking to youtube, Bignole. And, yeah, the audience (well some, at least) were aware that Maggie was not Frankie when Maggie debuted on the show, considering that All My Children ran promos of Bianca bumping into her before it happened on the show (something like that anyway) and Maggie visited her family in Pine Valley before meeting Bianca. But I meant that when Bianca faints at first sight of Maggie, that was a notable moment between them, not that Bianca is notable for that, of course. Mentioning her faint at that moment shows the impact that moment had on her and that it was not as simple as it seems without that mention. And on the topic of mentioning Bianca's age, yeah, I get what you mean on that matter, of course, I'll either remove that or do what you've suggested in how to mention that. I'm off to look at what else you've stated in the peer review. Flyer22 02:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • The page explicitely makes mention of not violating copyrights, and youtube is violating the show's copyrights by broadcasting unauthorized clips. They're unauthorized, unless YouTube can show that they received permission to use them. Her faint is not important as it was a moments reaction, and not something that carried on for longer than it happened. It's an extraneous detail that, if not mentioned, doesn't detract from the main plot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• What about the infrequent mention of when it comes to using YouTube on Wikipedia? Flyer22 02:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It says it's fine to use infrequently, but not at all when it pertains to copyright issues. I'm not sure how one would be able to use YouTube at all, since they don't worry about violating copyrights until someone contacts them to remove the videos, which is the reason why it's usually not a good idea to link to them, because there's no way to verify that what they are broadcasting has been cleared for use (since anyone can upload a video). Like I said, at best, they should go in an "External links" section, and not linking throughout the article. Also, I noticed some more text that is broaching the plagarism tightrope.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)
    • I'll remove the YouTube links from this article's plot. And, of course, point me to the new problem you've discovered regarding this article. I still haven't read your new comments within the peer review, so I'm definitely about to go read over that now and see what needs to be done. Flyer22 02:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

and that she was screaming and yelling at the television. It was a huge shock to her - This is a little too close to exactly what she said. The only differences I see is that it says "television" instead of "tv" and "her" instead of "I". I would simply go ahead and put the quotes on that stuff, and suppliment the two words that she actually used. It's not enough of a change to really qualify as a paraphrase.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

• • Taken care of. Flyer22 06:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• I dont' have time tonight to do any detailed reviewing, but I was looking at your recent changes and this doesn't make sense: Hendrickson, having originally been brought on as the character Frankie Stone, the initial storyline revolved around the close relationship between Bianca and Frankie and the aftermath of Frankie's death. --- You start off naming the person playing Frankie, but then jump to a completely different aspect. The "the initial storyline..." is a completely sentence that has nothing to do with the preceding one. I don't know if you started typing and you thought of something but didn't put it in (I do that), but the first part isn't coherent when the second part.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll take care of that. And in the Writing section, can you see the rest of the detail on Richard Culliton? I can't see it anymore when I view the article on the exterior, but I can see it when I view the article's interior. Do you know what's causing that?, Something with the references? Flyer22 03:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • Does it look different now?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
• Yeah, but it's still missing the part that states "Eventually, Culliton came up with the idea to bring the popular actress, who had portrayed Frankie, Elizabeth Hendrickson, back as the character's identical twin sister. He continued to write for the show until 2002."

But wait, if you can see it, does that mean, it's just my computer? Something similar like this happened with the Criticism section as well, when I was editing and viewing this article in preview mode, and I couldn't see the Criticism section on this article's exterior. It seemed as though it might have had something to do with the way that the references were formatted. Flyer22 04:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• How is it now? It isn't how the references are formatted so much that it's the fact that the references were missing the "/" to tell the code to stop. Instead, the code was continuing until it found the closest stop ("/"). That is why the text was hidden.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I see it now, Bignole, of course. Thanks. I went ahead and changed the part of the lead you mentioned. How do you like it now? Flyer22 04:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • Better. I changed the period to a semicolon, as it makes the preceding sentence stronger. Anyway, I'm off to bed now. Have you contacted League of Copyeditors to come clean up the article? If not, go to this page--Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors#How to request a copy-edit--and follow the instructions to request some assistance with copyediting. The article really needs it, as it makes it harder to work on critiquing information and structure.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
      • All right. I'll definitely make sure to do that. I'm going to edit a few articles first, just slight edits, and take care of a few other matters, but I'll certainly bring in a copyeditor from the destination you mention above. Flyer22 04:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If they are not called that in the show, then it isn't relevant in the opening sentence. BAM seems to be some fanmade name, unless I'm wrong and the characters of the show call them "BAM".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the tip, Bignole. I've missed talking with you and it's only been a day since we last talked. I was pondering on if I should put that in the lead because they are widely known by that name as well, even though I don't personally call them that. I'll remove it, but it just seems fitting. Also, (I think) the character Reggie Montgomery once pointed out that their initials spell BAM. I know that some Wikipedian editor or more so an IP address editor at Wikipedia will most likely add the name BAM back in, but I'll remove it when they do, if that's what's best for this article. Flyer22 03:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying that it couldn't go in the lead, if it's mentioned later in the article, but it's a cultural impact thing and the first paragraph should be simply the basic information about the characters. Cultural impact stuff comes in later paragraphs. Sorry I haven't been reviewing the article lately, I'm just taking a break from that to work on some of my other pet projects. Have you put in a request at the League of Copyeditors yet? I'll see if I can look over the article some tomorrow after work. What I'll try to do is point out structural things. I noticed some of the cultural impact information is really information that should go in the "Actresses' approach.." section. A lot of the cultural impact section needs reorganizing, there are far too many minor subheadings than are necessary. I'll see what can be done tomorrow, though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I completely understand what you mean about the mention of BAM in the lead. I thought the same thing, considering that, as you point out as well, it's mentioned in their Cultural impact section. And, Bignole, there's no need to apologize for taking a break from this article and focusing on other articles here at Wikipedia. I need to focus on some other articles here at Wikipedia as well, most definitely. I was simply stating that I missed you. I got a little attached to working with you, in the same way that I got a little attached to working with User:Elonka my first few weeks here at Wikipedia. Don't worry, I'm not psycho (smiles). I mean, I'm not the most clingy person outside of Wikipedia, but within it, I suppose a few special editors can cause me to grow attached to them. And, yeah, I requested a copy-editor from the place you mentioned. How long do you figure it will take for a copy-editor to copy-edit this article? Flyer22 03:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not worried. I'm glad when people like working with me. I mean, you've seen my "satisfied customer" section on my user page. I'm not sure when they will get to it. I'm sure they get a lot of requests. It could take awhile. I'd give it a couple weeks, and if they haven't gotten to it by then, I'd go back and ask to find out if they are really backed up and that is why it is taking so long.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay. Flyer22 21:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are a couple of things I came across.

• "Influence on the actresses themselves" - This section is not really so much about the characters but more about the actresses themselves in general. These two comments are probably better placed on the actresses' page, instead of on their character page.

• "Feminist Media Studies" - If you aren't going to talk about what the feminist say, and use multiple studies, then I suggest dumping the section and placing the source in a "Further reading" section at the bottom of the article. Sometimes there are not ways to implement information without it being a sole concept by the once source. So, it may be best to just say "Hey, we couldn't use this the way we wanted, but you'll probably find it informative, take a look". The same goes for the New York Daily News article. Unless you are going to use the source for a specific section, you shouldn't create a subsection merely to reflect one event in a newspaper.

Hope this helps.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Hmm, the Influence on the actresses themselves section -- I included that, of course, because even though it's not mainly about those two characters, it's about the effect those two characters had on these two actresses. I'm not too sure about splitting that section, as putting that section into their individual character articles, since it's a double-interview addressing the Bianca and Maggie storyline. Maybe I should re-title that section to Commentary or Actresses commentary, you know, something that signals that it's about the effect this storyline has had on these two actresses. It wouldn't fit as well in the Actresses approach to the couple section, of course, since that section is more about how these two actresses tackled these roles. As for the Feminist Media Studies section, yeah, that would be better to put into a Further reading section, as you suggest. And on the topic of New York Daily News, I'll just strip that of its heading, and instead incorporate it within the section that it's close to, and maybe re-word it later. Flyer22 22:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • The influence on the actresses' section is just too vague in their responses, and far too much detail that could easily be summarized into a more concise description and placed in the other section, about how they approach the characters. It's one question, with a single answer from the actress, which isn't enough to warrant an entire subsection devoted to it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
      • So you feel that it would be best to, somehow, put that section into the Actresses approach to the couple section, correct? I mean, if we made a new section titled something about their commentary, and that wasn't a subheading, you would feel that that is a little much also? Well, if it's best to incorporate that section into the Actresses approach to the couple section, I would like to see you edit that in, if you don't mind. Flyer22 22:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

First, the "Actresses approach" should probably just be titled "Casting", with included information on how they got their job. Hendrickson's comment about not wanting to be in a soap, and then later taking the job is a good starting point. If you could find out how she landed the job in the end, that would be even better. Same for the other. Then you can talk about how they approached their respective roles, and end with how those roles eventually affected them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• I like that lay-out. Not sure on including information about them specifically being cast as those two characters though, since that has more to do with their individual characters, like what I included within the Bianca Montgomery article about the casting of that character, it's sort of redundant to include within this article as well. However, there is a little information I left out in that article about Eden Riegel being cast as Bianca. Flyer22 23:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Yeah, that was a pit-fall a lot of people expressed. I've gotten messages and seen others from editors who wished they would have been able to support it when it came through. Oh well. Hope everything is going well with the Soaps. Have you put up BAM for GA yet? If not, I'd go ahead and do that so that another editor can come and take a peak at the article and give suggestions--if they have any that is.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I've been pondering the issue of whether to nominate it for GA or FA. I read on an editor's talk page, that it's best to just nominate a good article (that may very well be a great article, or will be with just a bit more tweaking) for FA, that you get a faster response in the FA candidate process, the same suggestions as you would in GA, of course, and that a lot of the times...an article that is good enough for GA is also good enough for FA. So I want your take on this. Wouldn't it be better that I go to a specific copy-editor, request that that copy-editor copy-edit this article, and then nominate this article for FA? Flyer22 22:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
      • You could do it that way, but I'd suggest the GAC first. An FAC takes a lot longer to actually go through and you aren't guaranteed to pass. With a GAC you can quickly find out if copyediting is the only thing you need done (and just because it's copy edited doesn't mean to cannot be c/ed more, depends on what the GA reviewer finds). I'd personally recommend GAC first, but there is no rule that says you have to go step by step up the ladder. As for those sources, they are primary sources and if the websites in question are the ones that conducted the interviews then they are fine to use.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Thanks for your insight, Bignole. I'll think on that matter for a while, but your thoughts are definitely always taken into consideration by me. And thank you for your help with my Todd Manning article query about those two sources I thought may be looked at as questionable. Flyer22 22:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• It was no problem.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

TV pgs

I 'm astonished at the fact that MANY wiki pages exist that shouldn't , while others that shold exist remain non-existant. Here are some that should be created.

Many are American TV writers/novelists/playwrights/producers/directors/media personalities who've been NOTABLE in their chosen profession for more than 10 years & have recieved numerous acclaim in the form of award nominations & wins: Dave vonKleist, The Power Hour, Genesis Communications Network, David Shaughnessy (ex-Executive Producer of Y&R), David Goldschmid (writer on General Hospital), Tracey Thomson (writer on General Hospital), David Hiltbrand, Burton Armus (Emmy nominated writer of NYPD Blue), Neil Landau (writer with many credits to his name), David Schulner, Mathilde Ferro, BigMuscle, dudesnude, hegelian

Robert Mason Pollack, Joan Binder Weiss, Sibyl Gardner, Conal O'Brien, Angela Tessinari, Mary O'Leary, Cynthia M. Jervey, Doris Silverton, Jeanne Davis Glynn, Tim Citrano, Jack Urbont, The Bahler Brothers, David Rupel, Shelly Moore, Mark Teschner (award winning Casting Director of General Hospitall for more than a decade!), Nancy Ford (co-wrote the 1st ep of Ryan's Hope)

Cornelius Crane, Ginger Redmon, Royal Miller, recast, Bruce S. Barry, Lynda Myles, Christine R. Magarian, Josh Reims, Patricia Wenig, Eric L. Roberts (protege of William J. Bel), Nancy Bradley Wiard, Jill W. Newton (ex-casting director of Y&R), Esther G. Hudak, Robert E. Costello, David Robert Kanter, Miriam Trogdon

Josh Reims, Dana Baratta, Patty Lin, Diane Messina Stanley, Michael Berns, Alfonso H. Moreno, Valerie Woods, Peter Frisch, Tony Morina, Tina Andrews, Norma Safford Vela, Doris Quinlan (ex-EP of ABC's AMC), Robert Cenedella, Lyle B. Hill, N. Gail Lawrence, Judy Blye Wilson, James A. Baffico, Michael Eilbaum, Sofia Landon Geier, Richard J. Allen, Johnson-Liff Associates, Robert Soderberg

Dorothy Ann Purser, Elizabeth R. Woodman, Mary K. Wells, Joan D'Inecco (casting director of AMC for about 20 years), John Saffron, Bud Kloss, Jacqueline Babbin, Bill Wolf, Ralph Ellis, Maria Wagner (winner-Best Directing-ATWT-2007 Daytime Emmy), Elizabeth Harrower (wirter), Joseph Behar, Judith Pinsker, John C. Zak, Marlene Clark Poulter, Charlotte Savitz, Joyce Corrington, Steven M. Wasserman

Maria Arena, Story Consultant, David Bennett Carren, Steve Kent (ex-TV producer-Capitol; TV exec for Sony Pictures), Sherman Alexie, Randall Harris, Ana Castillo, Quinn Eli, Robyn Hatcher, Ginger Smith, Robert Scinto, Tracey Bryggman, Samuel D. Ratcliffe, Patti DiZenzo, Caroline Franz, John Kuntz, Paul Lammers, Robert Calhoun, John Boruff, Ron Weaver

William Kelley (wrote the 1st ep of the 82-87 TV series Capitol), Anne M. Schoettle, Corday Productions Inc., Gary Donatelli, Leslie Kwartin, Larry Carpenter, Susan-Sojourna Collier, Grant A. Johnson, Valerie Ahern, Deborah Joy Levine (writer of Any Day Now & Strong Medicine), Randall Caldwell, Stephen Wyman (Soon to be ex-EP of DOOL), Jeff Koz

Julia Jordan, Nina Tassler, John PiRoman, William R. Keates, Michelle Patrick, Nancy Williams Watt, Jill Lorie Hurst, Anna Fricke, Maralyn Thoma (ex-Head Writer of ABC's GH), James Fryman, David Cherrill (ex-Head Writer of Search For Tomorrow), Fred Bartholomew, Jean Arley, George Lehane, Randy J. Robbins, Betty Rothenberg, Marlena Laird

Maxine Levinson (ex EP of OLTL), Jim Sayegh, Nancy Curlee, Hal Corley, Mike Denney (longtime director of Y&R; left in May 2007), Tina McElroy Ansa, Nina Shengold, Marina Alburger, Jenelle Lindsay, Andrea Lee (author of Interested Women), Frank South (writer of Melrose Place, John Fisher (Worked on Y&R for more than a decade. He's the Co-ordinating Producer on the highest rated American daytime drama), Jeanne Glynn, Ellis Marcus, Cindy Jerney Prial

Cathy Coote, Faces of The Heart, William Dale Smith, Alan Pultz, David Smilow, Annamarie Kostura (VP of NBC Daytime; ex-casting director of OLTL), Dave Grusin, David Pressman, Larry Starkey, Jack Turley, A.J. Russell, Marvin Paige, Dwight D. Smith, Peter Brinckerhoff, Carol Saraceno, Bob Bardo

Charles Rosin, Gene Palumbo, John Chambers (longtime writer on The Bold And The Beautiful; left in May 07), Mark St. Germain, Jennifer Crusie, Mary Ryan, Ken Corday, Mark Alton Brown, Anthony Morina (American TV producer/director), Jill Ackles (TV director for more than a decade), Noel Maxam, Sally McDonald, Dean LaMont, Danielle Faraldo, Matthew Diamond (directed a 07 ep of Desperate Housewives; directs about 55 eps of General Hospital each year since 2005), Michael Montgomery, Marnie Saitta

Lisa Leiberman, Selig J. Seligman, Phil Sogard, Robert J. Shaw, Larry Auerbach, S. Michael Schnessel, Mel Brez, Lanie Bertram, Margaret DePriest, Craig McManus, William Ludel (Longtime TV director-at least 20 years), Owen Renfroe, Ron Cates (music composer/TV director on many projects incl. General Hospital, Chris Van Etten, Frances Myers, Leslie Nipkow, Cameron Stracher, Aida Croal, Story Coordinator

Janet Iacobuzio (ex-Head Writer of General Hospital), Casey Childs, Steven Williford, Conson Studios Inc., Rudy Vejar, Judi Ann Mason, Brian Mertes, Betty Rea, Robert Short, Michael Lindsay-Hogg (directed 1st ep of ABC's Loving), Paul Avila Mayer, Marc Beruti, Shannon Bradley, Kevin Kielty, Writer's Assistant, Matthew C. Jacobs

Once again, way too many pages on wiki need to be deleted, while way too many need to be created a.s.a.p. All you have to do is an Internet search on Yahoo on each of the aforementioned names in quotations. (Eg. "William Ludel"). I hope that Wiki can be a much better source of info for all who seek knowledge. Thanks!

Smile

 BIGNOLE  (Contact me) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

CBS Mandate

I see you actually read other editor's talk pages ;) You may want to take a look at the further response I left at User_talk:Jgera5#CBS_Mandate. Perhaps you have some ideas about what to do with this one... Oh, and if you haven't seen it yet, there's a reply to you on my talk page. Pairadox 04:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Ha. I don't really read much of an editor's talk page, unless something there about it grabs my interest. It's just that I really do have a photographic memory, and once I look at someone's talk page (or anything), it's like the entire talk page is still there before my eyes whenever I want to look at it again, even if I'm not at that editor's talk page anymore. I suppose I do read their talk pages in that way. I've only used this ability of recalling a talk page a few times here at Wikipedia, though I use it to recall articles more often than that, more recently for the ConFusion (All My Children) article that once existed (and was an article about a fictional nightclub), but when I saw that that article was going to be deleted, I wanted to incorporate it into the Kendall Hart Slater article, and after the ConFusion (All My Children) article was indeed deleted, well, I then looked at this entire article in my head, considering that it was my only copy of it, since I hadn't copy and pasted it anywhere, and I saved it by incorporating it within the Kendall Hart Slater article.

As for the CBS Mandate article, what do you want me to do concerning that, give some insight on what needs to be done to improve that article? Flyer22 20:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources, or lack thereof, are the biggest problem with it now. Any ideas on how to deal with that issue? As I said on the creator's talk page, I have no doubt that branding is a part of the overall CBS strategy, but sourcing that and tying in most of the stations would probably depend on internal CBS documents. Pairadox 19:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Well, sources like you stated. It basically needs (decent, good, or great) sources to back up its claims. Flyer22 19:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Todd Manning

On 1 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Todd Manning, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 13:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Awesome. Thanks. Flyer22 19:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a very well written article. I wish the rest of the soap opera articles reflected that much professionalism. Pairadox 19:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the compliment, Pairadox. Sorry that I didn't get back to you again on the CBS Mandate topic sooner. I was busy with other matters, of course. I just answered above, though it's not that much of an answer. Basically, your feeling on what needs to be done concerning it is what, well, mainly needs to be done concerning it. Flyer22 19:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
• Bignole, I've been meaning to ask you something about the Todd Manning article. Right now, this article has two sources that may not be considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. Those two sources include the source for Michael Malone stating how Todd Manning was created...which you can see with this link...[1]...and the source for David Nichtern stating how he created the Todd Manning theme music...which is seen with this link...[2] The main thing about those two sources, though, is that those are the only two places those interviews can be found. Well, the David Nichtern interview may be found somewhere else considered more reliable, though I have not located any other source for it, but the Michael Malone source interview, where he talks about creating Todd Manning, is the place (that website) that he gave that interview to, so that specific interview is not located anywhere else. So what I'm asking you is...those sources can be deemed as valid in this case, right? I'm certainly not going to get rid of the Character creation section and the Music section of the Todd Manning article just because Wikipedia may deem those two sources as not reliable. Those two sources are the sources for those two specific interviews. I want to nominate the Todd Manning article for Good Article status, but those two sources (and the Brief details on character section) bother be about nominating this article for Good Article status. Flyer22 22:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • As stated above, thanks for your help, Bignole. Flyer22 22:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Santo DiMera

Hi Flyer22. I have only recently signed up on wikipedia and I have heard that you are the person to come to with any problems. You see there has been a bit of a disagreement between IrishLass0128 and myself. You see originally the show stated that Stefano was the seventh son of the seventh son, but with the recent flashbacks it has been stated that Stefano is Santo's only son. I understant that this is the current stroyline and we must go with it, but I also believe that Stefano must have had at least one brother, since Andre is Stefano nephew by blood. Since Stefano is Santo's only child, then this sibling/ siblings must have only been half-siblings from Stefano's mothers side. Unfortanatly Irishlass refuses to see my point that it is entirely possible that Stefano had other half siblings, but yet he is Santo's only child. Therefore Stefano would refer to himself as the seventh son of the seventh son, even though his six older brothers were not Santo's biological children, but his step children. I would really appreciate if you could possibly post a comment to Irishlass, as she refuses to understand my motives for constantly editing the Santo DiMera page. —Preceding comment added by Grant Chuggle 17:36, 4 September 2007

• A retcon section has been added to the page but the above editor continues to change and add assumptions to even the retcon section. A retcon section addressing the change was suggested by two other editors and was put in. Both an IP user using a proxy IP address and the above have put in assumptions of "step" children which are not verified. The retcon section addresses the at one time the writing did indicate that Stefano had siblings but that the current storyline has changed that fact. There is obviously a disconnect between the above editor and the understanding of what a retcon section is. Motives must be to have a verifiable page. As I have every Santo DiMera episode on my hard drive, I have strived to make sure the page is accurate and not based on assumptions. Hence, the addition of the retcon section addressing the past storylines. IrishLass0128 18:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• I am only adding logical infomation that has been stated on the shown. I know what a retcon is but I don't believe that a retcon has taken place. It was never stated before that Stefano's sibling were his father's biological children. It is very possible that Stefano had half-siblings that are only from his mother's side. Unless the show states that Santo's wife had no other children, then we must go with the infomation stated on the show.

—Preceding comment added by Grant Chuggle 17:36, 4 September 2007

• Logical information is not verifiable fact. It has not been shown that Santo has any step children. For Stefano to be the 7th of the 7th, all children would be blood DiMeras. Please allow Flyer22 to review this issue before making "logic dictate" changes.IrishLass0128 18:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hello, Grant Chuggle. I have thoroughly looked over the arguments on both sides concerning this matter, but would you mind explaining to me why, if the retcon section addresses that, at one time, the writing did indicate that Stefano had siblings, but that the current storyline has changed that fact, that this acknowledgment is not enough for you in concerns to this article? Is it mainly because you don't believe that a retcon took place in this case at all? Flyer22 01:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:For the first time, Maggie admits to being in love with Bianca (C).jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:For the first time, Maggie admits to being in love with Bianca (C).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• I wondered when Wikipedia would find this image. I was beginning to think that it may never be found, because Wikipedia just loves it too much to acknowledge that it must be deleted, since it is not used any articles at this time. Flyer22 19:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Reporting a user for personal attack

Flyer22 I could use your help. The user IP also known as Grant Chuggle has left a vile message regarding his penis and what I should do to it. I need direction or your help in blocking him from editing for this vile personal attack. Any help would be appreciated. CelticGreen 16:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Grant Chuggle, do not change other people's messages; that is considered vandalism on Wikipedia, unless you are correcting a typo, or are a copy-editor having been asked to copy-edit a message by a user concerning a message on that user's user page. CelticGreen put the wording "man parts", and it should have remained that way, since that was her message, not altered to your revision of "penis"... As for this matter that you have presented me with, CelticGreen, look over the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy and see what you feel is the best course to take concerning this matter. Grant Chuggle, if you continue in a matter of leaving offensive and abusive messages to Wikipedian editors, no matter who they are or your dispute with them, you may suffer the consequences for that kind of behavior. CelticGreen, if you feel that this matter you have reported to me is more serious than just ignoring, you may want to report this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but don't just mention Grant Chuggle's personal attack on you, mention his constant edit-warring as well, and provide proof of the matters you claim. And I noticed that you sometimes forget to sign your user name. Try to remember to sign your user name all the time when leaving a message on a talk page.

Grant Chuggle, if you would still like to give your side on why you so strongly feel that your edits to the Santo DiMera article on the subject that you cited above are necessary, then, of course, I am still willing to "hear" you out regarding your feelings on that matter. Flyer22 19:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks Flyer22 as it is obvious that his personal attacks went further in his edit to my message to you, I shall report it. Unfortunately since he is constantly changing his IP address, it will likely be impossible to do anything about his behaviour. CelticGreen 20:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Be aware, CelticGreen, that he is most likely not changing his IP address, but rather has a dynamic IP address. And, even though he has an ever-changing IP address, it does not mean that it is hopeless to block him at all for any offensive or abusive edits and it does not mean that it is hopeless just because blocks can be evaded. Flyer22 21:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• I reported it. I don't know if I did it right but I was very concise in regards to the vandalism and personal attacks. I even referenced his change to my comments on your page. Thank you for your direction on this and for pointing out that he had changed my original comment to you. CelticGreen 00:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

I stumbled across the Jill Farren Phelps article today, and it has grown to such an enormous cesspool of crap from disgruntled fans. I know a lot of people hate her but at the same time, we need a good solid article. Considering you're so good with soap articles, will you put this as a high priority? I can help if needed. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 16:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Sure, Mike, I'll do what I can to fix up that article as soon as I get a good chance to. Flyer22 17:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Bianca and Maggie (D).jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bianca and Maggie (D).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Jack Twist and Ennis Del Mar

Thank you, I've replied in depth on both Talk:Ennis Del Mar and Talk:Jack Twist. Again thank you for updating my talk page to notify me. Best regards. Conrad T. Pino 07:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You're entirely welcome. I'm grateful you're contibuting to documenting this touching story and complex characters. I encourange more and will support however I can. Conrad T. Pino 08:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Image Help

Can you make sure I put the right tags on these images Tony DiMera (I got a message it would be deleted) and Tyler (no message yet but I don't want it deleted). I'm trying hard to get this image thing right and I appreciate your help. CelticGreen 23:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will help you, CelticGreen. Flyer22 00:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, for the Tony DiMera image, you did that right. But concerning the Tyler Palko image, we are not allowed to use fair-use rationales to depict real-life people. Though it may be a while before the Tyler Palko image that you uploaded is removed. Flyer22 00:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• So if Tyler's picture is the one the NFL and the New Orleans Saints use, is there a way to reference that? I could ask my aunt to ask his dad for a picture or maybe I could ask for a yearbook to scan it from, but I thought it was okay to use a promotional photo from a team. I'm wrong, I guess, and could use your help. And, yes, my family has connections to Mr. Palko so I want his page to be as accurate as possible with no flags and warnings. CelticGreen 01:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• If you can get a picture of him as you describe above, then, yes, you can use that, and tag it with a license that indicates that it is your work. Also, I have seen fair-use images used in articles of real-life people in what seems like an accepted way, as long as it's not the main image at the lead (introduction) of the article. Flyer22 01:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, please see my talk page. The image is flagged in a way I don't understand. You've been so helpful and I hate being a burdon, but I still have to ask. Thank you for your help.CelticGreen 01:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You're not a burden. I'll visit your talk page and see what you mean. Flyer22 01:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Married names

Warned. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 00:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Mike. Flyer22 00:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Brooke Davis

Thanks! Just putting my grammar-police tendancies to good use. :) Vintagevixen 00:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Todd Manning

So sorry, my last edit just undid your reference, can you add it again? The edit looks confusing and I don't want to muck it up. TAnthony 02:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I took another look and added it back. Thanks! TAnthony 02:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Flyer22 02:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, I don't think I ever told you what an awesome job you did expanding and referencing this article. Bravo. TAnthony 02:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, T (hope that you don't mind if I call you T sometimes). I'm thinking about nominating that article for Good Article status soon. I felt that it needed a little copy-editing, but you're taking care of that, brilliantly I might add. I'm unsure of the Brief details on character section, though. I know that that section benefits in staying, so I'm not opting to remove it, but I'm leaning towards placing it in a Wiki-table format list. Flyer22 02:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A quick question: in the "Steps to early redemption" section I can't tell if Todd met CJ and Sarah first or saved Jessica first (and can't remember). I can fix the pgh if you let me know. As far as the relationship list, I'm working on a new infobox type thing I hope to implement for soap articles which can hopefully replace the ugly lists at the bottom. TAnthony 02:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

He saved Jessica first, I think. At least that's how that page of the book I read seemed to state it. I can post the direct link to that page, if you like. Also, I cannot remember if Nora was married to Bo when he showed up before Todd could physically attack Nora. So I need your help on that, so that I'll know that the part that states Nora was spared from Todd's attack due to her husband showing up is true in the sense that Bo was her husband at that time. I'm a little confused on that part, because her last name was still Gannon then, wasn't it? Flyer22 02:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, at this time online, that book isn't showing the page where it states Todd rescuing Jessica and bonding with C.J. and Sarah, etc. of what is on that page, but it is showing the page where it talks about Todd trying to physically attack Nora for having ensured his stay behind bars. What I want to know, though, is if Bo was Nora's husband at the time or was Nora's boyfriend. I mean, she was still referred to as Gannon then. Anyway, if you can answer that question for me, please do, of course. Talk with you later. Flyer22 03:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You can search through the book on Amazon and using "rapist" I found the right pages (515-520). It isn't exactly clear, so I'll ultimately look thru some of the historical plot recaps on ABC.com. I think we can probably find the answer to the Nora question there as well. TAnthony 03:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, for the help. I truly appreciate it. Flyer22 03:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Adam Chandler, Jr

I put this on the discussion board for the article as well.

Although his legal name is Adam Chandler, Jr, the character goes by "JR". However, as it's referred to on Wikipedia, "J.R.". By using periods after each letter, it implies both the "J" and "R" stand for something, such as John Ross "J.R." Ewing (on Dallas). Therefore, shouldn't the title of this entry simply be "JR Chandler"? Additionally, the official All My Children site list the spelling as "JR" and not "J.R."

I'm not trying to cause trouble, I see you've done quite a bit of work on the soap pages so I thought I'd consult you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowsSoaps (talk • contribs) 22:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As I stated on the J.R. Chandler talk page, on most sites, the periods are present within his nickname. And it's how most editors spell his name here at Wikipedia. I feel that changing it to JR instead of J.R. would be too uncommon for how his name is usually spelled. Some people have periods in their nickname of initials when the initials don't really stand for anything. The periods of his nickname are just another variation of Junior.

Also, KnowsSoaps, remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~), when talking on talk pages here at Wikipedia, without the parentheses, of course. Flyer22 22:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

One Tree Hill Characters

Sorry about that rv. I'll take more care in the future. Julesn84 03:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• It's fine. Flyer22 05:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

BAM

I rated their article and gave it a B. With more work and sourcing and possibly trimming down fair use pictures, it can make it to GA easily. Good job! Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. I already cut down on the fair-use images in that article though. I feel that the images that are there now significantly add to that article. I could lose one more though, the one Bignole originally edited out in his example edit of that article -- the first one showing Bianca and Maggie meeting.

I also requested a copy-editor at League of Copyeditors for that article, but, yep, no copy-editor from there has gotten around to copy-editing it yet...which is why I'll soon either ask can one of them get to it at this time, or I'll specifically ask a copy-editor to copy-edit it. I'm not certain how much more sourcing can be done on that article, except for the storyline part. And does your feeling that it's only a little away from Good Article (GA) status mean that you agree with Bignole's assessment that I should nominate this article for GA before I nominate it for Featured Article (FA) status? Flyer22 05:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, go for GA before FA. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 06:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor edits

Hi, I noticed you haven't really been tagging a lot of your edits as minor like they should be. Any edit you make that doesn't substantially add to or change the context of an article should be marked as minor by ticking the box above the "save page" button (I'm sure you've noticed it). See WP:MINOR for any other clarification. Thanks! •97198 talk 06:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm so used to typing the words "Tiny edits" in the edit summary when I make minor edits...that although I have noticed that box tagged as minor, I've never really paid much attention to it. Of course, I'll use it from now on, as it seems to help other editors identify my edits better. I felt that the edit summary was sufficient enough on matters such as alerting other editors to one's edits, but, sure, I'll use that box. Flyer22 07:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks, it does make it immediately useful for other editors looking at changes, especially on their watchlist, and plus, the simple tick of a box will save you a little time from typing "tiny edits"! •97198 talk 07:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Laughing out loud. So true. Flyer22 07:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I like your "tiny edits" even if use the minor edit box. Some editors try and get away with things by using that minor edit box and make major changes, so when I see your "tiny edit" I know it's a comma or a grammatical or spelling change and not something huge that's changed under the guise of a "minor edit." CelticGreen 17:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well, in any case, I still mainly type "Tiny edits" when making minor edits here at Wikipedia, but now I do that while using the minor edit box. Flyer22 21:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, not to sound like I'm stalking your edits or anything, but it's nice to see you've warmed to the button! •97198 talk 12:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Baby switch

I'm confused as to why every mention of this storyline is linked to JR's profile. Since the story doesn't have it's own page, then the info should be put into where it belongs. JR was a big part, but it's more relevant to Bianca and Babe. I was wondering if you could help. I'd probably just copy and paste that whole section into their profiles. I also didn't actually watch the show during that year so I don't know all the facts. --Maestro25 09:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's all linked to J.R.'s article because it doesn't have its own article, as you've guessed. Though it once did have its own article here at Wikipedia, but was deleted from Wikipedia due to only being a plot summary (I assume), plus a plot summary that was just a stub, and probably for not providing notability. I thought about re-creating that article and making it more than just plot summary and providing it with notability, but ultimately decided to just let it stay in J.R.'s article, at least for now. J.R.'s article had/has that storyline detailed more than its own article did. And during the time that it doesn't have its own article, it's better fit in J.R.'s article, considering that to have it in both Bianca's article and Babe's article is overkill, and their plot summaries are long enough, as well as J.R.'s plot summary (which I'll cut down in the near future). Wikipedia really frowns on lengthy plot summaries, as I'm sure that you know, and I really don't see it being in J.R.'s article as any different than if it had its own article and was linked in Bianca's article and Babe's article that way. Oh, and I actually wasn't watching the show that much that year either; that's kind of funny (well just a little) how we both weren't really following that storyline. I was watching that storyline a lot during its near end and final end though. Flyer22 10:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		For your dramatic improvements to the article Greg and Jenny Nelson, I thank you and award you this Barnstar. I have cherished Jenny and Greg for almost 30 years, and your improvement to this article means there is at last a fitting monument to their everlasting love. Thank you, Jeffpw 13:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wes

No he's not spoilers don't count here on Wikipedia--KingMorpheus 17:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I know that spoilers don't count on Wikipedia. So are you saying that Wes really isn't Richie, or that we can't say that he's Richie yet?

Wait, I'll ask this on your talk page. We definitely need to fix that article that was just updated by a random Wikipedia editor then to change mention of Richie being Wes. Flyer22 17:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that Wes really isn't Richie, or that we can't say that he's Richie yet. Considering Richie has a tat.--KingMorpheus 18:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. Flyer22 19:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess the egg is really on my face now lol--KingMorpheus 16:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you were right that we shouldn't state that Wes is Richie Novak until it was revealed on the show, of course. At the start of the Wes and Richie spoilers, a lot of people were confused on that subject, and I understand why you didn't think that Wes was Richie at the start (I mean, I didn't know what to think on the matter either at one point). However, if you mean that you still felt Wes wasn't Richie in these latest two weeks, then, yes, egg really is on your face now. LOL.

You know...we're going to have to do something about that alias soon. It certainly isn't notable enough to warrant its own article, not unless he keeps living under that identity as well and it really impacts the show more so or just as much as him with his birth name. Flyer22 20:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

How do I?

Nominate an article for deletion? It's been nominated before, been deleted, and then added back. Essentially it's an article full of self promotion, badly constructed, and even includes a "how to buy" stuff link.CelticGreen 00:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Go here, and it'll explain it just as good or probably better than I would explain it. Flyer22 02:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User question from AugustAugust

So just like Kendall Hart Slater, the same applies for Theresa. Theresa refers to herself and is referred to commonly as Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AugustAugust (talk • contribs) 05:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather you have either replied to me on this in the Married names section or a new section here on my talk page, but...about your comment...you should talk this over with CelticGreen either on CelticGreen's talk page, yours, or Theresa's talk page. CelticGreen had the Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane article moved to Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald, though it's been moved to either name several times. You two should really talk this out. Flyer22 06:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Azumanga1: Mmbabies

You are NOT an "mmbaby", but there is a vandal named Mmbabies who has been using almost 200 IPs to vandalise Wikipedia pages, including death threats, which is a big no-no at Wikipedia. We already have a page all about him that you can see here.

It is Wiki policy to remove all comments by banned members, especially those who were Community Banned, regardless of the merits of the comments. And, by what I have saw, the comments he has left behind were nonsense.

If I accidentally removed any good content that was supposed to be there, I apologise.

I apologise if I have offended you. -- azumanga 03:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for explaining. I had suspected that it was a user of that name, but I wasn't sure and decided to address you on that matter, though I probably should have also checked for a user of that name. I apologize as well, for any discomfort that I caused you in my original comment to you on this matter. Flyer22 11:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for move

I thought I'd asked you this before, or seen it here before, but doesn't look like it. How do I request a page move from the general section rather than just ask a particular admin? IrishLass0128 20:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Requested moves, it shows you how. I know which article you want moved at the moment. I responded to you on its talk page about it, and if you'd rather have me request the move of that article, I'll do it. Flyer22

If you could, that would be great.IrishLass0128 16:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Supercouple

But Battlestar Galactica has been confirmed to end in 2008. I thought I would just put 2003-2008 just to save convenience. Flowerkiller1692 01:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Well, we'll just wait until 2008. It won't be a problem to change it then, of course. But again, great add. Flyer22 08:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

TimothyBanks

Any moves in question you need reversed? It looks like another admin's already been talking to him. Daniel Case 07:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, for some reason, the other day, I (briefly...very briefly) forgot that Mike is an administrator; it was the weirdest thing. But I also understand why -- I sometimes don't see Mike, the administrator, because I'm used to consulting with him as more of a friend or as more of an acquaintance than thinking of him as an administrator. Not that I can't be friends with administrators, of course, but anyway.... I was so frustrated with TimothyBanks that day, and I went straight to Mike's talk page to rant a little about that, not really thinking "Mike's an administrator"...and then I went to your talk page. That was a weird day for me.

Anyway, thank you for replying. TimothyBanks is not listening, however. I'll have to drop by Mike's talk page and inform him of this not long after typing this comment to you. I do have one request from you, though -- that you move the Kimber Henry article back to...well...Kimber Henry. Thanks, Daniel. Flyer22 08:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

AMC Question for you

Who is the red head that is always in Zach's office and was kissing Josh in an ep this week? I was in and out of the marathon this afternoon and have no clue who she is. CelticGreen 22:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL. That's Hannah Nichols, biological mother of Ethan Cambias (her son with Zach).

So have you just started watching All My Children or have you watched before, but on and off, or randomly? On and off or randomly is how I am with Days of our Lives. I watched Days of our Lives a lot around the time that the Philip/Chloe/Brady love triangle was going on, but I stopped for a while after that, and...because of editing with you guys on the EJ Wells and Samantha Brady article...only recently started watching again, sometimes. And by the way, why are Brady and Chloe listed as single in their Marital status sections, when, from what I read, they left town married? Wait, I assume that they broke up off-screen, that spoilers must state that, but unless that has been mentioned on-screen, they shouldn't be listed as single yet. And if they aren't divorced yet, but just separated, that is what should be listed in their Marital status sections, of course. Flyer22 23:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

On and off randomly. Surprisingly I watched my first full ep the day Ethan died. I had never watched it before that day and took forever to put it together that EJ was Ethan. I followed Janet kidnapping Babe and followed on and off since then. I know all the players but when I miss a couple weeks I get confused. I actually find it funny that Hannah and Zach are supposed to be Ethan's parents, but I guess that's why James was fired in the first place, too old to be TK's son. I saw Spike get kidnapped by Greenlee, I saw why Greenlee thinks Spike should be hers. I can keep up with most of it to the point I'm actually torn by the Dixie/Tad/Adam tri. Put it this way, I know enough to keep up but not enough to mess with the AMC character pages. Oh, and I think Annie is evil, there's something so not right about her, but that's just an opinion.

As to Days, Brady and Chloe were listed as married, someone may have run in and changed the status when the rumour of Chloe/Nadia's return surfaced. I'll definitely check it out. I'm sure it's not just Days that it happens but it seems as soon as a rumour starts, someone runs in and changes pages. Thanks for the info on Hannah. CelticGreen 01:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, yes, some freak ran with the fact that Nadia is coming back and vandalized the page. I fixed it and added notes. I'll keep an eye out.CelticGreen 01:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. And when you mentioned the Adam/Dixie/Tad love triangle, did you mean the Adam/Krystal/Tad love triangle, or were you referring to the Adam/Dixie/Tad love triangle after all, but in the past? I only ask that because Dixie's dead, as you may know.

And as for Annie...ha. Yes, a lot of AMC viewers are suspecting that maybe she's the crazy one...and not Richie. Flyer22 02:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I meant KWAK (Krystal with a K). And I did know Dixie is dead and Babe is leaving one day soon and will be back the next with a different face. The actress is following her hubbie (ex-Jamie) off the show and they didn't want the character to leave. See I'm up on some things. So I'm not the only person Annie bugs? She is a freak and her and Ryan's marriage is way too contrived for me. It's like Sami and Lucas' marriage, too rushed and not believable in regards to the rest of the storyline. I like the slower, makes sense love stories. I would love it if Annie turned out to be nuts. Ryan deserves better. Not sure I like the Ava/Johnathan trist either, but throwing the JR factor makes it a little more interesting. But I think the actor who plays JR needs to spend a little more time in hair and makeup, right now he's got that wet look all the time and he looks terrible.CelticGreen 15:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The Ryan and Annie romance was/is definitely contrived. Ryan has called too many women (too many for it to be true) the love of his life, and that's why I cannot take him seriously in basically having claimed Annie as the love of his life. It's called "One true love" for a reason, because you only get one (romantically, anyway). As for Jacob Young (J.R.), his hair is better-suited how it looks in his character's article. It looked fine when he first grew it out a little longer earlier this year, but now the makeup artists on the show have it often slicked back a little, which I don't believe suits him. Flyer22 19:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and as for Babe, they aren't even waiting a day to recast her — but will rather recast her on the same day that her originating actress will leave the role. And the fact that this show is going to recast Babe had me really upset. And I'm still frustrated about it. The actress' character is a part of a popular couple, because of the actress, as well as Jacob, even though the character (Babe) isn't a fan-favorite herself, and the actress has portrayed Babe for four years (well, what would be four years, if she were to complete the last few months of this year as the character). I just feel that it's a mistake to recast Babe, and I believe that this show could have found a way to write her out of the show in a believeable way while she and J.R. share custody of Little Adam. They surely could have waited a while (and I mean two or three years) before recasting Babe, which would have also given the actress a chance to possibly return to the role later (and, of course, she could still return to the role, but it makes more sense to have waited before recasting). Even worse, the writers have started having Babe date Wes, and they have a little chemistry together (which is the good thing about that), but that will all change once recast-Babe shows up. Flyer22 19:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)