Wikipedia

User:TAnthony/Soaps Workspace

< User:TAnthony

Melrose Place

edit

Melrose Place is an American prime time television soap opera that aired on Fox from July 8, 1992, to May 24, 1999, for seven seasons.[1][2] The show follows the lives of a group of young adults living in an apartment complex on Melrose Place, in West Hollywood, California.[1] Created by Darren Star and executive produced by Aaron Spelling, Melrose Place stars an ensemble cast that includes Josie Bissett, Thomas Calabro, Doug Savant, Grant Show, Andrew Shue, Courtney Thorne-Smith, Daphne Zuniga, Heather Locklear, Laura Leighton and Marcia Cross.[3]

A continuation of the series, also called Melrose Place, aired for one season from September 8, 2009, to April 13, 2010, on The CW.[4][5]

In April 2024, another reboot of the series was announced to be in development at CBS Studios, to be written by Lauren Gussis and with Locklear, Leighton and Zuniga attached to reprise their roles from the original series.[6][7][8]

Kimberly Shaw
Melrose Place character
Portrayed byMarcia Cross
Duration1992–1997
First appearanceSeptember 30, 1992 (1992-09-30)
"A Promise Broken" (1.11)
Last appearanceApril 7, 1997 (1997-04-07)
"The Dead Wives Club" (5.27)
Created byDarren Star
In-universe information
OccupationPsychologist
FatherWilliam Shaw
MotherMarion Shaw
SpouseMichael Mancini
  • Kimberly Shaw (Previous)
  • Tomashoff, Craig (June 30, 2017). "Melrose Place at 25: Scrapped Storylines, Partying with World Leaders and How a Wig Reveal Saved the Show". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on December 1, 2020. Retrieved April 16, 2024.
  • Baldwin, Kristen (June 3, 2019). "Melrose Place Creator Darren Star Looks Back on Kimberly's Shocking Wig-out Moment". Entertainment Weekly. Archived from the original on April 11, 2024. Retrieved April 12, 2024.
  • "The Bitch Is Back (Melrose Place 1992)"
  • At first it’s just a bunch of lover’s quarrels—typical soap opera stuff—but with the introduction of Dr. Kimberly Shaw (Marcia Cross) things get weird quick. While Kimberly terrorizes everyone, television history was perhaps made in the 1994 episode “The B*tch Is Back,” when she has perhaps one of the most epic wig reveals in history.[9]
  • "Melrose Place: May Madness". Entertainment Weekly.
  • Kreizman, Maris (December 4, 2017). "I Think About This a Lot: When Kimberly Shaw Ripped Off Her Wig on Melrose Place". The Cut.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Shaw, Kimberly}}

This page will be placed in the following categories if it is moved to the article namespace.
Categories:

References

  1. ^ a b Beller, Miles (July 8, 2017). "Melrose Place First Episode: THR's 1992 Review". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on October 19, 2023. Retrieved April 16, 2024.
  2. ^ Keck, William (May 24, 1999). "Closing Up the Place". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on November 3, 2023. Retrieved April 16, 2024.
  3. ^ Tomashoff, Craig (June 30, 2017). "Melrose Place at 25: Scrapped Storylines, Partying with World Leaders and How a Wig Reveal Saved the Show". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on December 1, 2020. Retrieved April 16, 2024.
  4. ^ Stransky, Tanner (May 21, 2009). "The CW announces fall schedule: Melrose Place paired with 90210". Entertainment Weekly. Archived from the original on July 1, 2009. Retrieved February 25, 2020.
  5. ^ Gorman, Bill (May 19, 2010). "CW's Melrose Place Canceled". TV by the Numbers. Archived from the original on January 9, 2011. Retrieved November 2, 2018.
  6. ^ Andreeva, Nellie (April 11, 2024). "Melrose Place Reboot Starring Heather Locklear, Laura Leighton & Daphne Zuniga in the Works". Deadline Hollywood. Archived from the original on April 12, 2024. Retrieved April 12, 2024.
  7. ^ Schneider, Michael (April 11, 2024). "Melrose Place Reboot in the Works with Heather Locklear and More Original Cast Members Returning". Variety. Archived from the original on April 11, 2024. Retrieved April 12, 2024.
  8. ^ Brathwaite, Lester Fabian (April 10, 2024). "Heather Locklear Is Returning to Melrose Place in a New Reboot with More OG Stars". Entertainment Weekly. Archived from the original on April 11, 2024. Retrieved April 12, 2024.
  9. ^ Cadenas, Kerensa. "Screen Savers: 10 TV shows from the '90s that inspired our queer awakenings". Queerty.

Precious

edit

In 2003, Passions submitted an orangutan named BamBam, who had been portraying the recurring role of Precious, for a Daytime Emmy Award. Precious was the non-speaking live-in nurse and caregiver for elderly Edna Wallace, and held an unrequited love for Luis Lopez-Fitzgerald, which was depicted in elaborate fantasy sequences. In early 2004, the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, which administers the awards, disallowed the entry with the following statement:

Our ruling is based on the belief that the Academy must draw a line of distinction between animal characters that aren't capable of speaking parts and human actors whose personal interpretation in character portrayal creates nuance and audience engagement that uniquely qualifies those performers for consideration of television's highest honor.

Verbotene Liebe

edit
Clarissa 2011

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

References

  1. ^ "DasErste.de - Verbotene Liebe - Folge 3869". web.archive.org. June 21, 2011. Archived from the original on June 21, 2011. Retrieved June 7, 2023.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  2. ^ "DasErste.de - Verbotene Liebe - Folge 3870". web.archive.org. June 21, 2011. Archived from the original on June 21, 2011. Retrieved June 7, 2023.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  3. ^ "DasErste.de - Verbotene Liebe - Folge 3875". web.archive.org. June 23, 2011. Archived from the original on June 23, 2011. Retrieved June 7, 2023.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  4. ^ "DasErste.de - Verbotene Liebe - Folge 3882". web.archive.org. July 2, 2011. Archived from the original on July 2, 2011. Retrieved June 7, 2023.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  5. ^ "Verbotene Liebe Recap: Episode 3885 (22 July 2011)". Das Erste (in German). Archived from the original on 3 July 2011. Retrieved 18 April 2023.
  6. ^ "DasErste.de - Verbotene Liebe - Folge 3886". web.archive.org. July 5, 2011. Archived from the original on July 5, 2011. Retrieved June 7, 2023.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  7. ^ "DasErste.de - Verbotene Liebe - Folge 3887". web.archive.org. July 5, 2011. Archived from the original on July 5, 2011. Retrieved June 7, 2023.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  8. ^ "Verbotene Liebe Recap: Episode 3898 (10 August 2011)". Das Erste (in German). Archived from the original on September 2, 2011. Retrieved 30 April 2023.

|title=Verbotene Liebe Recap: Episode XXXX () |website=Das Erste |language=de |archive-url=

|archive-date= |access-date=10 May 2023 |url-status=dead

Duration - Miriam Lahnstein
  • Episode 109 (21 June 1995) to episode 177 (4 October 1995)
  • Episode 210 (24 November 1995) to episode 266 (15 February 1996)
  • Episode 318 (2 May 1996) to Episode 601 (18 July 1997)
  • Episode 682 (19 November 1997) to episode 830 (15 July 1998)
  • Episode 1500 (24 April 2001) to episode 1605 (5 October 2001)
  • Episode 2196 (16 April 2004) to episode 2470 (9 June 2005)
  • Episode 2653 (20 March 2006) to episode 2894 (30 March 2007)
  • Episode 3068 (12 December 2007) to Episode 3525 (14 December 2009)
  • Episode 3588 (6 April 2010) to episode 3951 (28 October 2011)
  • Episode 3986 (20 December 2011) to episode 4664 (26 June 2015)
  • Verbotene Liebe: Next Generation - since episode 9

Falcon Crest

edit

Ryan's Hope

edit

ISC

edit

{{Infobox soap character}}

I've been considering my own suggestion about coming up with some more specific usage guidelines for this template as a means to improve consistency across our character articles. I don't think our current practices are necessarily flawed or bad, but I do think we should be refining and defining our preferences for new and future editors. I'm presenting "recommendations" and questions below as topics of discussion, not necessarily my ideas for new guidelines. Obviously there are many articles and many variables, few explicitly "right" and "wrong" methods, and varying editor preferences. My goal in bringing up this topic for discussion is to clarify how and why we use certain parameters and see if we can come up with a methodology. I am NOT advocating that we eliminate any parameters or make any other big changes that will affect a thousand articles, so no panicking! And any examples I choose are just to illustrate varying usages, I am not trying to suggest changes to those specific articles.

Basic idea
We may want to discourage the use of too many derivative parameters in certain cases where we agree it may negatively impact readability. Or be stupid. LOL.
Assumptions

A. We currently agree on the optional use of gender-divided parameters (son, sister, father, grandmother, husband)
B. The divisional parameters "step-" and "adoptive" are always used when applicable
C. We currently agree on the optional use of "half-"

General questions

D. Were the divided parameters introduced, and are they being primarily used, because we think defining gender or halfness is an important distinction?
E. How helpful are they as a means to separate longer lists of names for improved readability?

# Recommendations and Questions Example(s) for the discussion
1. The default usage should be collective parameters: |parents=, |siblings=, |spouse=, |children=, |grandparents=, |grandchildren=. Victoria Lord has a LOT of relatives, and breaking them up by gender etc. seems to help readability.
Katherine Chancellor has one grandson and one granddaughter listed, so I'm not sure that two parameters (grandson/granddaughter) instead of just one (grandchildren) doesn't actually make it more busy/cluttered-looking.
Tucker McCall has one person listed in each of several gender-separated parameters (father, mother, half-brothers, wife, sons, etc.), do we like how this looks or not? Would changing it to parents-siblings-spouse-children be worse, better, or the same?
2. In articles where there are more than two characters listed in a given parameter, the use of gender-divided parameters like |brothers=, |daughters=, and |grandsons= may help improve readability.
3. If gender division is used for one parameter, should it be used for all others in that infobox for consistency, or should editors consider each parameter on its own merits? Again in Victoria Lord, the character's five siblings are not separated into brothers/sisters (or half-), but her five biological children and four grandchildren are divided by gender.
4. How useful is it to use |husband= or |wife= instead of |spouse= when most characters will have only married men or women, rarely both. Same discussion could be had regarding |father= and |mother=, since most characters will have just one of each (assuming steps and adopted are already designated separately) Victoria Lord uses |spouse=, Katherine Chancellor uses |husband=. I have no objection to either, I'm just wondering about the group's preferences. Dorian Lord has married six men and one woman, that seems like a better instance to use husband/wife.
edit

SORAS

edit

OLTL

edit

Goodbye Llanview, I'm gonna miss you ... but, you have not seen the last of Tina Lord Roberts. That, I promise you.

http://www.geocities.com/historypg/oltl1993.html and http://www.geocities.com/historypg/oltl1994.html (etc etc)

The series has received multiple Daytime Emmy Award nominations and wins, including a 2002 award for "Outstanding Drama Series," as well as Erika Slezak's six Emmys and Judith Light's two.

Oliver Fish, etc.

edit

Allison Perkins

edit
Alison Perkins saved text

Mitch managed to get paroled upon having convinced the officials that he had reformed. Returning to Llanview in 1986, Mitch presented himself to be a “changed man.” Claiming to have had a spiritual awakening, Mitch created a public image that presented him to be a religious evangelist. Everyone was skeptical, and as well they should have been, because it was all an act. As nefarious as ever, he secretly plotted to make Tina and Viki’s lives miserable…while setting up a phony religious commune, bilking people out of their money. Using his charm, and powers of persuasion, Mitch lured many of Llanview’s citizens into joining his cult—particularly young women, who he would the manipulate into doing his dirty work for him, while he kept up his “clean” image.

Shortly before Mitch’s death, he had programmed another of his followers, the young and naïve Allison Perkins, to kidnap the baby that Viki was now pregnant with upon its birth. In September, after Viki gave birth to a baby girl, Jessica, Allison snuck into Llanfair (Viki’s mansion) and kidnapped the infant from the house. The child, however, was returned four weeks later…

In 1987, Mitch was seen again—this time as a voyager on the “Star Ascension,” during Viki’s out-of-body experience as she suffered from a brain aneurysm. During the high stakes dream, which dictated whether she would live or die, Viki was able to ultimately destroy his power over her.

In 2002, an alive and well Mitch Laurence quietly returned to Llanview and befriended Natalie Balsom (who at the time was in angst over her stalled relationship with Cristian Vega.) Under the assumed name, Michael Lazarus, Mitch continued to build a rapport with Natalie, as he kept his presence shielded from the rest of the town. After having fully succeeded in charming Natalie, the two eloped. Natalie was eager to introduce her new husband to her mother, who was other than Mitch’s old nemesis, Viki.

It had been recently revealed that Viki had given birth to two daughters all those years earlier, and that Natalie was Jessica’s twin sister. Viki was mortified when she caught a gander of her new son-in-law. Like everyone else, she had assumed Mitch to be long dead. She also knew that any relationship he was having with her daughter was a sinister and manipulative one. During their confrontation, Mitch cockily revealed that he was fully aware that Natalie and Jessica were born twins and that he had instructed that Allison to switch them as babies. The biggest bombshell, however, was when he revealed that (before he had been assumed dead) he had drugged, raped, and impregnated Viki with Jessica in the same window of time that she and Clint had conceived Natalie.

Viki’s obstetrician, Dr. Walter Balsom had been one of Mitch’s cult followers—who he had instructed to not tell her that she was pregnant with twins. Upon Viki’s giving birth to the first child (Natalie), Mitch apparently reappeared in the delivery room (while Clint had stepped out to alert the family of the one baby) as Viki—unbeknownst to everyone else—progressed to give birth to the second (Jessica.) During the delivery…Viki was so startled by the presence of Mitch (who had “died” months earlier), the shock of having twins and being told by Mitch while in labor that he had raped and impregnated her, that she allowed him to take off with the one baby. Viki then proceeded to altogether suppress the memory, believing that she had only given birth to the one (Clint’s.)

Mitch took Jessica, while Clint and Viki brought home Natalie. He later instructed Allison to kidnap Natalie (whom was being called Jessica) and return the real Jessica in her place. Natalie was then placed with Dr. Walter Balsom and his hard-drinking wife, Roxanne. Mitch’s reasoning for all this: he wanted his daughter to grow up in the lap of luxury, while Clint’s daughter would subsequently have nothing. Mitch’s retelling of these events jogged Viki’s memory of the ordeal, and she was mortified to recall every detail.

Jessica - Soapcentral

She was so distracted with living her own life that she didn't realize Viki had once again been taken over by alternate personality Niki Smith. When Viki/Niki pushed her husband Ben out a window and put him in a coma, she blamed Natalie, and Jessica fully backed her, believing Natalie not only wanted to take everything of hers, she wanted to destroy everything of Viki's. By the time realized the truth, Ben was in a more permanent coma after being accidentally shot by the cops during a standoff with Viki/Niki and Allison Perkins. Remorseful about her horrible, judgmental behavior, Jessica tried to extend an olive branch to Natalie.

Jessica's life began to spiral wildly out of control within weeks of this crisis. Long-thought-dead Mitch Laurence had slowly wormed his way back into the Buchanan's lives, marrying Natalie under an assumed identity. By the time she realized who he was, she was trapped and Mitch said the only way he'd free her was if Viki allowed him to get close to Jessica. Mitch revealed the revolting details to Viki, details so horrific she had blocked them out for decades: Mitch had broken into Llanfair, drugged the maid, and then drugged Viki's tea. While she was out of it, he raped her. Nine months passed, and she gave birth to twins. Mitch gave Natalie to trashy Roxy because she was Clint's daughter and deserved only the worst in his eyes. Jessica was his real daughter, and as an immobile Viki looked on, Mitch kidnapped Jessica. Although he had Allison return Jessica within a few weeks due to him having to disappear and wanting the best in life for his daughter, Viki was still guilt-ridden about not trying to stop him and then blocking everything out.

Mitch wanted Jessica to know she was his, and wanted to tell her. Viki sent Jessica and Seth out of town, only telling Jessica that she was in danger. After a while Jessica couldn't stand being kept in the dark any longer and locked Seth in the bathroom to return to Llanview. When she made it back, Mitch found her and told her every ugly tidbit. In disbelief, Jessica asked Viki, and Viki admitted Mitch was correct. Jessica was sickened by the image of Viki letting her go, and no amount of rational arguments from Viki or anyone else could help ease Jessica's rage. Her entire life now felt like a huge lie. She wanted nothing to do with the Buchanan name or the family she grew up with. She hid out with old friend Al Holden. Seth found her, and when she learned he'd known everything and didn't tell her, she dumped him, claiming she had lost her identity while involved with him.

Jessica was in grave danger with Mitch staying around, constantly looking for her. She went to his mansion to tell him she would never love him, and only the timely intervention of Todd saved her from assault. Jessica decided to flee town and stay with Clint for a while. Viki managed to track her down at the airport, and the two made a guarded peace before Jessica boarded her plane.

Jessica returned to town several weeks later, and was almost immediately kidnapped by Mitch to participate in a bizarre heart transplant scenario with Natalie. The police rescued the sisters just in time. Jessica warmed towards her mother again as well as bonding with Natalie, and although she detested Mitch, he persisted in his attempts to win her over. At one point they argued and he was accidentally blinded by chemicals. She was guilt-stricken, and attempted to form a relationship with him. He was then presumed dead (again) after falling into the river while trying to get Jessica away from Blair, Lindsay and Dorian, who had kidnapped her. Jessica had willingly participated in the kidnapping because she wanted Mitch to pay for his crimes, but had never wanted him to die.

Slowly, she began to get over his demise and fall in love with Antonio Vega. They had clashed on cultural and class levels for months, but now saw the best in each other. Unfortunately, just as Jess opened up again, a still-alive Mitch kidnapped her. He drugged her and saw her as the Viki to his Victor Lord. She managed to send several cryptic messages to her family and Antonio, thanks to a kind young cult member named Brian. Viki was also taken prisoner, and when Brian tried to help them both escape, Mitch shot him in cold blood. Moments later the police rescued the two women, but Jessica was traumatized by being drugged and mentally tortured by her father, as well as the enormous guilt of Brian dying because of his part in her escape attempt. She pushed everyone, especially Antonio, away, and with Jess having to deal with being a suspect in Mitch's death (real this time) and not-so-dead-Keri returning to town with her and Antonio's daughter Jamie, the wall Jessica had built grew higher and higher. However, when Antonio found himself accused of Keri's murder, Jessica's defenses broke down and, as she worked to find evidence to clear him, she opened her heart to his love.

WikiProject Soap Operas

edit

WikiProject Soap Operas

WikiProject Soap Operas

WikiProject Soap Operas: Welcome

edit

WikiProject Soap Operas recruitment

edit

Newsletter template

edit
WikiProject Soap Operas Newsletter
 
The WikiProject Soap Operas Newsletter
Issue I - 1 January, 2020

Monthly Challenge: Assess

Article News
Project News
  • A
Member News
  • Our membership continues to expand. 22 new users have joined the WikiProject (bringing our total membership to XXX): TAnthony. Please make them feel welcome!
 

This announcement is brought to you by TAnthony.

Mission statement

edit
I can't disagree with a thing you've said, and I'll certainly leave the Days decisions to editors more dedicated to the show. But where you (and others) are still going amiss is that you're still thinking "storylines"; when I mentioned Joe and Thaao in the press, I was talking about their possible comments about the show itself, the impact of the DiMeras on the show and ratings over the years, comments about Jim Reilly's (and Hogan's) handling of them and their characters, etc. I believe both spoke in interviews during the Marlena serial killer storyline (and that when Thaao came back in 2002 he had talked about how he had personally added some business with Tony smoking before the character was killed in 1995 to make it possible that Andre was being killed). That's what most soap articles need right now, real-world context. Again, Pauline Fowler is the ultimate example, Bianca Montgomery is also great, even Alexis Colby is decent. Somewhere in WP guidelines it actually says plot summary info should be kept at a bare minimum; we ignore this because we see some notability and importance there, but we have to remember that the scope of an encyclopedia article is supposed to be real-world first and fiction later. This is not always possible and usually undesirable to us, but it is what it is. TAnthony 17:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The relevant guidelines here are WP:FICTION, WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF (Writing about Fiction). These topics aren't unique to soap articles... Wikipedia has had extensive, long, drawn out, bloody battles about fictional subjects. For example, Wikipedia is often criticized for having more info on individual Pokemon characters, than about bonafide historical subjects. There are many folks who have tried to use Wikipedia an an info repository for fictional subjects: Plot lines of books, "biographies" of every character in a sci-fi series, extensive "battle" articles about space opera warfare in computer games, even collections of recipes for fictional meals. But the result of all these debates among the members of the Wikipedia community, is that the consensus of Wikipedia editors is that we're here to provide an encyclopedia for a general audience, not a collection of plot summaries that are of interest primarily to fans. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and search on "plot summaries". See also Wikipedia:Fancruft.
Now, because of the millions of people around the world that are fans of soap operas, we do have a lot of people flooding in to Wikipedia and creating articles about soap characters, where the "articles" are little more than plot summaries. My own feeling on this (and I think that I'm speaking for most of the members of this WikiProject), is that we accept that these articles are being created in good faith, often because there's confusion about just what Wikipedia is for. So we're fairly tolerant of these articles, as long as it's made clear that they're just stubs in place for later expansion into "real" articles, a la Pauline Fowler. But this is a very generous and tolerant view on our part, and we're well aware that to other editors on Wikipedia who are working on more "serious" subjects, they'd probably be absolutely horrified at the amount of crap low-quality information that's accumulating in the soap topics. And the only reason that most of the soap articles haven't been nominated for deletion, frankly, is because other editors don't want to waste the time to do it. Now, having said that, I think we, here at this WikiProject, can definitely do our best to organize the existing soap articles, categorize them and rate them, and do what we can to try and find a middle-ground between what soap fans want, and what the standards of an encyclopedia are. But in terms of ratings, we should stick with the standards of Wikipedia, not the standards of fandom. And the standards of Wikipedia are that a short article, with little information except a plot summary, is really little more than a stub (see WP:ASSESS). To call it "Start" class is being generous. To call it "B" class is not acceptable, and if it causes enough controversy, is probably just going to increase the chance that the article is going to get nominated for deletion. --Elonka 18:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I do believe that diatribe completely misses the point of the discussion. We are talking in general about how to rate things, diatribes telling people to go other places don't help. As we are attempting to discuss ratings, I have removed the rating leaving the page in the unrated class for now.IrishLass0128 18:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping an open mind!  :) --Elonka 19:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
My minds open, there's just not enough room for that much stuff at one time. :) Remember, I pull this editing stuff off at work. No home computer with internet connection.IrishLass0128 19:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I for one appreciate Elonka's well-crafted comment above and think it's spot-on for this discussion; I am actually going to archive it myself for reference. WP has established rules and conventions, and such "go to" references to back up arguments are an important and essential part of any debate on this or any issue. We can decide whatever we want on this page, but without taking actual WP standards into consideration it means nothing beyond this page. TAnthony 19:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks TAnthony. If you think it's that useful, maybe we should save part of it, and work it into a "Mission statement" on the main WikiProject page? --Elonka 23:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
That is a great idea; as always, you're always one step ahead. — TAnthonyTalk 16:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Top right tools

edit
 User:TAnthony/Wiki Tools
My WikiTools
 User:TAnthony/sandbox
My Sandbox
 User:TAnthony/Workspace
My Workspace
 User:TAnthony/Draft A
Draft A
 User:TAnthony/Draft B
Draft B
 User:TAnthony/Draft C
Draft C
 User:TAnthony/Potential articles
Potential articles
 User:TAnthony/Foundation
Foundation
 User:TAnthony/The Wheel of Time
Wheel of Time
 User:TAnthony/Dune Workspace
Dune
 User:TAnthony/Article research
Article research
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:TAnthony/Soaps_Workspace&oldid=1223257254"