Onelifefreak2007

Please refrain from posting Nathaniel Marston's name in the current contract cast section of the One Life to Live Cast members section. It has been reported in several sources that he has been let go from the show so he should be placed in the Comings & Goings section. Also, you keep on adding his name out of order69.28.232.216 20:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)samusek2

Chris Stack

whoever is deleting Chris Stack's name from the comings and goings page, don't do it til after the show on Monday December 3, 2007, which is two days from now. Don't put John Rue's and Januarary Lovy's name in red letters, it looks stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onelifefreak2007 (talk • contribs) 14:01, December 1, 2007

It looks stupid?! Red links are acceptable and preferred for links to articles which may be created. It saves the effort of finding and creating these links later once an article is created. The links are red to stand out, and encourage editors to create the articles. These are contract roles on a network series, they are bound to eventually have articles. For example, Charlie Banks (OLTL) was redlinked for awhile, and when the article was recently created, the link was instantly active. If he was de-linked in the first place, someone reading or editing the list wouldn't know he had his own article. Your time would be better spent actually expending an article rather than constantly playing around with the cast list. Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk

Michael McBain picture

Hey Somebody needs to update the picture of Michael McBain since Nathaniel Marston is not playing him anymore and Chris Stack is. PJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onelifefreak2007 (talk • contribs) 12:12, December 3, 2007

Hey there, I fixed the image problem by re-uploading it; your original upload should be deleted. Keep in mind that you should name images more specifically, and include a fair use rationale template, copyright tag and categories. Also, we don't necessarily remove old performer photos, we move them; see the Michael McBain article. Finally, did you capture the image any bigger? The soap template automatically resizes it to like 210px, and yours is smaller so it comes out slightly pixelated. If you have it in a slightly higher resolution, you can upload it over Image:MichaelMcBain-ChrisStack-2007.jpg. Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk 21:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Dates

By the way, there is no need to change dates between European/American designation (like 3 December 2007 to December 3 2007) — as you can see, they appear exactly the same way, based on each editor's date display preferences. — TAnthony^Talk 22:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm an American and I prefer it the American way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onelifefreak2007 (talk • contribs) 15:37, December 3, 2007

I'm American too, but those kind of useless edits waste resources and bog down watchlists. If you're entering info, you can do it any way you want, but there's no use changing what's already there because it displays exactly the same. Anyway, I'm very appreciative of your recent edits and addition of valuable information; you should join WP:SOAPS and monitor our discussions. Finally, as a reminder, please indent your comments and sign all your talk page posts using the four tildes, "~~~~" Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk 00:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Anthony I like you do you have AIM or something cuz I would like to get to know you and this, I think you can help me out with uploading images and such. Hey if you want my screen name it's Skynyrdfreak05, my Yahoo: THSTrojan2006 and MSN: Kennychesneyfan2005@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onelifefreak2007 (talk • contribs) 17:25, December 3, 2007

Snapshots from Opening Sequence

TAnthony

Would it be possible for you to get snapshots of Miles, Talia, Markko and Sarah from the opening sequence. I wanna keep these updated. Just a ward of caution there might be a new Opening Sequence after the new year.

PJ

Hey there, the current shots from opening titles that are on most of the characters are from a website which hasn't been updated in a little while. I haven't paid attention lately to the opening titles, but I'm not sure if Sarah and others have even been included yet, it often takes some time. I doubt Chris Stack will be up right way. Unfortunately, I'm not any messenger programs, let me know what kind of help you need. Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk 00:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What site do you go too? They just got an updated opening sequence yesterday, Markko, Miles, Sarah, Talia, Jared and Gigi are in the opening sequence.

The site is http://groups.msn.com/oltlopenings/

I'll try to TiVo an episode to DVD and capture the shots myself soon. — TAnthony^Talk 00:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What I'm gonna do, is I'm gonna take snapshots of Miles, Talia, Sarah, Markko, Gigi, and Jared from an episode that they were each on until I get the snapshots from the opening sequence.

TAnthony

Why don't you check out, Jared Banks, Charlie Banks, Sarah Roberts, Markko Rivera, Talia Sahid, Gigi Morasco, Miles Laurence and Britney Jennings's articles and tell me how I did, also check out John McBain's too. I did all of them.

PJ

Your images are fixed

Thanks for the uploads; as you've probably noticed, I've added fair use rationale templates to them so that they will not be deleted. You can ignore all the bot messages above. I don't mind doing it for other images in the future, just let me know again when you upload some, as you did this time.

Also, please note that in the new soap character infobox template, we use the "image1" and "caption1" templates with unlinked image names because it keeps images at a standard size. Also, do not link the character's name in their own article. Finally, you must remember to "sign" all of your talk page posts by typing four "tildes" at the end like this: ~~~~

Thanks again! — TAnthony^Talk 09:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The images are great thanx alot and I did switch John McBain's pic last night but it got switched back again, I dunno if it was you or not. but this pic is with the current OLTL opening sequence that's why I put it on there. I hope you didn't mind. Can you fix that as well? Make it sure it isn't deleted? PJ

New Pic and Question

Hey TAnthony

I added a new pic to the Britney Jennings. Also should I add screenshots of the Michael McBain and Antonio Vega Temp Recast or no?

PJ Onelifefreak2007 03:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, why not? — TAnthony^Talk 17:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

TAnthony

Ok I switched the pics on Jared Banks and Gigi Morasco's articles, I got snapshots of them in the opening sequence, umm hopefully I'll get Markko's, Talia's, Miles's and Sarah's soon. I told you I was gonna get all of them and I have two done. So prepare to do some work, If there is a new opening sequence coming out in January, you will bet that I'm gonna change the pictures and each of the cast members. I want this to keep updated so. Now that I know how to do it, and you can work on the templates, I'll be busy if there is a new opening in January. I will put pics up of the temp recasts, as soon as I start my computer in the Michael McBain and Antonio Vega articles.

PJ Onelifefreak2007 18:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Great, you got the images! But all you need to do is upload them "over" the old ones, not as separate images. It says "Upload a new version of this file" at the bottom of the image page. And actually, I suggest you name images more specifically, like "MichaelMcBain-ChrisStack-2007.jpg", because there are often multiple performers in the same role, and as you say there will probably be different photos in 2008. Thanks! — TAnthony^Talk 19:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

TAnthony

I switched Miles, Talia, Markko and Sarah's pic all of them are from the opening sequence, umm in the Antonio Vega section I added Robert Montano's version along with Robert Harte's Michael McBain, so I think I broke Michael McBain's one. Can ya fix it?

PJ Onelifefreak2007 21:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

All fixed, but when and if a new opening title sequence comes out in 2008, please don't automatically replace all of the current images. The articles don't necessarily have to have the most recent images, some of the previous ones may be preferred by other editors based on image quality or the look of the character. That kind of change usually requires discussion first. Also, please keep in mind my suggestions above about naming new images. Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk 21:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

TAnthony

Well if the new opening sequence debuts in '08 and if it's the same as the buffers now with the cast members in front of the blue background, it would make sense to have all of the characters pics in that blue background. By the way, is Brian Kerwin, John Rue, and January Lavoy are they on contract status, or what, if they are, Viki is back in Llanview so are they gonna be written out or what? Or are they gonna have the characters move back to Llanview?

PJ Onelifefreak2007 21:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey there

Regarding your recent changes to the OLTL articles, just wanted to remind you that we don't link the name of the article within the article (called a self-link) because following the link would just bring you back to the same page. Also, the title of the show is always italicized, and in One Life to Live the "t" in "to" is not capitalized, and doing so adds a redirect to each link. Also, I'm leaving most captions with "opening sequence" at the end to avoid having the extra word "of" -- we should always try to conserve space in the infobox when necessary to avoid clutter. Finally, most captions shouldn't have punctuation because they're not complete sentences. Sorry for all the corrections, but if you continue to make these mistakes you just create unnecesary work for editors in the future. Thanks! — TAnthony^Talk 02:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You rock! — TAnthony^Talk 02:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey

All of them are from the opening sequence, except for Michael McBain, Moe Stubbs and Noelle Ortiz, I dunno if they are going to be in the opening sequence or not. Is Brian Kerwin (Charlie Banks) on contract status or on reoccuring status? How about John Rue (Moe Stubbs) and January Lavoy (Noelle Ortiz) are they all on contract status? If Brian is on contract status than I think you should put him there.

PJ Onelifefreak2007 02:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Brian Kerwin is only recurring. Rue and Lavoy are on contract, but that's probably only a technicality; I doubt they'll be in the opening sequence. — TAnthony^Talk 03:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Farah Fath

Hey TAnthony

I tried to upload a picture of Farah Fath in her article but it says image: image and I dunno what to do. Maybe you can fix it.

PJ Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 08:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Help

TAnthony

Look I need help with Chris Stack article and I need help with the Farah Fath article, keep puttin up pics but they are like not working they always have an extra image thing that makes it, I dunno what the problem is man, Help!

PJ Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 07:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Red Links

Ok

Whoever is deleting the Red links please stop that. The Red links are acceptable and preferred for links to articles which may be created. It saves the effort of finding and creating these links later once an article is created. The links are red to stand out, and encourage editors to create the articles. These are contract roles on a network series, they are bound to eventually have articles. Those Red links were meant to stand out so leave them be. I get tired of having to do that so please leave them. So editors can make articles on them.

TAnthony, would you mind making the articles for the red links on the recurring status section on One Life To Live. Or have an editor do it.

PJ Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Commas

Hey there, you don't need to put commas between dates like this: 11 January 2008 because they display automatically in the article anyway. Also, whether dates are entered American (January 11 2008) or European (11 January 2008), they will display the same based on user settings, there's no need to change them. — TAnthony^Talk

Hey TAnthony welcome back, look can you do me a favor and the actors that are with the red links on the OLTL page, could you make articles on them. I edited the cast section and took Mac out cuz what's the point in having him in there if he's not on the show no more. Thanx. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll check but most of them probably aren't notable enough for articles at this point, though I thank you for restoring the red links. It's very annoying that editors continue to remove them! — TAnthony^Talk 23:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I know and it's really getting sickning when they take the red links away. I'm gonna tell them to knock it off cuz they should be there you know. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

References

Hey man, I found and inserted the sources into List of One Life to Live cast members for an important reason. I myself doubted that these guest stars were true until I found the source. Otherwise, someone could add "Linda Evans appears as Viki Davidson on June 13." Anyway, as a rule, you should never remove any references from an article. — TAnthony^Talk 15:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

haha sorry about that dude I didn't know Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I figured, but in general try to be more careful about changing or deleting info, especially if you don't understand why it's there. Thanks man! — TAnthony^Talk 15:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

what about the red links, those damn editors keep removing them and I have to keep putting them there. I deleted a few characters like Mac and Phyllis cuz they are hardly ever on, the only person that I can think with no last name is Shaun. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a comment for the last one that removed the links, but their editing anonymously so you never know if they'll get the message. I'll try to be a bit more diligent about it. — TAnthony^Talk 16:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

how do you know it was an anonmymous? Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The edits were made by IP 74.15.226.88, which is anonymous and probably random. Do you not use a watchlist? You should always check the recent history of an article and (read the edit summaries) to see all that has been done. If you notice, the red links seem to be removed by a differnt IP address every time, but it could easily be the same editor using an internet connection that reassigns a random number every time they go online. — TAnthony^Talk 16:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

hey umm I got some pictures of Chris Stack that we can put on his article and also of Farah Fath, we need to put actors's pictures on their articles, it would make much sense don't you think so. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, did you take the photos of them yourself in person? You can't use screencaps from the show, promotional photos or any other images you don't own in actors' articles. They are considered replaceable in this case because the actors are living and it would be possible to obtain a free or freely-licensed image. See Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable use, Images - Item 12. — TAnthony^Talk 17:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

OK

that might've been the problem, I thought we could use screen caps. or pictures ya found on the internet.

Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Head Writer

TAnthony

Hey man, do you know who this editor is that's messing with the headwriters? They need to stop that, The way I have it is the truth. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, this IP editor has annoyed me lately as well, but namecalling is a personal attack that only reflects badly on you. Anyway, I'm not sure who is correct, but it would help if one of you could actually provide a source for the information rather than edit-warring over it. — TAnthony^Talk 06:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yo, I might have the dates wrong but I don't actually have the episode where it showed it, I know I have Valentines day, but I never looked at the Feb 15th. episode to know that.

Well there you go, you don't know for sure. I do. So quit changing the dates. Yours are incorrect.17:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Listen I wasn't talking to you in fact you don't know anything, alright, quit changing the stupid dates and deleting Ron Carlivati's name where it says May 2, 2008.

Excuse me? I don't know anything? I know more than you do...and don't tell me otherwise. And for the record, I haven't deleted Ron Carlivati's name in two days. Have a nice day!20:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.86.192 (talk)

Mac and Lowice

Ok whoever keeps adding Mac and Lowice please stop, they haven't been on the show in months and probably won't be on the show, they are not on the Soaps.com cast list, neither at the end credits on the show, please stop that. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be the one to say this, but Soaps.com isn't a very good source of information. They stated that someone was returning to AMC and leaving GH, and a year later, the people in particular has not returned to AMC and has not left GH. Also, recurring players are only credited in the end credits if they were on sometime throughout the week. Mac and Lowice ARE recurring players, and will both be on soon.04:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.168.53 (talk)

if they are not on the cast list on soaps.com and they are not on the cast list on here. Soaps.com is one of the best sources, if they make a mistake they fix it. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Guess what? Kevin Spirtas, Samuel Whitten, and Janet Zarish aren't on the Soaps.com cast list. And they also state that Carly and Sam Wolfe still portray Bree, but they don't. 23:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

that's because they have been on the show recently, Mac isn't on the show and neither is Lowice. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 05:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Slezak leaving

Where did you hear that Erika Slezak is leaving One Life to Live? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorUSA (talk • contribs) 16:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

she is just going on her annual summer vacation, she'll be gone for a few months. that's all. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes

Whoever is deleting Professor Del Fina from the Le DeLaria section, Bo Buchanan from John-Paul Lavoisier section and Asa Buchanan from the Robert Woods section on the cast list please quit that, it's annoying have to go and redo what I did a few hours ago, also quit deleting Erika Slezak's name off the comings and goings section she'll be leaving for her summer vacation in a few weeks, that's why she's on there. One more thing, don't get rid of the red links, whoever you are, we had some people do that in the past and it's there so people can make articles on it. Thank you. PJ Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been removing Del Fina from Lea DeLaria's name, only because she hasn't yet been seen as Del Fina (I haven't watched today's show yet, so I don't know if Del Fina was on). As for John-Paul Lavoisier as Bo, and Robert S. Woods as Asa...They are only known as Asa and Bo through the others in '68. Bo is Bo, and Rex is Rex in Bo and Rex's eyes, so those two don't really count. And the red links, I haven't been removing red links. That's a whole other culprit's actions.--OLTL2002 (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well please just leave Bo and Rex alone, so people don't get confused alright. No Del Fina wasn't on yet but it's sure gonna be funny seeing a woman play a man. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well then, you have to leave Slezak out of the comings and goings. She is going on vacation (I suggest you learn the definition). And Watkins' last day was yesterday, July 31. --OLTL2002 (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

If his last day was yesterday than how come he was on today's episode, and that's why I put Erika Slezak in the comings and going page under temp. I just put whatever I have that's on Soaps.com, on here that's why I have Erika on the comings and goings page, and David's last airdate in in August, he's still on the show. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, then I guess I was under the wrong impression. 1.) I read somewhere (I forget) that he was leaving in July (guess they were wrong), and it appeared so that he was gone yesterday (I haven't watched today's show yet, so I didn't know), and you should give a brief summary of your edits. Vacations aren't covered on WikiPedia, just debuts, exits, and returns. So, please don't add Slezak to the C&G's section again, and we won't have a problem. Thank you. --OLTL2002 (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well leave Erika Slezak alone, I will delete her in the Comings and Goings section after August 7th. But until than she will be on the Comings and Goings section. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No, she wont. Because I will keep deleting her. It is a vacation, not a debut, exit, or return. A VACATION. And, Slezak's last show before her vacation aired on July 31. --OLTL2002 (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

She is staying on the comings and goings page and her last episode is August 7th, again your wrong with the episodes, why don't you lemme handle the comings and goings page alright. I will keep adding her, I don't mess around with people like you, I will keep adding her back til August 7th and that's a promise. I get my info at Soaps.com, and they get there info from One Life to Live. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, guess what? I don't deal with people like you either. Soaps.com ALWAYS makes errors on several occasions. Soaps in Depth does not. But just know one thing, I removed her again, as I will keep on doing. Slezak's vacation was not announced here last year, or before then, so she doesn't need to be on there now, either! --OLTL2002 (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That's because I wasn't here to put her in the comings and goings page. She is going to be on the comings and goings page as long as I'm around. Soaps.com probably makes errors but they correct it. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 20:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Really now? Because all of the errors I've seen there have never been corrected. But that isn't the point. --OLTL2002 (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm right again

Hey OLTL 2002

I just found out something, I'm right again, see your little ABC Soaps In Depth is wrong, I got proof right here that Erika's vacation doesn't start til August 7th, cuz Tina and Viki reunite this week, now if Tina is gonna reunite with Viki than how come you said that her last day is July 31. Maybe you should stop doing the oltl comings and goings section and lemme do it alright. Because your wrong again. Here's your proof, http://www.soapcentral.com/oltl/scoop.php, those are the spoilers for this coming week. So Erika didn't leave yet for her summer vacation, she will on August 7th like I have posted and will keep posting. PJ Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually Mr. Know-It-All, 7/31 WAS Slezak's last day before vacation. SID reported that she will be seen one or two more times, being that she pre-taped a few scenes. Imaging my laughter right now, knowing that Mr. Right is Mr. Wrong. --OLTL2002 (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope your wrong, Erika will be in a few more episodes which means she doesn't leave on July 31st. She leaves on August 7th, so why don't you go and kiss my you know what. PJ Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Kiss it yourself, freak. And I'm done playing musical cast changes with you. I'm right, you're wrong, leave it at that! --OLTL2002 (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

yeah so am I, why don't you just let me do the comings and goings page and leave your dumbass out of it. PJ Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Britney Jennings

Not trying to start a revert war here, but the One Life to Live minor characters article recently come under the notice of the "pic police" and all images were removed because the article had indeed become a gallery. Photos are only supposed to be used minimally and only when they are essential to illustrate something notable in an article, something that really needs to be visually identified for understanding. Obviously we feel that identifying any character is useful, but the rules are on the side of those who think notability plays a part. We sacrificed many images of lesser characters so at least Alex and Renee could stay, but even those images are proposed for deletion based on WP:NFCC#8. I'm hoping to get some notable images back in later, but certainly not Britney ... these images are hardly notable by comparison to other characters (Carlotta, etc) and only make the argument to keep images more difficult. — TAnthony^Talk 17:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

What's the deal on Tobias Truvillion, he is on recurring status right with the show?

Vincent Jones

How many times am I going to have remove Tobias Truvillion from the OLTL cast list? He is gone. Can't you just accept that and move on. HE'S GONE! --OLTL2002 (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Again your wrong, Vincent is on recurring status. and I got proof right here.

Just to clear things up, David and Tobias are both still under recurring contract with the show - meaning that they are there in case the storyline calls for them throughout the remaining part of their contract, as I've heard it straight from the show and the actors.

As for Melissa and Forbes, they are gone...

Hope this helps! Amy OLTL Writer Soaps.com

Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, do you want the damn article? --OLTL2002 (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Even though a show rep insisted that Tobias Truvillion (Vincent) would "remain on in a recurring status" with OLTL when he was taken off contract in January, setsiders are now reporting that he probably won't be seen after after Adriana and Rex's wedding on Tuesday, May 19. The actor made his debut in April 2006 as an underworld figure and potential love interest for Natalie, but that soon fizzled. Vincent has had little to do since last year's arsonist storyline. "I don't know what happened," offers Sean Ringgold (Shaun), whose character recently transitioned from being Vincent's bodyguard to watching over Starr. "I really enjoyed working with Tobias, and it's unfortunate that they say his character is not going to be around."

Another thing, there is no such thing as a recurring contract. An actor is one or the other, not both. --OLTL2002 (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because his character is not gonna be around that doesn't mean he's not on the reccuring list. He has a big storyline coming up. And another thing, quit deleting Cord Roberts from the comings and goings page. You seem to think you know all the comings and goings on OLTL from some stupid magazine. Half of most Soap magazines just make things up. Soaps.com is the best reference there is. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll remember to believe an unprofessional website that has been around for only two years, insted of believing professional magazines the have been around for decades. --OLTL2002 (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

They are not unprofessional, they know what they are talking about because they talk to the show and the actors. Where do you think rumors come up, from Magazines. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring/3RR

Please take a break and return to editing with a calm demeanor and open mind. I am close to reporting both of you for edit-warring/violating 3RR for your actions at List of One Life to Live cast members and Vincent Jones. — TAnthony^Talk 23:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

TAnthony

I'm just editing the pages to what is the truth based on soaps.com. I don't mean any harm, tell that OLTL2002 to leave it alone. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Edits

Listen, I understand where you are coming from. You are believing your sources, and I am believing mine. You are going by what you have read, and I am going by what I have read. I am willing to quit removing Tobias Truvillion from the OLTL cast list, even though my source claims that Truvillion is gone. But meanwhile, you have to quit chaging things to your liking. Sleazak is taking a brief vacation, in which pre-taped scenes will air during that time. Loprieno's return has been open-ended sine late last month. His appearances will become more frequent starting August 12. And just so you know, Olivia Sklar has had more appearances this year than Truvillion has. I am sorry that we can't get along in a friendly environment, so I am going to be the adult one and walk away, ending all arguments with you. --OLTL2002 (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I am still gonna have Erika in the comings and goings page, so just leave it there until Thursday and than I can delete her off the comings and goings page, I put soaps.com comings and goings so people will know that she is leaving. I also do that with my YouTube channel, I'm willing to be friends with you but just let me handle the comings and goings page the way I see fit. Maybe you can help me with my YouTube comings and goings. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Vacations have never before been posted, and trust me, I used to wonder why they never were until I realized how unnessecary they are. But there really is no reason to report Slezak's vacation, because Slezak taped additional scenes that will air sporadically during her time away. So although Slezak will be gone, Viki will be in a few episodes until the end of Slezak's vacation (how they will pull it off with Viki out of town, I have no clue. This is just based on what I read). --OLTL2002 (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason why I added Erika to the page is because I didn't even know she was gone until I saw on soaps.com last year. Look she is leaving the show for her summer vacation and people need to know that when they are on here, that's why I added her. The people can look on here and go "oh so she's leaving for awhile". Isn't that what the comings and goings section is there for? Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I really do understand that. However, those pre-taped shows will air, so technically, we will still see Viki even though Erika will be taking some time off. And saying that she is going on vacation, but pre-taped shows will air would be too much clutter to post under the comings and goings. Do you understand where I am coming from? --OLTL2002 (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I do, but how about this, I'll take her off if I can write Summer Vacation in her name on the contract section, how does that sound?

That would probably be best. I think it would look good in small lettering, JMO. --OLTL2002 (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

See wasn't I right about Vincent Jones? he was on today.

Loyita Chapel is back in an open-ended capacity. So please, don't remove her from the recurring cast members. And before you go remving DeWanda Wise from the contract cast members, she was placed on contract. Thank you.--OLTL2002 (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't the one removing DeWanda Wise from the contract section. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I weren't saying that you were, I was just letting you know that she was put on contract. --OLTL2002 (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Head Writers

ok whoever is changing the headwriting section, Ron Carlivati's last episode before Gary Tomlin's is February 14, 2008, not February 15. February 15th is when Gary took over as headwriter til May 1. I have the episode to prove it alright. I checked both 14, and 15th of those and Gary Tomlin started airing on Feb. 15. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You could be making this up. So prove it, post it on YouTube. --OLTL2002 (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

you want me to prove it, fine I will Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Andrea Evans and Number of Episodes

Andrea Evans is reucurring. And please leave the number of episodes set at August 22. I will change it then. Thank you. --OLTL2002 (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Does either of you have a source for your episode numbers? You've got like a 20-episode discrepancy. And by the way, I'm getting pretty sick of your back-and-forth editing on the OLTL articles. It's getting ridiculous. — TAnthony^Talk 03:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Listen OLTL2002, you lemme handle the OLTL episodes numbers since you can't count. I will have it at August 20th.. I'm getting sick and tired having to fix your mistakes. and TAnthony, I do, I've been doing it ever since the 10,000th episode. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I just did an actual account on the days by going back on my calendar and counting the episodes from the 10,000th episode til now. It's 10,291 episodes of September 5th, where OLTL2002 got that episodes on August 22, I have no idea, but I did an actual account, I excluded 2007 labor day, Thanxgiving day and the day after, I excluded Christmas and New Years, I excluded Memorial day and the 4th of July and this year's Labor Day. As for Andrea Evans, I really think she belongs in the contract section because Passions is over with and to me it seems like she's sticking around for awhile, so she's going in the contract section. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 07:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I made a minor mis-calculation. As of August 22, there have been 10,273 episodes. And you can't just assume that a certain actor or actress is contract. Evans has NEVER been reported as a contract cast member, so she belongs in the recurring section. And one last thing. You can't claim a certain article or section of an article as your own. Each and every article is open to all editors. Not just you. You are quite immature, and you do not know everything. Everything I post on here comes from an offline source, or just pure memory. Unfortunately, I cannot post an offline source or my memory on here, and whenever I come across a source on the web that proves my claims true, I post it. And, you are the one who needs to properly count, and quit forcing me to fix YOUR mistakes. You are a very rude person, and planet Earth does not revolve around you. Have a nice day. --OLTL2002 (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You know what OLTL 2002, how about you go and do your mistakes on another website and leave this one to me and people who know this. I don't make mistakes on here. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Listen, I know more about this web site than you do, partially because I have been here longer than you. And you do to make mistakes. Do you know what you are? You are a know-it-all, you think that you know everything about everything. Well here's a piece of news, you don't. You are a pest, and as I already stated, you are very rude. I don't care how much longer I have to fight your sorry rear end, I will do it until you learn some common sense. And just so you know, I may give in and let you post your incorrect information, but I'm going to keep changing the number of episodes to the correct count. Now you can leave me alone. I DO NOT WANT TO HERE FROM YOU AGAIN. Not here, not on my talk page, not on YouTube, no where. --OLTL2002 (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't know shit from shinola seriously you got the exit of David Vickers wrong saying it was July 31 when it was August 6, and you got Erika Slezak's exit wrong as well. How are we supposed to trust you because you read some faked up story? Lemme tell you something missy, I have the actual account of episodes and it's 10,291 episodes of September 5th 2008. Oh just because you are on here longer means you know a hell of alot more about One Life to Live? I don't think so missy, I see whose coming and whose going and I see how many episodes they have had. I know who actors play which characters, I know when the show started. I know every storyline dating back to May 29 2006. I've been taking care of this thing for the past year on my own and now a few weeks ago you come along and take over. I'm not gonna allow you to do that so please leave this page alone and lemme handle it. If you gotta problem with me than you can report me I don't care. I'm still gonna have this page the true way and it's my way. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 02:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You can quit calling me missy, because I'm not a female. I have been here since May of 2007, not for a few weeks. I know every single storyline from April 17, 2002 and on. The 10,000th episode was aired on Monday, July 30, 2007, with holiday pre-emtions on September 3, November 22 and 23, December 25, January 1, May 26, and July 4. That comes to a total of 10,273 as of Friday, August 22. And as I said, I do not want to hear from you again. Several professional sources had claimed that Slezak was leaving on July 31, and dates are not always accurate. I'm human, you're human, and so is every other gazillion editor. And humans make mistakes. So you can shut up now, and leave me alone. Or I will not only report you here, I will report you to the authorities for harassment Mr. York. --OLTL2002 (talk) 03:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The 10,000th episode was August 17. not July 31. So your wrong on that. You can report me to whoever you want I don't care. I know that I'm right and your wrong. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it wasn't July 31, it was July 30. On air celebration had to be post-poned for August 17. So YOU'RE WRONG. And I'm telling you, you better not talk to be again. That means that you don't reply to this message. Whatever you have to say, no body cares, and more importantly, I don't care. --OLTL2002 (talk) 04:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the proper count, but the 10,000th ep aired Aug 17th. I don't know what you're talking about with July 30. Both of you need to calm down and be more civil; I haven't been keeping track of who is right and wrong in each case, but it seems to me that you are just antagonizing each other. OLTL2002, it is unrealistic to expect never to hear from Onelifefreak2007 again when you keep reverting his edits. If you both know "the truth" I can't understand why you disagree so often. Perhaps you can each try to compromise more, or let some harmless edits go even if you disagree with them (like the Andrea Evans or Tobias contract status). — TAnthony^Talk 04:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

TAnthony, I actually recounted and as of September 5,2008 it's 10,269 episodes. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sick and Tired

I'm gonna tell you one thing, I am getting sick and tired of redoing the episode count cuz for one that's not the correct number. I don't know where you got that number but I did my count last night and from August 17, 2007 which is the 10,000th episode to September 5, 2008 that is 269 episodes, so One Life to Live has recorded 10,269 episodes as of September 5, 2008. I remember you saying that the 10,000th episode aired on July 30th. I don't remember seeing Kevin, Joey, Cord, Max and Alex come back in that episode. Where ever you got that information is wrong, you can ask TAnthony. He posted the link in the past section. You seem to think you know about One Life to Live but here's a taste of reality, you don't know diddley squat about the show. P.J. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 05:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right about not seeing Kevin, Joey, Cord, Max, and Alex on July 30, because the on air celebration wasn't aired until August 17. And I know more about this show than you ever will. And if you wanna talk about diddley squat, then just take a look in the mirror. I have been polite to you time and time again, but you know what, I'm tired of being polite to your sorry ass. I can tell that you weren't raised to good, and you have no manners nor respect. You are a worthless being, and a vulger bastard who is worthless. So you can take a walk and not speak to me again. --OLTL2002 (talk) 09:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

OLTL2002, your comments above are completely inappropriate, counter-productive and are the very definition of personal attacks. Onelifefreak2007, your comments are also somewhat antagonistic. Obviously you two can't agree on a single thing, but that is no reason to be impolite and uncivil, and it only hurts your credibility. Insulting each other is not helping anything.

As far as the OLTL episode count, if you both now agree that the 10,000th episode aired on August 17, I imagine you will now agree on the count and there will be no more reverting back and forth? — TAnthony^Talk 14:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

TAnthony I'm your friend and you know that. But this Jackass here OLTL2002 thinks they know so much about One Life to Live. The 10,000th episode aired on August 17th. NOT July 30th. Everything was nice and peaceful til this idiot came along and started messing with my work. As for the Jackass part, they called me a bastard so I'm just returning the favor. OLTL2002 I got something I want you to do, I want you to unregister here and go somewhere else with your false information, because as far as I can see, you don't know anything about One Life to Live, cuz your wrong all the time, with David's and Viki's exits, I don't think so. I'm not gonna be nice to you OLTL2002, I just want you to leave the article alone because apparently your info is wrong. Quit changing the frickin episode count alright. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

TAnthony, I saw the 10,267 episode thing and I just had to recount and see if that is right which it is, so the actual account is 10,267 as of September 5, 2008. I was off by two but that shouldn't matter since it's all fixed. PJ Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Nash Brennan

OK Nash Brennan WAS a fictional character, not is. He died remember so that will make him an was not is, whoever is changing that please don't do that anymore, he appeared only like a few times as a ghost but he is dead. So that will make him a was not is. PJ Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, learn the rules. He is not a real person. Fictional subjects always exist, so characters are always "is" even if they're "dead." For proof, check Pauline Fowler, a Featured Article ... it's "is." I've explained this to you in the edit summary every time I've changed it, you should save us all time by adding articles to your watchlist and reading the edit summaries rather than doing whatever you want without understanding the rules. — TAnthony^Talk 22:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok so how come in the Georgie Jones article it says that she was a fictional character and not is? So as far as I'm concerned, Nash Brennan was a fictional character and quit changing it because if he is a fictional character that means that the character is alive and he's not alive. So Nash was a fictional character and it's staying that way. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not my rule, and obviously George is just incorrect. Please do not make ill-informed edits. — TAnthony^Talk 23:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Listen you little bastard, you are getting on my last nerves you know that, I will keep changing the fuckin article. I know what your gonna say "please don't have any name calling blah blah blah. GUESS WHAT, I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE FUCKIN RULES ON HERE TANTHONY, NASH BRENNAN WAS A FICTIONAL CHARACTER AND HE'S STAYING THAT WAY AND IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ME REPORT ME. YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW THAT I DON'T FOLLOW RULES ANY TYPE OF RULES. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to yell like the way you doing. It's just we want to make sure that information is correct then in the past. We are trying to make wikipedia better in the present. --M42380 (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did in Nash Brennan, makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — TAnthony^Talk 00:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your comments here are inappropriate. — TAnthony^Talk 00:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Response

TAnthony I'd suggest you leave me alone right now, Nash was a character, and so far he doesn't exist anymore cuz he's dead, get that through your head. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Listen, please understand: a fictional character is never alive and never dead. On Wikipedia, fiction exists in a "perpetual present tense" (see Wikipedia:TENSE#Check your fiction). The article about Nash Brennan is not supposed to be talking about him as through he is a real person, he is a fictional entity that always exists in the present. The Pauline Fowler reached Featured Article status, the highest possible on Wikipedia, which means it passed many intense reviews. You will notice that though the character is "dead," she is referred to in the present tense (Pauline Fowler IS a fictional character). You may not agre with this policy, but it is how things are done at Wikipedia. Please do not go against policy, with this type of edit or your inappropriate comments above. This continued behavior will get you blocked from editing. Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk 00:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well the difference is that Pauline Fowler was from England, this is a american character. I understand with Alan Quartermaine and Asa Buchanan, but Nash I know he is a character, but to me it doesn't make sense alright. and look at Georgie Jones of GH. It did she was a character. So if Georgie is going like that than show is Nash. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, the fact that it is a British character has nothing to do with anything. As you say, Asa Buchanan and Alan Quartermaine are in the proper tense; Georgie Jones was incorrect but I've made the change. That particular article is not in the present tense at all, so I've left a tag to that effect. — TAnthony^Talk 01:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That's because Alan haunts Tracy and Asa appeared in Heaven and to Bo as a ghost. Nash and Georgie have not haunted anybody, wait I take that back Nash has like twice maybe 3 times, but Georgie hasn't been on the show ever since she died so, does that mean she WAS a fictional character? Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It honestly has nothing to do with haunting or reappearing. Georgie IS a fictional character, "dead" or "alive." You are thinking of these characters from what is called an "in-universe perspective," meaning from the standpoint that the characters are real people. This is understandable because a TV character seems more "real" than a character in a book, but as noted at Wikipedia:TENSE#Check your fiction: "Works of fiction are generally considered to 'come alive' when read. They exist in a kind of perpetual present tense, regardless of when the fictional action is supposed to take place relative to 'now.' Thus, generally you should write about fiction using the present tense, not the past tense." The concept can be annoying in certain cases, but it is meant to clearly differentiate real-world situations from fictional ones. — TAnthony^Talk 02:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well it was kinda hard not to think of them as a real person cuz you watch these soapies and you think you are watching what a real life town you know, that's the way I see it, I know it's fake but it looks so real. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ron Carlivati

TAnthony

Umm I think you better check out the Ron Carlivati article cuz the succession box is screwed up, I dunno what's wrong with it, maybe you can figure it out. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

OLTL images

FYI, Fair use (non-free) images are considered replaceable for identifying living people, per Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable use, Images - Item 12. Please stop uploading promo shots for the actor articles, this violates policy. — TAnthony^Talk 23:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Look I just put promo shots cuz I don't know what else to put and I'm gonna be uploading pictures unless you ban me. So leave me alone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onelifefreak2007 (talk • contribs) 15:51, August 19, 2008

If there are no legal images to put in the articles, do not put any at all. — TAnthony^Talk 23:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you add an inappropriate image to an article, as you did to [[:Chris Stack and various]], you will be blocked from editing. You have been warned repeatedly that fair use (non-free) images are considered replaceable for identifying living people, per Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable use, Images - Item 12, and yet you continue to restore them. Please stop, or be blocked. — TAnthony^Talk 23:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeatedly adding copywritten material. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh so we can use snapshots of TV Shows and stuff but not use the promotional pictures and stuff, yeah that makes sense. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't understand ... you can use these images to illustrate the character (in most cases) in the character article, but not the actor himself/herself in their article. Please try to read and consider the information and warnings you receive from other editors who seek to inform you. I provided the link to the photo policy in question in many edit summaries and on this page. I know it can be annoying when it seems like other editors are "telling you what to do," but your reaction should not automatically be that "you are right, they are wrong" when you have not familiarized yourself with policy. — TAnthony^Talk 00:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

look TAnthony all I'm trying to do is put some pictures on the actor's page is that so wrong? Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because it violates policy. For a living actor, you must have a freely-licensed image. Many, many actors do not have images in their articles for that reason. The idea is, if an actor is alive, it is possible to take a photo of them and grant permission for its use here, rather than used an image owned by the studio or someone else. I didn't write the policy, but it's there to protect copyright holders. I'd like their articles to have photos too, but at this point no "free" ones are available. — TAnthony^Talk 00:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I put a new pic of Michael McBain on this article the character, and it got deleted. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onelifefreak2007 (talk • contribs) 16:30, August 19, 2008

When you upload a photo, you also have to provide licensing info, a fair use rationale, etc. or their use violates policy. Bots look at all newly-uploaded images to make sure these things have been added, and if they haven't, the images are tagged and deleted quickly. Again, it is for copyright reasons. These procedures are all spelled out during the upload process.— TAnthony^Talk 00:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

ok how come Kristen Alderson has a pic on her article?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Onelifefreak2007 (talk • contribs)

Someone just added that today and no one norticed yet, it's gone now. And please remember to sign your posts. — TAnthony^Talk 00:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

when can I get unbanned? Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it is a 7-day block. — TAnthony^Talk 15:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

How do I provide a licensing info? Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

When you upload an image, a template is automatically applied, with fields left blank. You must fill in each bit of requested info, like "Purpose of use" and a link to the article where the image is used. Check out Image:MichaelMcBain-NathanielMarston-2004.jpg; you can actually copy the templates and info there, just update with the correct data for your particular image. Include any episode dates and the source of the image if possible, as well as identifying the uploader. Finally, you will notice a Licensing tag. Use {{Non-free television screenshot}} for screenshots (actual clips from the show) and {{Non-free promotional}} for promotional images (posed shots). Keep in mind that promotional images are often challenged because the network websites on which they are found usually specifically prohibit their use elsewhere without permission. For example, the ABC site states here that "Except as we specifically agree in writing, no Content from any WDIG Site may be used, reproduced, transmitted, distributed or otherwise exploited in any way other than as part of the WDIG Site, except that where a WDIG Site is configured to enable the download of particular Content, you may download one copy of such Content to a single computer for your personal, noncommercial home use only ..." — TAnthony^Talk 04:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok but what if you don't know where you got the picture from or you forget, what do you put? Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 04:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Just the "Uploaded by" info. — TAnthony^Talk 04:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

So with the actor articles I can only have pictures of them if they say it's ok? Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 05:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If they're living, you can only use a photo whose owner (the photographer) has granted permission for its use here. So you can take a photo yourself or get the photographer's permission. Obviously, this is basically impossible for pics you find on the web. There are some photgraphers like the great David Shankbone who specifically shoot photos for use on Wikipedia, but he does Madonna-level celebrities and Prime Ministers, I think little-known soap actors are a bit out of his scope. — TAnthony^Talk 15:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

So if I wanna use a Steve Bergman picture I have to ask him for permisson to use his pics? Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if he's a photographer or the subject of a potential article, but if he's the photographer, then yes. — TAnthony^Talk 16:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright than I'll send him an email asking him if I can use his pics on here, than if I do get permission, I'll upload them when I get unbanned. Is there a way to ask him if I could use his pics, than how do I let wikipedia know? Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Tobias Truvillion, Andrea Evans, Brian Kerwin

I just wanna make a few things clear, Tobias Truvillion (Vincent Jones) is still on recurring status, I haven't heard anything about him leaving the show, so leave him where he is. Both Brian Kerwin (Charlie Banks) and Andrea Evans (Tina Lord) are on contract status because they were both credited in the contract section of the closing credits on the June 20th 2008 episode. If you don't believe me check it out on my YouTube Channel, the show is called "Gift Horse" it's in the 6th part. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Tobias Truvillion last aired on August 6. It was reported in the September 8 issue of SID, and there is a source to prove it. And the closing credits aren't the best source. They credited January LaVoy and John Rue through June, despite leaving in January. And they once credited Tari Signor as "Tar Signor". Besides, aren't you supposed to be under a 7 day block? That doesn't mean that you can edit anonymously. A ban is a ban. And I will not give up this time. Tobias Truvillion is gone. It's not my fault that people at soaps.com cannot do their job. --OLTL2002 (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well Mr. Know it all, as far as I'm concerned Vincent Jones will still be on recurring status as far as I'm concerned. If I hear it from soaps.com, that he left the show, I will delete his name, until than his name is still on the recurring status. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well guess what? I heard it from Soaps In Depth. The magazine that some people from soaps.com have copied... and there was even a source posted. --OLTL2002 (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well if it's on Soaps.com than it will be on here. But until than Vincent Jones is gonna stay on the cast list. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No, he isn't, because Soaps In Depth was told this by an OLTL represenative, meaning that this is accurate. Just because it isn't on soaps.com doesn't mean that it isn't true. So Vincent Jones will be removed from the recurring cast list indefinately. --OLTL2002 (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Than I will just keep adding him until I hear it from soaps.com. Because I don't trust your information, I mean lets see here you got the wrong exit dates for Erika and Tuc, you got the wrong episode number and you think the updated opening debuted on July 31st. Need I say more? I don't think so. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

From your comments above, I can only assume that you are editing anonymously as User:68.185.181.8 during your block. Please stop. — TAnthony^Talk 00:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

what I can't even log out and edit and log back in? Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You are blocked from editing for seven days, period. I understand you were blocked for refusing to follow proper image uploading/use procedures, and you haven't been working with images during the block, but getting into yet another edit war with OLTL2002 over trivial information while you are blocked makes you look bad, even though he is also being disruptive by "fighting" with you. You have to understand, even if your edits and information are "correct," bickering with other editors in a somewhat uncivil way hurts your credibility. — TAnthony^Talk 15:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I know my info is correct and I am only blocked til tomorrow night so yay. But according to my sources which I know are true my info is correct and this OLTL2002, they got all of their info wrong. I've proven him wrong 3 times TAnthony. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That's partially my point; you may have better information but you're the one blocked. You have to work on your behavior in general. And I'm not saying it is only your fault. But I have this idea that your block will be lifted and suddenly you will be reverting OLTL2002's edits and the fighting will start again. Who cares if Tobias is listed as on the show or not, this isn't Soap Opera Digest, the info is not meant to be changed daily, it's an encyclopedia. If the two of you continue to argue back and forth, you will both be blocked, and that is a waste. I don't understand why you can't both focus your energies on improving articles and such, rather than arguing back and forth over unimportant information. — TAnthony^Talk 15:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What happend to my Sarah Roberts pic I had up on the article? Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that it wasn't linked right and never showed up in the article (or maybe it was deleted?), so someone reverted the link. But please tell me you didn't upload an image from an IP during your block? Specifically thwarting a block and doing the exact thing you were blocked for is a serious offense here. You can't resist uploading images for a week? This saddens me, because you are going to get yourself banned from WP indefinitely over stupid things like images and airdates. — TAnthony^Talk 15:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

ehh I didn't, I tried though but they said I had to be logged in and I'm like crap I gotta wait til Tuesday night to change it back LOL. Oh I might have permission to upload Steve Bergman's pictures, so if I do I'll letcha know alright? I'll change the Sarah pic when I get unbanned. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Onelifefreak2007 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. — TAnthony^Talk 17:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You have made anonymous edits using this IP address after being warned here not to do so during your block. In addition, these were basically reverts of OLTL2002's edits, not even constructive edits. — TAnthony^Talk 18:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring/3RR

Request to OLTL2002 and Onelifefreak2007

Without blaming either of you for specific inappropriate behavior, I am making a formal request to both of you that you please stop what appears to be edit-warring and violating 3RR in various articles, including One Life to Live (episode count disputes) as well as List of One Life to Live cast members and Vincent Jones (contract vs. recurring status of actors in dispute). I have also seen incivility and what may be construed as personal attacks in your interactions with each other.

I have made similar requests and warnings recently in edit summaries, on article talk pages and your user talk pages, with little success. Viewing the histories of any of these articles shows much revert and back-and-forth activity between you, and there is much talk page/edit summary history of your unconstructive arguments. My next step will be to make formal reports when new violations occur, and let these histories speak for themselves; this would certainly lead to blocks for at least one of you. I am hoping you can instead work out your issues in a civil manner. Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk 18:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

TAnthony Here is what I'm gonna do, I'll be able to work out any matters with OLTL2002, if he is willing to do the same. I'm a nice guy alright and I get unbanned tomorrow night. I'm just going by my sources here and that's all I'm trying to do. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

user:OLTL2002 does not want any thing to do with you because the problem that you were having with him. I am working with him on Children of General Hospital and other things. --M42380 (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

ok that's fine with me as long as he leaves One Life to Live alone he can screw up General Hospital all he wants. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Hello. This is your first warning (as Onelifefreak2007) to not remove sources from Vincent Jones. Thank you. --OLTL2002 (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2008 (UT)

I thought you didn't want anything to do with me so why are you messaging me, are you trying to start something up again with me? I already told you that until I hear it from soaps.com Vincent Jones will stay on the recurring status. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Why can't you just leave the sources be on Vincent Jones. If you continue to remove sources, then I will have to report you for vandalism. Thank you. --OLTL2002 (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I left the sources alone, I just deleted the August 6 stuff and put him back on recurring section where he belongs. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

As a compromise, I've rewritten the lead of the article to state that his last appearance to date was Aug. 6, which is true -- no one is saying he is officially off the show, because we have no source that says so. Can we just leave it alone and go on to some more constructive editing? — TAnthony^Talk 16:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

ok ok fine. You rewritten that and thank you TAnthony Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Roberts image

Hey man, this new image you uploaded is grainy and really not as good as the old one, why are you so insistent on having it in the article? It's not really that different anyway. Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk 22:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Because I didn't download the opening sequences and made pictures out of the opening credits just for nothing man, I have pics of Markko, Jared, Talia, Miles, Gigi and Sarah. I can take another pic if you like but I had this in the article before you had that one. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to take away from your work, but an inferior photo shouldn't replace another one just because you worked hard on it. The Chris Stack pic is better than the old one, but this Justis Bolding pic just isn't. — TAnthony^Talk 22:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Want me to make a new pic? Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Chris Stack pic

TAnthony

I just wanna say that I did have permission to use that pic that's in Chris Stack's article. I talked with Steve he said I could put that on there for him to review it to see if he would wanna go further with posting his pics on the actor articles. So please don't delete it. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 06:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Cast List

Hey TAnthony

Lemme ask you something, I know me and OLTL2002 have been arguing about who goes on what status of the show in the cast list, well why can't we just put the recurring and contract cast together in one whole list? That way nobody has to remove anybody and everybody can be on one whole list. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Miles/Vincent

I didn't look which one you removed, but the character page (http://abc.go.com/daytime/onelifetolive/characters/bio?pn=characterbio) no longer shows either. ABC wouldn't remove them unless they were gone. It's valid, no character has appeared since being removed from the bios page. And since neither is on contract, you can't argue any proof they're with the show. Also, if you removed Miles, the SOD that came out today refers to David is being written out in April. So there is proof right there for him. Alexisfan07

I didn't remove Miles or Vincent. I always add them back on there and I usually go by what soaps.com says so until I hear it from soaps.com they are on the cast list. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 05:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Soaps.com is as equally reliable as SOD, but the ABC character page is the most reliable source. It's affiliated directly with the show. Alexisfan07 —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah they are reliable which is why I use soaps.com, but than there is this jackass OLTL2002 which he says that Vincent Jones is gone. Well he was wrong with that before, and he also got Erika Slezak and Tuc Watkins last airdate wrong, so that proves it right there that he can't be trusted with information. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 06:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to enter a war between the two of you, but we have to trust ABC's character page. They removed Vincent, so he is not appearing again. AMC did the same with some of their characters, and they have yet to appear again. So try to put aside whatever you feel for the other Wikipedia user and be fair in this situation. Alexisfan07 —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well until I hear from soaps.com that Vincent is gone he's staying on the cast list. Onelifefreak2007 (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyrights

Please don't upload (or re-upload after deletion) any images unless you can provide evidence that you have permission to do so. We need an e-mail from the photographer or a message on the photographer's own website stating that they release the photograph under a free license. Please note that this must be a license not just for Wikipedia, but for free re-use everywhere else, such as GFDL or cc-by-sa. They can send these e-mails to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia.org".

Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it's only gonna be on Wikipedia cuz I promised him I wouldn't post his pics on anyother site. P.J. 06:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Then they must be deleted, sorry. We have a very strict rule about that. See WP:NFC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO DECIDE THAT THEY SHOULD BE DELETED P.J. 06:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I am an administrator on this project and my task is to enforce these rules. Now, will you cooperate or will I have to block you? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh so lemme get this straight, they can be used on Wikipedia only if they can be used on other sites is that right? P.J. 06:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, right. That includes making "derivative works" from them (i.e. modifying them by cropping or similar), and commercial re-use. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Because I chose that license when I was uploading it, is there anyway where I can have a license where it can be used on Wikipedia only? If there is show it to me, if not, I'll talk to Steve about this alright? P.J. 06:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you'll need to talk to the photographer. I've tagged a few images where this applies; they'll get deleted if we don't have the confirmation in a week or so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the most idiotic rule of all, I have permission to upload them from Steven Bergman and he gave me permission to use his photos on Wikipedia only, I wanna know the user who made these idiotic rules up, seriously. We can use screen shots on the character articles but we can't use pictures that you have permission to use on wikipedia unless the owner says that people can have the rights to the pictures so they could do whatever they want to the photos. Hmm? Sounds hyporcritical to me don't you think. I mean if Wikipedia cares about copyrights at all than they shouldn't have that rule. Cuz with that rule, everybody is allowed to save it to there computer and post it on another site like it's their own. So whose the user that made up that idiotic rule? HUH P.J. 08:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically, I think it was this guy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

But perhaps I wasn't clear enough about one thing: the licenses in question typically come with one requirement, and that is that the original author must always be acknowledged when somebody reuses the image. So no, we're not asking the photographer to let everybody else just pretend it was their own. Appropriate licenses are GFDL (the one we also use for our text), and cc-by-sa (the one used by some uploaders on sites like flickr.) Sorry, I didn't earlier understand what you were saying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Onelifefreak2007, I have tried helping you understand image policies, but you refuse to actually read articles like Wikipedia:Non-free content and therefore get a full understanding of the nuances. Your comments above tell me that you still don't get it.

Ideally, every image on Wikipedia should have its owner's permission provided. However, there is a little thing in U.S. law called fair use that allows for reasonable and limited use of copyrighted works for non-commercial purposes. Articles about TV shows and fictional characters fall under this, vaguely, because we're providing "scholarly analysis" and images presumably help the reader understand and recognize the topic. But the necessity of these images is often disputed, with good reason. Every person or article does not need an image, they are not meant to be decorative. So we have to police the use of images and have strict rules or the site would soon be abusing the privilege of fair use. And the results of something like that could be Wikipedia being responsible for financial damages, and not being allowed to use ANY images at all.

For something like a TV show or film, there will never be a "free" photo because the images and characters are owned and only photographed within the context of the film or series. You can't get a photo of Erica Kane on the street, just a photo of Susan Lucci. As I explained before, the reason fair use doesn't apply to living people is that it is reasonable that someone can take a photo of that person on the street and give permission for its use. Steve Bergman may have given you permission but it needs to be proven/backed up, or anyone could just say they have permission. And your point about anyone grabbing an image from Wikipedia and re-using it any way they like is exactly the point of licenses. Any image here needs to have its related rights and permissions spelled out so we're not held accountable for any nefarious re-use, and so we're not providing easy access to copyrighted images for no reason. — TAnthony^Talk 17:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ethan Raines.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ethan Raines.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Chris Stack

I have removed your fair use image from Chris Stack three times (here, here and here) for the reason that fair use (non-free) images are considered replaceable for identifying living people, per Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable use, Images - Item 12. You have already been blocked for refusing to follow image protocol, I cannot understand why you continue to ignore image policies and restore this decorative image. Please stop or you will be blocked again. — TAnthony^Talk 17:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Christ we can't even use screen shots, we can use them on the characters but not the actor articles, that's really screwed up. P.J. 17:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I've explained to you many times why this is this case, do not ignore the rules because you don't like them. Why don't you concentrate your efforts on actually editing' rather than uploading decorative images? — TAnthony^Talk 17:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see the way that with the actor pics, I can get permisson to use that license that way nobody would be able to use that pic and they see that it's licensed. P.J. 17:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Patrick Drake. Thank you. You continue to revert other editors' edits without providing explanations via edit summary, please assume good faith on the part of other editors in the future and discuss items you disagree with. — TAnthony^Talk 23:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to do the edit summaries. P.J. 23:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

At the bottom of the window when you're making an edit is "Edit summary (Briefly describe the changes you have made):" followed by an empty box. You are supposed to somehow describe your edit so that someone looking at their watchlist can get an idea what you've done and decide whether or not they wish to view the edit itself. It can be as simple as "Fix spelling" or even "fix" for minor edits, but if you are making a controversial edit or reverting someone else's good faith edit you really need to explain why you're doing so.— TAnthony^Talk 01:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on the article Vincent Jones (One Life to Live)‎. You may resume editing after the block expires, but continued edit warring will result in a longer block without further warning. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes you want to make, instead of repeatedly undoing others' edits. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 08:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

OLTL 2002

When are you gonna get it through your thick skull that Tobias is still on recurring status? Huh? P.J. 14:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please do not direct derogatory comments or foul language to other editors, as you have done here, here, here, here and especially here (among others). If you are frustrated, please take a break from editing, do not attack others. Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk 14:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't attack anybody I just said, when are you gonna get through your thick skull that Vincent Jones is still on recurring status. I didn't attack nobody. Plus I'm already blocked from editing for the next 24 hours.P.J. 15:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Telling an editor he/she has a "thick skull" is an attack; you are directing a personal insult to another editor rather than commenting on edits in a constructive way. You should always be polite and civil regardless of your level of frustration. We have all made the mistake of getting angry and insulting another editor, intentionally or not, but I feel that you still don't understand the nature of your constant violations. Please take a look at WP:Personal attacks and my examples of your previous violations above. — TAnthony^Talk 15:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked again

You have been blocked for a period of 48 hours for continuing to edit war at Vincent Jones (One Life to Live). If you keep making that change without discussion, you will keep being blocked. Once this block is over I strongly suggest starting a discussion on the article's talk page; your change will not be implemented by edit warring. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

what the hell is your problem anywayz, why don't you block me pernamently you stupid faggot. P.J. 22:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not. If I do that, you lose your editing privileges and Wikipedia loses a good editor. I just want you to contribute properly and learn to get along with the rest of the editors here. If you force me to, I will block you permanently, but I think you can learn to stop flaming and edit warring. Am I wrong? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If I am such a good editor why do you keep blocking me cuz I put Vincent Jones in the recurring status cuz from what I see he is still on recurring status. I'm not trying to edit war. P.J. 22:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Even good editors make mistakes and get blocked sometimes. You just need to remember that there are no emergencies on Wikipedia. Don't panic: Everything will work itself out eventually. Between the first block and now this one, you've lost a total of 72 hours of editing time over a dispute that could have been solved with 15 minutes' worth of discussion. If you talk it over calmly instead of reverting over and over, you'll have a better chance to make yourself heard. Or if you walk away for a few weeks and go work on something else, it won't seem like such a big deal at all. All you have to do is either talk it out or leave it alone, and it will all work out. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried to work it out with this guy OLTL2022 but he claims that Vincent Jones left the show, I haven't heard that, and where is the article talk pages at? P.J. 23:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously from your user names, both of you have a common interest and you can probably get along really well if you just get to know each other better. A lot of times on the Internet, people are too quick to argue because the anonymity lets you feel superior. But both of you are fans of the show, and both of you want to make the best articles you can, so why not try to see his side of it instead of just going back and forth?

You can find the article talk page by clicking on the tab marked "discussion" when you're at the article, the same way you get to your user talk page by clicking the discussion tab from your user page. Or you can just put "talk:" in front of the title: Talk:Vincent Jones (One Life to Live). When the block is over, you can start a friendly discussion there and work together. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

so I'm blocked again til tomorrow? P.J. 21:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No, your block expired today. As long as you leave that article alone until you work it out with OLTL2002, you're free to resume editing. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

than how come I'm blocked again, it's like an auto blocked? P.J. 21:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

For some reason there was an autoblock on the IP address that was still active. Go ahead and try it again. You should be able to edit now. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Harry Potter

No, dates should no longer be linked. Please see WP:MOS#UNLINKDATES. Gran² 14:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

well than you change the dates to the American way which is why I have them linked cuz in my prefernces I have the dates the American way and they don't show up like when they aren't linked. Oh so that's the English Manuel of Style, well I'm not English I'm american. P.J. 14:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

English is the name on the language. And Harry Potter is British, so no, the dates should not be formatted the American way. Gran² 14:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

oh so Harry Potter dates can't be linked but the soaps and the characters of the soaps the dates are linked? why can't dates be linked? I don't see anything wrong with that? P.J. 14:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the majority of date links will eventually be removed, it's just a lengthy process. If you have disagree with it, perhaps you should ask Tony1, as he is the main orchestrator behind the policy. Gran² 14:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the decision to unlink dates unless specifically necessary is new (the end of August), so you will start to see it happening everywhere — they just haven't gotten around to most of the soap articles yet. — TAnthony^Talk 15:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

dates

I've found you finally, by looking at my edit history page. I'd have answered on your talk page before if your signature had allowed me to link to here, or to determine even what your user-name is; if you'd like assistance to organise your signature, I'm only too pleased to oblige.

The document I linked you to sets out very clearly the reasons why dates are now not linked. The boundary between the American and European "way" is, in fact, quite blurred, since the US military uses the European way, and some non-North-Americans use the so-called US way. The differences are generally regarded as trivial, and editors' personal preferences not seen as important in this matter. Our readers are the whole point of the project, not editors such as you and I. Our readers see the raw date formats, and the preference you've chosen as a logged-in editor is not available to them. That means almost all American readers, and all British readers, and the rest of the world, regardless of what their personal preference is. No one seems to mind such trivial differences, and WP seems to manage two spelling systems very well, don't you think?

I wonder whether you read the document I referred you to. Perhaps you could identify one of the six points in the capped info document you'd like me to enlarge upon. I'm keen to explain the issues and convince you that the recent deprecation of autoformatting is a significant step forward for WP. You might not have noticed that the date after every signature is European. I hadn't noticed until recently. Tony (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well yeah I had noticed that, and thanks to your rule I'm unlinking the dates in the Soap characters on One Life to Live. I say just keep the dates linked that way everybody who is an editor can have the dates the way they want. P.J. 16:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A side note to this: According to the signature guidelines, your signature has to include a link to either your user page, your user talk page, or both. It makes it much easier for people to talk to you. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

alright I did that. P.J. (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For being willing to talk instead of edit warring, work through disputes, and cooperate with others to improve Wikipedia, I award you this Resilient Barnstar. Keep up the great teamwork! Kafziel Complaint Department 23:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

how do I put this in my profile? P.J. (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You can copy and paste it straight over there, if you want it in the same wide format. If you want it tall and narrow, the simplest way is to treat it like an image with a caption. You can just copy this code:

[[Image:Resilient_Barnstar.png|thumb|left|'''For being willing to talk instead of edit warring, work through disputes, and cooperate with others to improve Wikipedia, I award you this Resilient Barnstar. Keep up the great teamwork! [[User:Kafziel|Kafziel]] ^{[[User talk:Kafziel|Complaint Department]]} 23:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)''']]

Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Talia image

Are you not going to even justify your revert? Your new image is grainy and inferior; I know you like the images you personally screencapped, but the amount of work you put into something should not supercede quality. If you feel that strongly about it, let's open up discussion at Talk:Talia Sahid and see what others think.— TAnthony^Talk 20:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I had that pic up ever since December and you decided to change it now? P.J. (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A Martinez

ABC.com does not show A Martinez as a current cast member What is your source? Editor^U.S.A. (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well what is your source and just because he's not on the current cast list on ABC that doesn't mean he's not on the current cast list. My source is soaps.com, just take a look at the cast list. P.J. (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be the one to say this, but ABC.com is actually legit. --OLTL2002 (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you continue to fight over article content rathe rthen discussing then you will get a very long or indefinite block next time. Chill out and discuss disagreements please. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey ya see OLTL2002 if you would've just left it alone like I had it I wouldn't be blocked for 72 hours, See this is all your fault, I kept changing your mistakes because you have to have the damn thing at September 19. Why just have it at October 3rd like I had it huh? Don't tell me oh October 3 is way far off, like who really cares that's notta excuse alright? How come I had it a month ahead last year and you didn't do anything about it? I hope your happy seriously. P.J. (talk) 06:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have called this to your attention before, but per WP:CRYSTALBALL we are really not supposed to be anticipating future events and extrapolating information (counting in advance) without sources. It would be OK use a magazine article which says "the 500th episode will air on September 30th" as a source, but counting a month in advance is kind of sloppy (and technically original research), because an unscheduled pre-emption could change things. Of course, it is such a trivial thing in this case (at the One Life to Live article) that it really doesn't matter either way (as you say "who cares?"). But OLTL2002 has a right to challenge you on it because he/she is probably more "right" in terms of policy. I just wish one of you would just let it go, with this article and also the constant nonsense at List of One Life to Live cast members. And by the way, just because an error or controversial edit went unnoticed in the past does not make it OK in the present. — TAnthony^Talk 06:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, it is not OLTL2002's fault you were blocked; you were blocked because you reverted OLTL2002 more than three times in 24 hours. He/she was blocked also. Learn from this and next time show some restraint, and perhaps only OLTL2002 will be the one blocked. — TAnthony^Talk 06:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

TAnthony

Hey TAnthony

Can you put back my pictures of Ethan Erickson on the Patrick Drake article and Gideon Emery on the Jasper Jacks since I'm blocked for one more day somebody said they don't need the temp recast pics but there are temp recast pics of Dr. Michael McBain, Ric Lansing and Antonio Vega.

Just type in Image:Ethan Erickson.jpg and Image:Gideon Emery.jpg. Thanx

P.J. (talk) 06:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Nick Kiriazis.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Nick Kiriazis.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. BJBot (talk) 05:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Temporary recasts

I've removed five pictures of temporary recasts that you uploaded from various soap character articles. I can see nothing significant enough about these portrayals to warrant an image, as these weren't actors taking over a role in an attempt to "make it their own", but mere placeholders until the "real deal" could return from whatever waylaid them. If you can explain why exactly these rather non-notable placeholder portrayals are significant enough to warrant inclusion, I'd be happy to listen. AniMate 07:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Because there are pictures of a character and should be on the articles, like Antonio Vega and Michael McBain those pictures have been up since last December and nobody seemed to have a problem with it. So why are you making such a big deal. P.J. (talk) 07:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Plus I already asked TAnthony for permission.

Also should I add screenshots of the Michael McBain and Antonio Vega Temp Recast or no?

PJ Onelifefreak2007 03:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

   Hmmm, why not? — TAnthonyTalk 17:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC) 

That was back in December.

I'm not making a big deal, I just don't think they're necessary or add any type of substantive value to the articles. Is it your position that a person who stepped in for less than a week is a significant portrayer of a role? I find that hard to agree with. Next thing you know you're going to add pictures of all six of Joey Buchanan's actors or maybe all thirteen of Mike Horton from Days of our Lives. While I appreciate TAnthony's opinions, he's certainly not the final word on any articles as I'm sure he himself will tell you. In fact, I remember him agreeing that all of the photos of the various actresses on Carly Corinthos weren't necessary. Is there any chance you'll reconsider? AniMate 09:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not gonna add pictures to the Mike Horton and Joey Buchanan pictures cuz your right it does take too many pictures, plus I don't watch Days Of Our Lives so where could I get the screen caps for them. To me where Laura Wright is the original Carly. But there is nothing wrong with having a temp recast pic in there as long as it's not the first image you see and no I won't reconsider, those pics can stay, they are not hurting anything. Oh and please link your name when you sign it cuz that's one of the rules. P.J. (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure what you mean about linking my name, because I've signed everyone of my posts (in fact my signature has three links, as opposed to the standard two). I'm also unsure what you mean by Laura Wright being the original Carly, as she's the fourth actress to play the role. And no, your screencaps aren't hurting anything, but they're not really helping anything either. I'm going to run this by WikiProject Soaps, and probably take them to images for deletion in the next day or two. I urge you to read the fair use policy, especially points 8 and 3a. AniMate 19:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I mean is Laura Wright is the original Carly to me. And I don't care if you wanna do that that's fine, but just because you are the only one that thinks these images should not be on the article that doesn't mean you should delete them. I'm gonna warn you one thing, if you delete them off of Wikipedia I will reupload them and put them back on the articles, and you have to link your name you do that's one of the signature guidelines. According to the signature guidelines, your signature has to include a link to either your user page, your user talk page, or both. It makes it much easier for people to talk to you. Yours are not linked. Those pics have been up on the articles since last December and your complaining to me about it now, 9 months after I upload them? Why didn't you come to me 9 months ago when I added them? Why are you making such a big deal about it? Huh? Just leave the articles alone and don't delete anymore pics than we won't have a problem. P.J. (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Your first day back from a three-day block, and you immediately start edit warring again?[4][5][6][7] You are now blocked for one week. I'm really sorry it has come back to this, but you seem incapable of discussing your views with other users until you're forced to do so. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No me and him are discussing it so. There was no edit warring going on at all. P.J. (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you just threatened to re-upload the pictures if they're deleted. That's not discussing... and my signature is linked. Put your cursor over the A(my user page), the ni(my contributions), and the Mate (my talk page).AniMate 19:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I did threaten to do so, that doesn't mean I will or won't do it. Dude I'm not trying to be mean, but your worrying about these pics as they are causing a problem and really they are not causing a problem. Just leave them be. I worked hard to get those screen caps and as far as I'm concerned they are not violating any policies. P.J. (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not trying to be mean either, but I don't think you actually understand some of the policies we have here. Threatening to recreate deleted material, especially fair use images, not in step with policy at all. Regardless, I won't take them to WP:IfD until you're unblocked. Speaking of being unblocked, the best way to get another admin to review this block is to use the template: {{unblock|your reason here}}.

Dude it's only a week, look how about we discuss this alright because I don't see any problem with having some of them temporary recasts on the articles, now IMO, I can understand why some articles like Kevin Buchanan and Joey Buchanan don't have all the actors pics cuz that will be too much, but with less recasts like Jasper Jacks, Antonio Vega, Patrick Drake, Ric Lansing, and Michael McBain I don't see why there is a problem with that, Most of those articles only still have the original actor playing the character. So why not add a temp recast to show people the character being portrayed by a different actor. I don't see anything wrong with that. Because I know some people will see the actors list and go hmm that's what this person looks like I wonder what the temp recast looks like" than they scroll down, "oh ok". You see my side now.? P.J. (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that fair use pictures should be used sparingly. The actors haven't significantly contributed to the roles, so really there is no need for them to be represented. All of the actors have entries, and readers are more than capable of finding pictures of them on their own. Finally, if you're not interested in being unblocked, I'm not going to just hang out on your talk page, as I'd rather deal with editors who want to edit and not just wait out increasingly long time outs. AniMate 20:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that I don't deserve this block? Uhh those pictures are part of the character article, and most Soap actors don't have pics cuz of the copyright policy. Just leave them be, they've been up 9 months, it's not hurting anybody in the past 9 months. So just leave them be dude. That's all.

Deserve it? I'm not sure. Blocks are not put into place to punish someone for bad behavior. They're put in place to prevent someone from continuing to behave badly. If you're ready to agree that you won't continue, perhaps an administrator will unblock you. As for leaving the pictures be, it's not something I feel I can do. I've asked for some more opinions, and while I'm waiting for more, I cannot imagine that editors familiar with policy will agree with your position. AniMate 00:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Uhh yeah you can leave it alone, you have for the past 9 months and you will continue to do so cuz they are my pics and you had no right to delete them without my permission. Now next time if you delete them there is gonna be trouble. I'm trying to be nice here but your not budging. You had no problem with them being on the articles up until now and they have been on since December of 2007. So why does it bother you so much now, why didn't you confront me when I uploaded them last December? To me I think your trying to make trouble. I'm gonna tell you one more time, just LEAVE THE PICS ALONE. If you wanna be nice you will leave this alone, you will delete your question off of Wiki Soap Projects and you will totally forget about it because I said before these pics have been up for 9 months and you had no problem with them before so why now? I know it's because you wanna start trouble with me that is why I got blocked. Why don't do me a favor and go fix some other articles and leave these 5 articles alone. The pics are up to show a picture of a character no matter who the portrayer is. Them being temporary recast is no excuse. If you send me another message with this "I'm sorry I can't leave them alone" the next message will be me attacking you and I really don't care about the attacking rules on this now. P.J. (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

They're not your pics anymore. When you uploaded them to Wikipedia, you agreed to irrevocably release your rights to them. Anyone can do whatever they want with them, including alter them, remove them from articles, or have them deleted. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 03:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm just trying to keep the pictures on the articles that's all. They should be on there. Not be deleted. P.J. (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Just try to understand the reasoning. You took the pictures, but you didn't actually take the pictures - the people who make One Life to Live took the pictures and broadcast them on television, and you took pictures of their pictures. They still own them. If you spent thousands of dollars to make a picture and then someone else took a picture of your picture and said it was theirs, you'd be pissed. It's the same thing here.

Since you don't own the pictures, you can only use them in very specific ways. Those ways are outlined in the fair use policy: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. Everyone here is trying to tell you that those pictures do not significantly improve the articles and therefore shouldn't be used. It doesn't matter how long they were there before someone noticed, and it's not a question of being nice. It's the law. Granted, Wikipedia is a little overly-strict about it, but the community decided that was the best way to handle fair use and now we all have to live with it. I've taken lots of pictures that are no longer used in articles, for any number of reasons. When you volunteer your time to work here, you have to do it with the understanding that a lot of your stuff is going to be changed or erased. That's just how it is. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of use for the pics is primary means of identifying a particular representation of a fictional character in the article about that character. That's what those pics are used for just like any other pics of a character like that. That's why I put them on there, and if your gonna delete those 5 pics than you might as well just delete every single pic of every character article on General Hospital and One Life to Live. If you want to improve an article than by all means keep it updated all the time in text, not by deleting a certain pic of a temporary recast. It's a pic of the character. When I look at the pics I don't see Robert Harte or Ethan Erickson, I see Michael McBain and Patrick Drake. I believe those pics have a right to be there no matter what. There are pics of Nathaniel Marston and Chris Stack in the role of Michael McBain, why can't a screenshot of Robert Harte in the role be up there? Can't anyone see my side on this for once? P.J. (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't give anyone a chance to see your side of things. You're so quick to get bent out of shape and revert people that everyone ends up defensive and nothing gets done. That's what I'm trying to solve here. I don't care about the pictures one way or the other, but you need to stop taking it so personally because you're not going to get very many more chances before you lose your editing privileges permanently. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I see your side, but I see policy's side too. Policy states that fair use pics have to contribute significantly to help someone understand a subject. Photos of a guy who stepped in for two or three shows while an actor was sick do nothing to help anyone significantly understand these characters. Can you see where I'm coming from?

And for the record, this isn't personal. I'm not trying to get you in trouble or blocked. I am trying to improve these articles, and simply don't think the pictures do anything other than violate fair use policy. AniMate 06:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok but mind my asking, what is a fair use policy and whose in charge of this rule here, I would like to contact them and see what they think. P.J. (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You've been given links to the fair use policy countless times. When someone asks you to look at a policy, look at it. WP:FU explains what it is, and WP:FUC lists the requirements. No one person is in charge of it - the policy was voted in by hundreds of community members. If you want to request a non-free content criteria exemption you can ask about that here or start a request for comment on the article's talk page. You won't get one, though. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

OLTL2002

You know what dude, I can't wait til I get unblocked on Sunday because again I have to fix your mistakes. Like somehow why isn't Miles Laurence on the recurring cast list and why did you put the R back in front of Brandon Johnson when he uses his name Brandon Johnson. He doesn't use the R in his name and who cares if it's his middle name. Just wait til I get unblocked. P.J. (talk) 05:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Because of that statement, I've re-started your block. You're now blocked until October 1. We can keep doing this until you agree to stop the aggressive edits, or until you end up losing your editing privileges permanently. I suggest you take a break from Wikipedia altogether. Don't watch the articles, don't check in to see who's doing what. Just walk away for a few days. Consider this next week your last chance to step back, get some perspective, and stop taking everything so personally. If you get blocked for edit warring again, it will be for a much longer time. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You're not going to like this, but I went ahead and removed the temporary recasts pictures again. Perhaps this is a bit like poking a sleeping bear, but I can't see these pictures being kept after any review by the broader community. Your devotion to the genre and characters is clear, but perhaps this isn't the right project for you. There are several projects and online communities devoted to soap opera characters, with less restrictive rules than Wikipedia. While I am in no way telling you to leave, perhaps you should explore other options more suitable to your temperament and with less restrictive rules than we have here. AniMate 06:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You have no right to do that I will get unblocked even if I have to make a new name I will re edit. I will log out and I will re edit. And that's a promise, you know what Kafiezel you just love blocking me for things I did not do. You know what Kafiezel you can kiss my ass. You know what Animate I really don't care anymore, you go ahead and do what you want. Wikipedia is nothing but stupid policies for stupid people who run this site. P.J. (talk) 07:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

PJ, I understand that you're upset, but Kafziel isn't blocking you because he likes to and I'm not removing the pictures to antagonize you. As I said above, Wikipedia does have a lot of restrictive rules. One of them is about civility. Telling Kafziel to kiss your ass and calling him a faggot as you did several sections above are both violations of this rule. Dropping the f word should have garnered you an indefinite block in my opinion, but you lucked out and got an patient administrator who decided to give you another chance. For the record, that is an offensive term and you should really be ashamed. You should also be advised that there are rules against creating accounts to contravene a block. Sockpuppetry will earn you an indefinite block without question. Again, perhaps there are other online communities that you might enjoy working with other than Wikipedia. AniMate 07:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You find me another place where I can have these pictures uploaded and not be banned for all these stupid policies and I will go to that website. But on here this is to many restrictive rules on here and I hate places that are strict. I really do. You can't do this cuz this has a policy or you can't do that cuz this has a policy blah blah blah. Come on who invented this website anywayz, if I ran this stupid website I wouldn't make it so strict. P.J. (talk) 07:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said, you should use this time to take a break and settle down. To help you do that, I'm closing this talk page for the duration of the block. You won't be allowed to edit anonymously or with other accounts, either. So just take a little vacation and come back (if you want to) ready to work with our rules. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

List of One Life to Live cast members

The two of you need to stop edit warring now. Take it to the article talk page so you can get the opinions of others involved with the article instead of just reverting each other. AniMate 19:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring, I gave her the proof. P.J. (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You are edit warring. Being correct or giving proof doesn't mean you're not edit warring. Reverting without discussion or with minimal discussion means you are edit warring. AniMate 19:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC

Edit Warring is when you broke the 3 revert rule. P.J. (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't and considering how many times you've been blocked I'm fairly sure you know that. Breaking the three revert rule is called... breaking the three revert rule. Edit warring is called...edit warring. Please read the policy and stop edit warring.

An edit war occurs when individual editors or groups of editors repeatedly revert each other's edits to a page or subject area. Deliberate engagement in edit warring instead of discussion is a breach of Wikiquette and may cause user blocks from editing. Attempts to win disputes through brute force undermine the consensus-building process that underlies the ideal wiki collaborative spirit.

You know better and you know you're breaking the rules, so I'm flummoxed as to why you're risking an indefinite block.AniMate 21:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Your (unnecessary) Skynyrd edits

Two days ago, you wrote in the Lynyrd Skynyrd talk page (after illegally attempting to remove what you felt was my uncompimentary statement about you):

They are deleted so why have this section, to make me out to be the bad guy, come on, yeah I did get into edit warring, so what's the big deal, does it really matter? NO! Quit making such a big deal that I got blocked. I'm unblocked now. By your saying that your (sic) treating me like "oh he gets into edit wars, lets (sic) not trust him."

But you do, so we shouldn't. The fact that stuff is deleted from an article doesn't seem to stop you from putting it back, as you did several times in this and other articles. You seem to feel that there's one set of rules for everyone else on Wikipedia, and another set for you. You feel that you should be allowed to place any meaningless drivel you deem appropriate into this or any other article and that it's your God-given right to do so. When advised of the rules of Wikipedia, you acted like a spoiled child, had a tantrum, made threats, and got blocked several times because of it. Because of your belligerent attitude and seeming inability to learn or accept that the rules apply to everyone, you have several Wiki administrators on your case and are risking losing your editing privileges.

You ARE the bad guy... so I don't mind calling an egg an egg. Just letting the other folks who edit the Skynyrd article know what you're about. BassPlyr23 (talk) 10:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just mind your own business, (run-on sentence) so what I got blocked a few times (run-on sentence) big deal, it's you whose (actually who's) the problem, and yeah I did delete that because it's really none of others (I think you meant to say "other") people('s) business that I got blocked, (wow, don't you believe in periods?) you had no right to tell other people about my personal wrongdoings without my permission. I'm unblocked now. That's all that matters. So I'm not the bad guy here, why don't you delete that section and just forget about it. I'm not trying to cause any trouble dude. P.J. (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, more sabre rattling... just the type of behavior that got you blocked the first time. Actually, according to Wiki's own rulebook (which you have repeatedly ignored), I DO have the right to tell people about a problem editor, which you are (not to mention immature, antagonistic and ungrammatical). I don't need your "permission." Before you ask, yes, I AM an English teacher, so I CAN comment on other peoples' grammar. Believe you me, I'm no more impressed than anyone else with your tantrums... so I think I'll leave the section just where it is. Why don't you just quit while you're behind, and stop embarrassing yourself further? I think, son, that what you need to do is grow up.

BassPlyr23 (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not your son, so don't ever call me that and I really don't care what you think, but I'm not blocked, and if you wanna go ahead and ruin my reputation and telling lies about me go ahead. P.J. (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• From what I've seen in the administrators' comments, you don't have much of a reputation to ruin. I haven't told any lies - you HAVE BEEN a problem editor, which accounts for the blocks. You don't seem to care what a lot of people think, which is why I suspect you'll wind up with a permanent block before too long. However, I'm willing to take a "wait and see" attitude with you... just don't clutter up articles I help edit. Have a nice day... son... >:-) BassPlyr23 (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not your son, you keep on calling me that I will report you. I don't care if I getta pernament block, I'd rather have that, than be on here anywayz. Of course I can always make another screen name if this one gets blocked. P.J. (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Report me? Oooh, I'm shaking in my little space boots. For WHAT? I haven't done anything against Wikipedia rules... only the P.J. Rules. As far as your other threat (which will likely earn you another block, should I decide to report you), your screen name is matched with your I.P. address, so in order to carry it through, you would also have to drop and change your Internet connection as well as your computer's location. I know that this is computerese that you probably have no conception about, but what you just don't seem to understand that you make yourself look silly via your empty threats. But I think I'll sign off now, since you don't amuse me any more. Later... son... (when you start ACTING like a man, you'll get treated as such) BassPlyr23 (talk) 10:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You know what out of all the Wikipedians, you are the biggest loser, I do act like a man, I don't go around calling other people son because they aren't my kid, did your wife over gave birth to me, uhh no, I don't like being called son, I've told you to quit calling me Son but no you haven't, that is called harassment, Mr. So Called Bass Player. You think you're better than me, hah. Don't contact me again. P.J. (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• So you're allowed to call people names, and threaten them, and break rules - but you get all bent out of shape when someone treats you EXACTLY the way you treat everybody else? Let's add "hypocritical" to all of your other endearing qualities. You act like I'm the only person to critique your edits and attitude - what about the administrators who kept blocking you? What about the editors you persisted in warring with? To paraphrase Shakespeare, "What's in a name? That by which we call a rose... still smells." Don't even bother to respond, as I will not be visiting your talk page again. I think I've made my point. BassPlyr23 (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I hate Shakespear and I hate you. Don't quote that on my talk page. P.J. (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Hate is such a strong word. Dislike, maybe... have ignorance of, definitely... but HATE? I don't hate you, but I do pity you. You've obviously got a closed mind, and have been catered to for most of your miserable existence. You've obviously been exposed to a lot of intolerance in your life if you "hate" someone who simply exercises his God-given right to disagree with you. Hating Shakespeare? First of all, it's spelled "Shakespeare", BooBoo, not "Shakespear". Don't insult the greatest writer in the English-speaking world by misspelling his name. Second of all, if you read any of his plays (have you?), you would understand the beauty of his prose, and his impact on culture for the past 400 years... and stop wasting your energies and mental health on nonsense like soap operas. (Did you know, for instance, that West Side Story and The Lion King are both derived from Shakespeare's work?) You act like these people and situations are REAL - it's a TELEVISION SHOW, bro. You're not going to get the last word on me... so STOP TRYING!!! Do drop us a line when you grow up. BassPlyr23 (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

PJ, the best thing to do when faced with situations like this is to not respond. Despite our differences, I don't want to see you blocked, but with the kind of reactions you're having it seems almost inevitable. If ignoring him doesn't work, try reporting him. WP:AN/I is set up for situations. Finally, we're all adults here, or at least close to being adults. We all need to remember to act like it. That being said, if you continue to engage in conflict you're going to be blocked again, and you don't have many chances left before the block becomes indefinite. AniMate 00:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

re:Sarah and Tina

Actually, it's partially true. Justis Bolding has been fired according to Nelson Branco at TV guide, and he's a very reliable source. At this point, Andrea Evans leaving the show is just a rumor. AniMate 01:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

why the hell has she been fired, she's a good Sarah. P.J. (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Here is a link to the story. AniMate 01:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

we'll just have to see what soaps.com says. P.J. (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I know you trust soaps.com more than any other website, but TV Guide is beyond reliable and is considered more reliable than soaps.com. There's a reason why TV Guide has an article and Soaps.com doesn't. As for the signature, read WP:SIG for starters and check out these user pages. AniMate 02:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok Animate, as for Andrea Evans who plays Tina she is not going anywhere. It is still undecided that about Justis as to whether she has been fired or not. I highly doubt it's true since they have been rumors about her being fired for months and none of them have been true. P.J. (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

PJ, your over reliance on soaps.com is wearing a little thin. I noticed you removed Justis Bolding again after I explained to you that as a source TV Guide is more reliable than soaps.com. Yes, you managed to put it back in, but it never should have been removed. Please don't remove items sourced by reputable, reliable sources just because your reliable source hasn't reported on it. If you'd like to make soaps.com the only reliable source in regards to soaps, you should probably make a statement at Wikipedia: WikiProject Soap Operas and get the general policy changed at WP:Reliable sources. AniMate 01:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The first image of Babe Carey should now be...

It makes sense now to have the Alexa Havins image as Babe first, seeing as she is the most well-known version of the character. The IP who originally did that is right. When TAnthony created the soap opera infobox, his rule about it specifically stated that either the most well-known actor/actress in the role should go first or the most recent (as in the one portraying that role). Baker is no longer portraying this role, and most of Babe Carey's history is with Alexa Havins. Flyer22 (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think it really matters, Amanda played the role last so don't you think that it should be that pic in the first, Alexa's pic is still there. That's all that matters. P.J. (talk) 05:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No. And I do feel that it matters. Just as the picture of the Jacob Young and Alexa Havins version of JR and Babe is first in the JR Chandler and Babe Carey article (an article that I am currently working on), then Young and Amanda Baker's version of the couple. Most of the history of that couple is with the Young and Havins version, as compared to one year of the Young and Baker version, and thus makes more sense to have the image of Young and Havins first. The same goes in regards to how long Havins portrayed Babe as opposed to Baker with having the image of Havins first in the Babe Carey article. Also, I have Baker's image close after the image of Havins in the Babe Carey article because of the fact that Baker just got through portraying this character and is still fresh in the minds of viewers. I'll likely later change it to position Baker as further down in the infobox, as it was designed. Flyer22 (talk) 08:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If this were a case like Todd Manning, where Trevor St. John has portrayed this character (Todd Manning) for five years and is almost/close to as prominently thought of as this character as Roger Howarth is, then I would say let the Trevor St. John image stay first. Not to mention that it is acknowledged that Todd changed his face, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 08:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't get this, they explained why he looked different but he changed his voice too and they didn't explain that, what One Life to Live needed to do in the case of Michael McBain they should've announced it "The role of Michael McBain is now being played by Chris Stack." But to me don't make such a big deal about Alexa's or Amanda's image stay first, it really doesn't matter to me dude. P.J. (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

PJ, do you have that much of a problem with how I have the images (Havins and Baker) close? I explained above why I have the images close for now. I do not plan to keep the images that close. If you do have that much of a problem with it, then will you talk it over with me before reverting again? Flyer22 (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

And, yeah, with Todd Manning, they did not explain about his change of voice, eye color or height. But since he was supposed to look like Walker Laurence, he had to get Walker's eye color. I would say they permanently altered his eyes. As for his loss of height, well, Todd was badly beaten, which is part of the reason he needed reconstructive surgery; I chalk up his loss of height to his badly broken bones at that time (I cannot chalk it up to anything else, LOL). It's his change of voice that we cannot explain as easily. Either he taught himself how to sound like Walker and got so used to that voice that he still uses it...or there's some surgical procedure he got to change the sound of his voice. Some people say that St. John is blond and Todd has different hair color now. But his hair color does not look that different to me. I suppose St. John is a dirty blond, though, darker shade than the usual. But, hey, Howarth had started to lighten his hair a little as Todd in 2003, anyway.

As for Michael McBain, I was not watching when he was recast. But, I mean, do soap operas even do the "The role of [so and so] is now being played by [so and so]" anymore? It seems that they threw that tactic out. Flyer22 (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

They actually do use it (at least, we did on Passions) and it always struck me as so quaint and retro, LOL. I think soap fans are pretty savvy nowadays and most don't need it, but producers are always mindful of keeping occasional viewers in the loop. I doubt they did it for Todd because St. John was introduced as someone else and they later revealed that he was Todd; I'm sure they must have done it for Michael McBain, though. As far as the rest, I do want to state for the record that even though I know everything and am always right (LOL), there really isn't a "rule" for the position of pics in the infobox and I think it should go on a case-by-case basis. In this instance, I feel like Havins should be the primary since she is most notable in the role and Baker only played the character for a year. But if PJ doesn't think it should be changed, certainly others can weigh in on it, and see what kind of consensus you might get. — TAnthony^Talk 18:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that they did the announcement for Michael McBain. I have not seen soap operas do an announcement like that in a long time, which is why it surprises me that Passions still did it. And, what, TAnthony, you were not there when they recast Michael to see it? According to PJ, they did not do that for Michael.

Anyway, PJ, you still did not talk over my decision to put the Havins and Baker images close for the time being. It did not look awful, and I know what I'm doing. The reason the Baker image was linked was to make it smaller (which is why it had the addition of |175px), though that linking does not work when the image is lower in its "correct" position in the infobox. I know about how the soap opera image box was designed; that does not mean we have to follow it exactly. I already stated that the positions I had the images in (close together like that) was temporary. You just went right in and changed it again, without discussing it over with me, like I had asked. But I really don't have the time to get into an edit war with you about this. Nor do I feel the need to. At least you did not continue to battle me about Havins being the primary image. Peace. Flyer22 (talk)

Hey TAnthony they did not do the announcement when Chris Stack took over the role of Michael McBain and I know that because I have the proof right here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvm2w-HLEhg just take out annonations and you'll see, that clip is the first episode that he aired. P.J. (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I trusted your word that they did not do an announcement for Michael. Why would someone lie about that? Thanks for the link. TAnthony will probably check it out. Flyer22 (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It was for TAnthony P.J. (talk) 02:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Flyer22 (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Links to "year in film" articles

You're misinterpreting the current status of dates linkage. It is not now the case that all years must be unlinked, it is the case that the links must be topical and provide additional information and/or context to the article. After discussion at WT:FILM, the consensus was that the release dates of films are linkable to "year in film" articles, as are the birth and death dates of major actors. Please do not continue to remove these links, thanks. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 10:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Look I don't get you alright, years are dates, and the new rule since like early September is that dates are not linked, no matter who the actor is. I don't care about Clark Gable alright, the year is a date and dates are unlinked. But whatever. You wanna break the rules go ahead. P.J. (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggest you take a closer look at the new policy, your summary of it is incorrect. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

PJ, you tend to see things in black and white or right and wrong, but this isn't one of those situations. This new standard is nuanced, and we're all still in the process of figuring out when and where it should or should not be applied. Until clear parameters are firmly established, it might be a good idea to not worry about delinking dates. On the other hand, I've taken a look over your recent contributions and I think you're doing pretty well. I'm pleased to see you're not in any real conflicts and Port Charles, New York (fictional city) looks much better from the work you did on it. Keep it up. AniMate 08:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Days of our Lives

I reverted your reinsertion of additional "senior cast members" because all of those actors have left the show for years at a time. If you want to add in the actors who have appeared for over twenty years (on and off) the full list is: Frances Reid, Suzanne Rogers, Deidre Hall, Josh Taylor, Thaao Penghlis, James Reynolds, Joseph Mascolo, Renée Jones, Kristian Alfonso, Peggy McCay, Peter Reckell, Stephen Nichols, Drake Hogestyn, and Mary Beth Evans. That's 14 actors. Also, due to their appearances over the years, one could argue that Susan Seaforth Hayes, Bill Hayes, Leann Hunley, and John Aniston could be considered senior cast members despite being recurring. Four more. That's 14 or possibly 18 in the infobox. I suppose that when Frances Reid passes away we'll have to decide if senior cast is defined by earliest appearance, longest continuous run, or most years total... until then, let's just keep it simple. AniMate 23:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of those characters don't add up to 20 years or more. I just did the ones that really have been on for 20 years. So what if they have been on and off for 20 years, so has Robin Strasser. She's been on and off for years. P.J. (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate Image:Gigi.jpg

Hey man, thanks for grabbing all the new shots! As you may have already noticed, I uploaded your new Gigi pic over the old one, because "Gigi Morasco.jpg" is a better name than "Gigi.jpg" ... when naming images you should always be as specific as possible, even including dates if you can (like how I named the previous Marty image). So the actual "Gigi.jpg" will be deleted but the new image remains in the article. Also, the image sizes you uploaded are a bit large and will probably be tagged for reduction later, but you might as well just wait for the bots to notice before you bother resizing them. Thanks again. — TAnthony^Talk 19:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope you didn't mind but I took your Marty and Talia off and I replaced it with the opening sequence shots, I also have to get Starr's new one also. I also think that Shane and Brody should have their own article, what do you think? P.J. (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No that's fine ... but I just reverted your Gigi upload, pics are only supposed to be about 300px for fair use. — TAnthony^Talk 00:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

is the quality better with the Talia and the other pics? P.J. (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Marty Saybrooke's age

In a recent episode of One Life to Live, John McBain said that Marty was age 18 when Todd raped her (in 1993). That means she is 33 now. And, when you think about it, to say that Todd and Marty are 40 now would mean that they were over 22 while in college at the time the rape happened. I doubt that they would have still been in college past 22, unless the careers they were studying for called for that. Flyer22 (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

So why the hell are you bugging me about it? P.J. (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted you to know before I changed it, in case you were to object or were to revert this change. Flyer22 (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

just leave it alone, we don't always have to go by the show plus the rape was in 1993 I believe

It's already been changed. And, yes, I feel that we should always go by the show. You go by the show often. And, yeah, I know that the rape is said to have been in 1993. Flyer22 (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I already changed it back because Susan Haskell doesn't look like she's 33, she's 40, and plus they usually have the characters ages, the same as the portrayers. P.J. (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Rather than edit or revert war, can either of you provide a reliable source that says "Marty is X years old"? Otherwise, arbitrarily doing math or making up a rule about the character being the same age as the actor is original research. After all, if characters are the same age as their portrayed, Im pretty sure a lot of heartache on this show could have been saved, since Cole would be in prison for statuarory rape. Seriously though, unless there's something definitive like a birth year on screen or a happy 40th birthday card this should be left out of the infobox, because our opinions and guesses don't belong in articles.--AniMate 23:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well on the December 12, 2006 episode it said that Marty was born in 1968, but this flyer dude thinks that just because John said it, it's true, he didn't even know her back than so how would he know?? P.J. (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a "Flyer dude" (perhaps I should put a picture of me up). And I do not see why you have such a problem with me, unless you are still holding a grudge against me because of that Babe Carey instance above. I mean, any other time, you are all for going with what the show says. But this time not. John knows Marty's age because he is familiar with Marty's case, having read all about it and studied it. And if they did not want us to think that Marty was 18 at that time, they would not have had John say that. In any case, it does not make sense that Marty was 24 at that time, which is why TAnthony has changed her current age back to 33. And, AniMate, it's not an opinion or a guess; it's from the show, which is a reliable source. I just do not know which episode it was stated on. I'll have to hope that I get the exact episode later. Flyer22 (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh so her and Patrick got married before Todd raped her and had Cole, cuz she would've been 16 when Cole was born, and John doesn't know how old she was. So she's 40, because just because John saying so that doesn't give enough evidence, that application in the December 12, 2006 episode is enough evidence so, she's staying 40 and that's final. P.J. (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Everything cannot be perfect in soap opera land when it comes to ages, but we go by the show. How can you say that John does not know how old she was, when he has read over and studied her case, where her age is stated? She's not staying 40, because her age was changed by the show, yet again, and that's 2 editors against you. Why don't you stop edit-warring all the time? If you continue to edit war this time, I'll report you, because I simply do not have time for this. And if you have not noticed, Todd's age also does not say 40 in his article. Due to my editing it correctly, it says that he is age 36. Todd recently told Marty that he was age 20 when they had sex together back then (in 1992 or 1993, though I am currently sticking with 1992 for when they had sex). So, what, Todd was 20 or 21 while Marty was 24 or 25? I don't think so. Flyer22 (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Explain Cole, her and Patrick got married and had Cole after they got married, and that was after the rape, so did Marty have Cole at age 16 with Patrick, I don't think so, I don't care what John said, it was said by a person which nowadays, isn't very reliable, now it said on that application that she was born in 1968, and that's her real age, and I don't care what you think it's gonna stay at 40 and I will keep editing it, until you learn to think straight. P.J. (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You are treating John as a real person. It was said by the writers through John, just as Todd's age was said by the writers through Todd. You are the one who needs to learn how to think straight. And I will be reporting you right now, if you change or remove their ages again, unless the show suddenly agrees with you, because now you are removing reliable sources/information. The show is very reliable when relaying its own information. Their ages are what the show says their ages are. Flyer22 (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I took the age off of the profile because why edit war over this, in my opinion the characters shouldn't have to have the age since in Soapies they always change the ages anyway, and people like me and you are fighting over something so silly, come on. P.J. (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Why edit war over this is exactly what TAnthony and I are saying to you. Marty's age is most likely to be stated again as having been 18, because she sure as hell was not age 24 or 25 at that time. Flyer22 (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the character of Cole was not "born" before 1997 when Haskell left the show the first time, which would make him 11 if this was the real world, but it's not. As you know, there is something the magazines call Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome, and that is what's making the age issue weird. It happens all the time AMC has revised Erica Kane's age at least three times as the situation suits them, it's just par for the course for a longrunning show. Back when the show established that Marty's birthdate was 1968, they were presumably trying to back into Cole's age, but regardless they've obviously "restablished" her age based on the rape. It doesn't have to make sense compared to every other character (and by the way, if we're talking about this "in-universe," John has read police files about the rape and would know how old Marty was)> And I love how your solution is to remove what you don't like.— TAnthony^Talk 17:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well if you love why did you readd it, I deleted it because characters don't have ages, since they changed the age of Bree, and they always change the ages of the characters so why have them on the profiles on here if they keep changing it, nobody characters are not real people, so I compromised and I took off the ages since character really don't have any ages, they are characters, not real people, look at Michael McBain, he doesn't have an age. So why does Marty and Todd have to have an age, they don't they are just characters. P.J. (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Characters do have ages. It does not matter if their ages later change. Todd has an age because the writers gave him an age, and Marty has an age because the writers gave her an age. Just as Starr is currently age 16, and everyone knows it. You say that characters are not real people, yet have treated them as such in the past, such as in acting like John stating Marty's age at the time she was raped was simply stated by personal opinion. This is why you need to realize that it was the writers speaking through John. John is not real, of course, and we are certain that he was not just guessing. If the writers did not want us to think that Marty was 18 when she was raped, then they would not have had John state that. If they did not want us to think that Todd was 20 when he and Marty had sex in college, then they would not have had Todd state that.

As I stated above, I will be reporting you right now, if you change or remove their ages again, unless the show suddenly agrees with you, because now you are removing reliable sources/information. The show is very reliable in relaying its own information. Their ages are what the show says their ages are. Flyer22 (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh, both the soap character and regular character box have an "age" parameter, so obviously a larger group disagrees with you that this is notable information for fictional characters. Michael McBain has no age noted because the series has apparently not established one; they have made indications about the ages of some characters, so that is reflected here. Just because you don't like it or agree does not mean it should be removed. Take the advice you give to us, and just leave it alone. I would be more apt to take your arguments on good faith if you didn't continually, stubbornly revert things you don't "like" with no explanation in the edit summary. Your refusal to actually enter in any serious discussion on even the most minor topics speaks to your complete disregard for other editors and the collaborative process (and by "serious discussion" I mean a real debate on a topic in which you actually consider the opinions of others and refrain from cursing, incivility and personal attacks). All of us here have tried friendly comments, reasoning with you and even reporting you, to no avail. You need to learn to compromise and collaborate, or you will eventually find yourself pushed out of Wikipedia.— TAnthony^Talk 19:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Flyer you should've never messaged me with the age of Marty Saybrooke. But instead you did, I don't know why, and I could careless about Wikipedia, the reasoned why I joined, was so I can add pics to the characters, in which I will continue doing. I don't care about the characters ages, but that flyer dude if he wants to report me, so be it, I don't care. I already compromised by taking it off the soap characters profile but you guys are just want to have where Marty was 18, in 1993, in which makes no sense at all, she had to have Cole back in 91, which will make her 16. She and Patrick had Cole two years before she was raped, so by that age your telling the whole world, that she was married and had Cole at 16. When clearly on the show, she got married to Patrick after she was raped, does that make any sense uhh no, it doesn't, just because the writers changed it, big deal, just because John McBain said it, that means it's no real evidence, he didn't even know her back than. But hey that's fine with me and I will leave it alone, I just don't agree with it. I stick with my opinion and I will keep sticking to my opinion, because I don't care what the writers said, just because they had some character say that she was 18 when she was raped, big deal, that don't make it a real reference because John could've made a mistake. and the rest of the Wikipedians, can kiss my ass. P.J. (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I realized quite quickly that I should have never messaged you about Marty Saybrooke's age. But I did so feeling that this type of mess would be avoided. Removing the ages is not a compromise; it is you getting your way more than us. When it comes to the time they were in college back then, it does make sense that Marty was age 18 in 1993. If it does not, then how does it makes sense that she was age 24 or 25 and that Todd was 3 or 4 years younger or older than that? The only reason you feel that it makes no sense that Marty was age 18 is due to Cole being 17 now. But so what? We have to suspend disbelief all the time when it comes to soap opera ages. Do you really believe that this soap opera is going to say that Marty was age 24 or 25 when she was raped by Todd in college? They did before, but not outright, and I highly doubt that ever will outright. They have now stated that she was 18, through John, and are more than likely to state again that she was 18. No one is saying that she was married to Patrick at age 16. Obviously, we are not supposed to think that, even given the flawed timeline. You say that it makes no difference that the writers changed her age? Do you "hear" yourself? Everyone knows that what the writers say about their characters becomes fact regarding those characters, unless or until the writers say otherwise. If John made a mistake, then that's the writers who made a mistake. Thus, John having stated Marty's age is real evidence. He does not have to have known her back then; her age is on record, in a highly publicized rape case that John is familiar with because he looked over it on file and studied it. But regardless of that, stop treating him like a real person. It was the writers telling us how old Marty was when she was raped. It is a real reference. And, really, all the writers have done regarding Marty's age is reverted back to her real age, not her altered age that they did just because of Cole's age. They realized that they could not win in this case, seeing as neither age makes complete sense due to Cole's age, but that they would rather go with acknowledging that Marty was 18 in 1993 when Todd raped her, and Todd was 20 or 21. Their ages are not supposed to be about either of our opinions, but rather what the show states.

Oh, and if by saying "and the rest of the Wikipedians, can kiss [your] ass," you mean that you will keep going agianst Wikipedia policies and disrupting Wikipedia due to your stubborness, then this is goodbye. Enjoy your block. Flyer22 (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Images

I don't want to start another of our image disagreements. I know you have this thing about using main title cards when they are available, and that you like to use the most recent ones (John McBain, Viki, Gigi, Marcie, Rex) even if a regular person reading the article wouldn't know the difference. Every time there is a disagreement like like, you continually revert without explanation, so persistently that you've been blocked at times. The rest of us have conceded to you just about every time, I don't understand why you can't give the same courtesy. At least explain why you're insisting on this Sarah image. Both are from the opening. — TAnthony^Talk 18:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the reason why this Sarah image, it's because it's the original Sarah image, but in August you decided to change it, well I changed it back to a better quality, and yes I will update the pics whenever there are a new shot, cuz that's how it all makes sense dude,

It may "make sense" to you, but there is no policy or convention that insists that the "newest pic" is the most appropriate. Like, the Rex pics look pretty much the same, you're just wasting server energy by changing it. And when you say "it's the original Sarah image," you mean that it was the original image you uploaded. That means nothing. Every time we clash like this I have dropped the issue because, frankly, you are completely unwilling to compromise and would rather get blocked than concede on even the dumbest issue. I may just take a vote on the image just to prove a point. And by the way, stop uploading the images at such a large size.— TAnthony^Talk 18:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Well tell me how to reduce them and I will, but I don't know how to do them, and Rex's pic looks a lot different, he's gotta haircut, and everytime there is a new shot of a character I will upload, that's how I roll, and if it bothers you so much, than just leave the pics alone and lemme do it instead of you complaining, plus your pic of Sarah's is to bright anyway. so quit complaining. Why don't you go find a new hobby and just leave the pics up to me, like I told you last year. P.J. (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Civility

PJ you need to start treating your fellow editors with respect. Your exchanges with TAnthony and Flyer22 above are rude and condescending. This is a collaborative project and you do not make the rules. This isn't PJpedia and Flyer22, TAnthony, and I are allowed to disagree with you. I know you are always right in your eyes, but may I suggest that you compare your block log to any of ours and rethink your attitude.--AniMate 02:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I took the age thing off because soapies change it everytime and me and Flyer or whoever fights and edit war over something that is not really important, plus it doesn't really matter how old the characters are. They are just characters and not real people. P.J. (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right that they aren't real people, but Flyer22 (who is female) and TAnthony are. Telling them to find new hobbies or to kiss your ass is unacceptable. Civility is important, especially when we are having conflicts with good faith fellow editors. You cannot talk to other editors like this. If you do, you could and probably should be blocked. AniMate 21:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If it did not matter how old the characters are, you would not have edit-warred with us so much about this. Flyer22 (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Marty Saybrooke, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. — TAnthony^Talk 19:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Todd Manning, you will be blocked from editing. — TAnthony^Talk 19:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The infobox info you have removed twice from these articles is sourced; please do not remove it again. Doing so would also violate 3RR, which may get you blocked. Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk 19:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Soaps in Depth

PJ, Soaps in Depth is a reliable source. You don't get to pick and choose which sources you believe and which sources you don't. Our "job" as Wikipedia editors is to write articles based on coverage in reliable sources, not just the sources you prefer. This isn't the first time you've removed legitimate information because it wasn't from a PJ approved source. To be blunt: Soaps.com and actor's personal websites are not the only legitimate sources for soap articles. Remember how you removed the information about Justis Bolding and Andrea Evans leaving OLTL because you didn't see it on Soaps.com? You were wrong. Unless information comes to light that states he isn't leaving the show, don't remove it again. AniMate 22:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, you must remember the three revert rule. If you revert again, you will be blocked. AniMate 22:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

P.J. my friend, if something like this is added to an article and cites a reputable source, we need to just relax and in good faith assume it is accurate until proven otherwise. It is not the end of the world if this Kamar info is posted on Wikipedia for a few days and turns out to be somehow incorrect, but for now it has been sourced back to an ABC-produced magazine, which is pretty reputable to me. The fact that he has not reported this on his website means nothing; his webmaster could be out of town, he could be avoiding such self-announcement until his contract expires, who knows, there are many possibilities. You say "just leave it off, just because one website says it that don't make it true," and yet I have a feeling that if your bible Soaps.com published it, you'd be fighting for it to stay. You have an ongoing issue where you seem to let your personal opinions and interpretations color what you think is appropriate content, and it has to stop. I'm not saying the Kamar thing is true or not, but your removal/doubt of adequately sourced content is inappropriate on the grounds you assert.— TAnthony^Talk 22:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You went ahead and removed him from the list again. You're unbelievable. For the record, your precious Soaps.com has reported this as well. Congratulations on removing appropriate content from the encyclopedia four times. AniMate 04:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about, the only thing I did within the past few hours was add that Crystal Hunt girl to the comings and goings page, and had I her between Kamar and Justis, so whatever you think I did I didn't do. P.J. (talk) 04:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

PJ, I apologize. I wasn't reading very carefully and thought you removed him from the Comings & Goings when you actually removed him from the Current Cast section. My bad 100% and I sincerely apologize for accusing you of something you didn't do. AniMate 05:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL

You got so used to me moving him from the comings and goings that when I moved him from the current cast section, you thought I removed him from the comings and goings page, LOL, now that is friggin hilarious man. LMAO P.J. (talk) 06:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Téa Delgado image

I've reverted your edit of a new main image for Téa Delgado; I did not mean to use rollback, though, since it was not vandalism. Could you talk over changing images with the uploader before doing so? You knew that I was the uploader, so it's not like you could not have talked this over with me first. I don't like the new image you uploaded for Téa, nor do I feel she needs one. Yes, it's been 6 years, but she pretty much looks the same and the image I uploaded is the better one. My feeling that it is the "better one" is an opinion, of course, but it is the brighter and clearer one.

Are you going to fight me on this as well? Flyer22 (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am, the photo that you had, is way outdated she needed a new one, before you revert why don't you talk to me first, of course mine is better, and I will continue to have it up. P.J. (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

In the new photo she is puffy and unattractive; newer is not always better, despite what you think. I'm completely fed up with your dismissal of all other opinions besides your own. It seems as though consensus will disagree with your position, I'm interested to see if you will let yourself be blocked rather than agree with a majority on the issue.— TAnthony^Talk 05:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well sorry TAnthony but I really don't care what you think and my photo is better than the old one and if you can't dig that well you can just suck it. Cause I don't care about you or Flyer, so suck it. P.J. (talk) 06:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The picture I had up is not "way outdated" simply because it is from 2002. She looks the same as she did 6 years ago, except the 2002 image I chose for her is the more flattering and prettier picture of her. When I created that article, I was careful to pick out the "perfect" picture to represent Téa Delgado. Of course, I also chose the more recent one since she had last portrayed that character in 2002. But just because she's now back in 2008 does not mean that a 2008 picture of her should go up. If she looked drastically different now, then I would agree with you. And when there is a better 2008 picture of her than that 2002 picture, then I will agree with you as well. But not now.

You need to learn how to discuss things first. You say I should talk to you before I revert? Um, the picture I had up is the original picture. The way Wikipedia works is that changes that may be contested should be discussed first, before those changes are made. Not made and then discussed. You never truly discuss anything here or make valid cases. You just say it's your way or the highway. Well, "your way or the highway" is not how Wikipedia works. Right now, two editors (myself and TAnthony) are against your change. You say that you don't care what I or TAnthony think? The truth is...you don't care what any editor here thinks. Which, again, is not how Wikipedia works. If you revert to your image again simply because you feel things have to be your way, I will take this to an administrator.

I'm not sure why you are always focused on how images look and other minor things on Wikipedia, instead of truly fixing up some of these Wikipedia articles.

If Jason Voorhees were to appear in a new film, that does not mean that we should change the main image of him currently in his article to an image of him from that new film (or that that new image of him is the better image simply because it's new). Unless he looked drastically different in that new film (and, in his case, that new look became the look most identify him by). Flyer22 (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm reporting you. I'm completely fed up with you. Flyer22 (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't care how wikipedia works to be honest, I could care less and that pic that you have, doesn't look like a thing like her, now I did a compromise, I put both of our pics up there, but seriously I do things my way, I don't care what wikipedia says or does, that's there problem, but I do things on here my way or it's the highway. Simple is that. You can report me all you want I don't care, I'm not gonna change and you say that your the uploader, hun if your the uploader, you need to update pics more often and that pic is outdated, it's 6 years old. It needed to be updated and that's what I'm on here to do, update pics that need to be updated. And if you have a problem with that tough, I'm not gonna back down and my pic will stay up. P.J. (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The picture does not look like her? Wow, just because she changed her hair style? Laughable. 6 years ago does not make the picture outdated, unless the person actually looks drastically different. I update images when they need to be updated. But more importantly, I go for the better image. Two images of her do not really need to be up there. It's not like she has been recast. You are simply wrong. Your "compromise" is missing the point that two editors feel that the image you have up there should not be up there because it is not a good image at all, nor does it need to be up there. As for all that other stuff you said, tell it to the administrators here. Your not caring what Wikipedia says or does is exactly the problem, you are right on that one. And that will eventually lead to your permanent block from here, and rightfully so. Flyer22 (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I do things my way and if they don't like it or you and TAnthony don't like it tough. The pic is to grain, mine is better. P.J. (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Pj Wikipedia works through consensus. It's not just your way or the highway. If you want to continue to edit here, you have to work with TAnthony and Flyer22. However, it sounds like you don't want to continue editing here. If you don't like the rules, and clearly you don't, then why are you staying? AniMate 20:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason why I'm on here is because of this, I upload pics to wikipedia, if it wasn't for me Rex Balsom, Gigi Morasco, Shane Morasco, Brody Lovett, Michael McBain, Marty Saybrooke, Charlie Banks, and Starr Manning would not have their new shot, in fact with the Michael McBain article, there wouldn't have been a picture of Chris Stack as him like I did last year. Plus some of these idiots who spell on here and have the puncutation incorrectly on some of these articles, I mean come on. There is nothing wrong with my Tea Delgado pic at all. I compromised by having both pics up there so all of us can be happy and just stop bickering. That is why I'm on here for. P.J. (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

P.J., you want to keep going against Wikipedia policy just so you can do things your way? Fine. As I've made clear, that's the wrong route to take. In any case, I give other examples of how your "way outdated" argument is wrong: Take the Todd Manning article, for example. Todd does not currently look like that due to his hair being a little shorter now, and that image is not from this year. Does that mean that we should change his image to one with his new hairdo? Perhaps, if he had become a redhead, I'd agree with you. But he pretty much looks the same, face-wise, age-wise and hair color-wise. Not only that, but the show is still using that image of him in the opening sequence, not an updated version of him yet. Though, with the new scar he has, they just might update it soon (if Todd remains on this show for that much longer). Babe Carey's article is also an example. The main image of Alexa Havins as Babe Carey from All My Children is from 2003, not from 2007 from when she left. In fact, that image was used while Havins was still on that show, and by sites reporting new news on her. The opening sequence of All My Children continued to use an image of her from 2003 or one of those earlier years, just as they do for Jacob Young as JR Chandler, rather than one from 2008 (like when JR sported a long hairdo earlier this year, seeing as he is now back to a shorter hairdo). Why do shows and new news articles do this? Because these people/characters pretty much look the same, there is no need for image updates (especially if they might have their old look back soon), and these are great pictures of them. Look at the main image of Bianca in the Bianca Montgomery article. Bianca pretty much looks the same, only her hair is a little longer now. Does this mean that I should change that good promotional image of her that is in her aricle right now to an unflattering one of her from this year because the other one is from years ago? No. All of that is why your argument on this matter falls flat. I maintain that the image you uploaded of Téa Delgado is not the better one. Flyer22 (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well that's your opinion and I compromised by putting both pics up since I'm a nice guy, I could be a mean bastard like I have been since yesterday but no, since I'm a nice guy, I put both of them up, so all of us can be happy. P.J. (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I've explained above about your "compromise." Obviously, I am not happy with the image you uploaded still representing Téa as the main image. Given the examples, I just gave above, I do not see why you cannot allow the image I uploaded to remain as the main image until we find a better 2008 image of her or why you feel that she needs a 2008 image, other than your stubborness. As demonstrated above, a character article can get along quite well with an older image, rather than an image from that character's recent year on the show. A true "compromise," in my opinion, would be TAnthony and I, and hopefully you, agreeing to a better 2008 image of her. Right now, I do not feel that there is one, and certainly not one better than the 2002 image I uploaded of her. It would not kill you to wait. Of course, it would not kill us to go along with "your image" either, but that is beside the point. I feel that the only reason you feel that your 2008 image is better is because it is from this year and her hair is a little different, which you have basically stated. Flyer22 (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is what I'm gonna do, I'm gonna take a new screenshot of Tea and post it over this one, I know the quality sucks on this one, but I can getta new one how is that? I'm uploading vids right now on to YouTube and after I'm done with that I'll getta new pic up. P.J. (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

P.J. it disappoints me that after all this time you still resort to comments like "I really don't care what you think ... you can just suck it" and "I don't care how wikipedia works" and "I do things my way and if they don't like it tough." Do you not see how this just proves your continued refusal to collaborate, and disrespects other editors? I've been away all weekend or I might have invited an Admin top intervene and explain to you in more serious terms how unacceptable your behavior is.

As far as the photos go, they are intended to identify the characters, not necessarily provide an up-to-the-moment image of them. We appreciate your many contributions of photos that were needed, and certainly in most cases no one is bothered by your confusing need to upload the most recent images possible even though the actors look more or less the same. But if a photo is challenged for any reason, you are expected to participate in a discussion about it like anyone else. This is becoming an obsession with you, and your stubbornness and uncivil comments are completely inappropriate. We have all let you push the envelope of good behavior so many times, and you continue to misbehave. I don't even care about the Tea photo but I am pursuing the issue in hopes that you may finally learn to act appropriately in situations where you find yourself challenged. I encourage you to continue mouthing off so that the power-that-be can see your complete disrespect for policy and the collaborative process.— TAnthony^Talk 01:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I am gonna make a new pic of her since Flyer doesn't like this one, but the before pic is to grainy as you said about my other pics, doesn't this one have better quality and not to grainy, that last pic looked like it was shot from a magazine. P.J. (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for edit warring and incivility, such as this, at the Téa Delgado article. Because you have been blocked for these same violations several times before, this time the duration is one month. If you choose to return after the block expires, I strongly recommend finding another area of Wikipedia to edit. If the incivility and edit warring continue, the next block will be considerably longer. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Block restarted due to attempts by this user to evade the block by editing as an anonymous IP address. Block will now expire 27 January 2009. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • So... three days left and the world waits with baited breath... are you going to behave yourself and follow the rules? Or are you going to get yourself blocked permanently? Inquiring minds want to know... Love and kisses, BassPlyr23 (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Not sure if he can/will see this, you may want to leave a message at User talk:68.185.181.8.—  TAnthony ^Talk 23:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

List of General Hospital cast members

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of General Hospital cast members. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Skier Dude (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That's all, folks

One day back from a month-long block, and you're back to edit warring on the same article you've been blocked on in the past. You are now permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that it came to this, but I have a suggestion or two for you. Consider starting a blog. Blogger (service) is a good site and you can write all your thoughts down about the characters and update photos as you see fit. If you want a more static website, consider Geocities. Their free option has a lot of good features and you have an option for paying to get more space. You might also want to look at Wikia. You can start your own Wiki, though many of the same rules that are in play here apply there too. Good luck. --AniMate^talk 21:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:John McBain.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:John McBain.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. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Bob Saget 2.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Bob Saget 2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ejfetters (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Bob Saget 2.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bob Saget 2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ejfetters (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Noah Drake.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Noah Drake.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 07:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Onelifefreak2007 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. — TAnthony^Talk 23:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Onelifefreak2007 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. — TAnthony^Talk 04:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Onelifefreak2007 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Steamroller Assault (talk) 06:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Onelifefreak2007 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Steamroller Assault (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Onelifefreak2007 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. SummerPhD (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Onelifefreak2007 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. AussieLegend (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Onelifefreak2007 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. SummerPhD (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Charlie Banks 2.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Charlie Banks 2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Gigi Morasco.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Gigi Morasco.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Viki Davidson.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Viki Davidson.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Marty Saybrooke.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Marty Saybrooke.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Starr Manning.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Starr Manning.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Noah Drake.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Noah Drake.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Willie Nelson 2.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Willie Nelson 2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Denver Pyle.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Denver Pyle.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Markko Rivera.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Markko Rivera.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Mr. Watkins and P.J..JPG

The file File:Mr. Watkins and P.J..JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused personal photo. Out of scope.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 08:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)