User talk:Raintheone

HO

Hey, was Tiddy credited for the 2nd? She was on the voice mail when Carl walked in? D4nnyw14 (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You will have to look into it on 4oD to settle the matter once and for all. lolRaintheOne ^BAM 21:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Will do. While on the subject was Rae when Ste was listening to the message over and over? D4nnyw14 (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I was watching that one. As I recall everyone wanted Rae changed - but her arm wasn't credited either. lolRaintheOne ^BAM 21:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I was amongst them wanting her last date changed as her arm appeared :P D4nnyw14 (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Kiddy wasn't credited so her last appearance should be the 1st. D4nnyw14 (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Kim Kiddy does have more of a ring to it.RaintheOne ^BAM 21:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I seem to be constantly making stupid mistaks, the other day i changed Heidi's last appearance too the 32nd of October :P Not sure whether i should bother renominating Darren, do we need to source soap sl's again now? D4nnyw14 (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If it were me... I'd work on the prose first - do more paraphrasing - then renominate. You know I think sourcing storylines is a big pile of wank - that discussion was just a bunch of people throwing orders around, because they have no intention of helping - aslong as they don't have to do it they are more than happy have an opinion and let everyone know it. You could source them and that dude would review it though. Just depends on how bad you want your first GA.RaintheOne ^BAM 21:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Not that badly, i've looked for potential sl sources and most are complete gray areas so it'd be next to impossible. D4nnyw14 (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well just do the first option - they have never been needed before and it isn't an official rule. It is just other editors reading what they want to see out of policies that have been there forever. You could delete the storyline section too - not the desired outcome but hey.RaintheOne ^BAM 21:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather not have it at GA then delete the sl section. D4nnyw14 (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm nearly done with Silas's article, so I will sort that out and are you putting my draft of Leyla's article up live?--AcidBrights (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, do you know how Darren left HO back in 1999 and how he returned in 2003? Was it because of Mark/Luke? The way it was in the sl section seems vague. Great work on the 2011 list aswell its looking much better. D4nnyw14 (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Rain, can I ask you, you know in Silas's storyline section is it right to put "strangle to death" for a character who he murdered, or should I just put murder them?--AcidBrights (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC) I just mean't for keeping the storyline section to the minimum number of words possible.--AcidBrights (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Would you say that the ref on ds about Jeff saying about the climax of the storyline was basically saying that he would be leavin?--AcidBrights (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Dante Falconeri and Lulu Spencer page deletion

I noticed that you were the admin responsible for the deletion of the Dante Falconeri and Lulu Spencer page deletion. I also see that youre a big soap opera fan so Im suprised you dont understand why the page is relevant.

While the sources were messy, I honestly believe that if worked on, the page could be useful. There are plenty of soup couple pages for couples that arent nearly as popular as Dante and Lulu and are not even currently together. I believe the only issue is that they are well sourced while the Dante & Lulu page was not. I personally am invested in this page (having updated it a handful of times) and would be willing to put in the research to find sources.

I understand that they have separate & personal pages, but those pages also have details of other plot lines mixed in with theirs. It would be useful to have back the page that was solely devoted to their storyline. Contrary to what some might believe they are still an extremely relevant couple. They have garnered a huge amount of fans and I think this page would be useful. I was really hoping you would consider undeleting it.

I know I am not a registered member, and this is the first time I have requested an undeletion. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.244.200 (talk) 05:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I did a source check and the subject as a duo did not pass WP:GNG - therefore it shouldn't me included. If there were sources, I'd of improved it myself - because it was a mess and just a hehash of storylines. I know you feel, I wish certain subjects would have more weight behind them and the sources to prove it... but sometimes this isn't the case. I believe in the values of this encyclopedia - I hate the fansirte feel it has at times ... so if it isn't notable why should we be scraping the barrel trying to include something of no interest. As single units through their own storyline, they are notable, so that is the silver lining. PS. I'm not an admin. ;)RaintheOne ^BAM 15:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Mail

Hey, you have mail. - JuneGloom Talk 16:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

She is not Saskia Burmeister

I've read your discussion about Saskia Burmeister and I can confirm it's not her. I had already noticed the wrong picture on her page and I removed it more of a week ago.--Supremo (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I knew her since I was a teen and I can perfectly recognize her face. I don't need to compare it with the other pics on the web. It is not her! And there isn't a need to know her in real life! It's so obvious! Anyone knowing her can notice it. I'm not the only one who thinks so. I noticed it before I read that discussion. The other person in the photo isn't her husband as well: another user noticed it too. It's a completely wrong picture.--Supremo (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, her husband has got brown eyes, while the man shown in the photo has got blu eyes. But don't you notice that he's quite another person? Bah...--Supremo (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)