User talk:Kelly Marie 0812

Kelly Marie 0812, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Kelly Marie 0812! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. We hope to see you there!

Visit the Teahouse

This message automatically delivered by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you very much for your counter-vandalism help in identifying 65.32.171.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)'s vandalism edits. I hope you like the place and decide to stay and become a Wikipedian. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! :) Noom _talk ^stalk 01:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hint for sourcing.

Hey Kelly, when sourcing for the "date" portion, don't use "April 24, 1999" for example, do "1999-08-24". Just because it keeps it uniform with the formatting of citings. Thanks! Musicfreak7676 ^{my talk page!} 14:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - thank you!! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime! How's editing going, alright? And only do the shortened one for the "date" not "accessdate" I know it can be confusing!!! Musicfreak7676 ^{my talk page!} 15:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been going well - it's been interesting reading these old articles! So the date the article was published would be the shorter date (1999-08-24) and the access date would be August 26, 2012? Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the date of the article that you list under "date" should be the shorter one, and the "accessdate" or the date you add the article under the site should be the longer one. Musicfreak7676 ^{my talk page!} 15:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for your help! Feel free to send hints/corrections my way anytime. Take care! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem Kelly. I'm happy you didn't take it as an insult or anything like that, etc. Musicfreak7676 ^{my talk page!} 16:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "List of General Hospital cast members". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 18:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

Hey Kelly, I'm glad you're helping to reach consensus at the Dispute Resolution noticeboard. I was just dropping by to give you a link to WP:RfC which gives an explanation of the process that Dmitrij D. Czarkoff is suggesting. If an RfC is started, I'd also recommend that the RfC be discussed at WT:NOT rather than at WP:SOAPS, as a clarification of policy might be required. Thanks, Noom _talk ^stalk 17:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link Noommos that was helpful to look through. Is that something I have to start or is it TheRedPenofDoom's responsibility to start it since they are the ones wanting the content removed? Thanks for your help! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See how the DR thread goes for now, and see if Redpen, Musicfreak or one of the volunteers have any more comments. A volunteer may close the thread as the dispute is over an extended set of articles. Noom _talk ^stalk 18:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A volunteer at DRN has opened an RfC here based on feedback from SGCM and myself and closed the Dispute Resolution noticeboard thread. The case is now a little broader than it was before, but the RfC will attract the attention of more editors to hopefully reach a decision. Noom _(t) ^(c) 17:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Noommos!!! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Brewer

File:Jessie Brewer General Hospital.jpg Took care of it for you ;-) We hope (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! Out of curiosity - is this something you do within Wiki or do you download, edit, and reupload? Thanks so much! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since these are public domain photos, I upload at the Commons. Any non-free photos must be uploaded here, as there are only public domain, free-use images at Commons. With the GH photos, I uploaded them without cropping as no one seemed to need them at the moment. When you wanted one of the photos, I downloaded the uncropped block of 4, cropped Jessie Brewer, then re-uploaded that photo using the same information used for the first upload, because the new photo is a "part" of the original upload. Also because of that, I linked the new photo to the original upload so it can be seen where the Jessie Brewer photo was derived from. When I get hold of cast photos where there are multiple individual photos, I upload the whole photo sheet uncut at first, so anyone who wants or needs them has access to them. If I want or need a photo or photos from it, I then do just as I did with Jessie Brewer. ;) HTH! We hope (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation! :) Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spinelli Maxie Non Wedding.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Spinelli Maxie Non Wedding.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. Peripitus (Talk) 12:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

65.32.171.92

Hi Kelly, could you please check 65.32.171.92's recent edits? Although most of the contributions appear to be the same edits that led to their previous two blocks, their edits to Cole Thornhart look like they were attempting to improve some of the storyline sections. Thanks, Noom (t) 23:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noommos. I'm not 100% familiar with OLTL but I am pretty sure Cole and Hope were never married, and some google searching seems to confirm that. I also can't find any record of those child actors. Sneaky edits, they did almost look real! Thanks for catching them! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking, I've reverted their dubious edits again and they've been re-blocked. They seem determined to make those changes! Noom (t) 00:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit questions

Hi Kelly, you look like you're a new editor too and I have just kindled an interest in it without actually having done any yet. I have a question regarding editing the General Hospital characters page and I thought I'd ask someone who's done a lot. I've read a lot of the Wikipedia: edit pages and to be honest sometimes I just get confused, especially when it's late at night like this! I've been reading the page and noticed some "actor unknowns" and some characters and their information just not included. I have literally hundreds of Soap Opera Digests in my possession dating back to the late 1980s that include a lot of that info (for other shows too, but I care less about them). My question is, I can just go ahead and add what I can from those magazines, correct, and cite the magazine issues with the edit? I think the answer's "yes" but I just wanted to make sure before I spent a lot of time with it. If you have any suggestions that would be great. Inhan Lagur (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup! The citation templates page has detail on the types of citation templates you can use. Or you can use the link/cite button when you're editing. The dates can be confusing, I've been told to write them out on the access date (September 19, 2012) but keep them short on the article date (2012-09-19). I've mostly only cited online stuff myself but there are SODs cited throughout the articles you could look at to copy the formatting if that helps. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 04:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Lindze Letherman as Georgie Jones dying.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Lindze Letherman as Georgie Jones dying.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added commentary on the photo rationale to clarify its purpose in the article. I then removed the tag as I believe that is what it said to do. Thank you for your help. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWomen's Collaborative

WikiWomen Unite!

Hi Kelly Marie 0812! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative.

As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by:

Liking the WikiWomen's Collaborative on Facebook and share your tips, projects, and connect with other WikiWomen
Join the conversation on our Twitter feed
Reading and writing for our blog channel

We can't wait to have you involved, and feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can get involved!

Can't wait to have you involved! SarahStierch (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hollyoaks

What are you doing with Hollyoaks redirect talk pages with the project banners? You are removing them after it took ages to tag them all.Rain the 1 17:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been going through the redirect list of soaps pages, and for those that are different names of a character, and redirect to a full character page under the commonname, I've been redirecting the talk page to the talk page of that main page. If the redirect was to a list of characters, I left it. I thought that was the point of the category? Redirects to lists could eventually be expanded, but redirects that are different versions of a character's name are just convenience? Some don't even have talk pages? If there's value in having them I'm happy to stop but I didn't see why there should be multiple talk pages for the same character? Thanks Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the way WP:HO tagged them - which I helped with - the talk page is to discuss the redirect, not the article on the character.Rain the 1 17:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree, just figured any that were just different name versions of the same character would never change/be discussed? Do you want me to stop? I'm just cleaning up some of the category lists in the soaps page. Some are incorrectly labeled. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I spent ages, along with Rain and other users, adding these banners. They are there for a reason, because the page is a redirect and the talk page reflects that. I am reverting your changes. You should not have made these changes without a discussion, if you want to make these changes you will have to start a discussion on the soap wikiproject page to discuss these. D4nnyw14 (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've only removed them from talk pages that I've linked to direct to the main character page, in instances where the redirect is only for multiple versions of the characters name. This makes the redirect list more manageable and just those characters that are redirecting to lists, and therefore could be expanded upon. Isn't that the point of the category? It's been maybe a handful of characters - I haven't just gone and started removing random banners. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also - please see that my attempt was in good faith and to clean up the category lists. I've also found some that have updated articles but forgot to update the category and have fixed accordingly. And I've assessed all the unassessed articles. I'm just trying to clean up the list so it's better for everyone. Can someone explain the value of the redirect banner on talk pages that the main page redirects to a full character article? Wouldn't you want any an all comments going to the main talk page? Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean, the point of the category is to wholly list the redirects, nothing to do with expanding the article. The comments on the redirect page would be to talk about the redirect, such as if it will be searched by people or if it will be surplus and can be deleted. I don't doubt that it was in good faith, i know you weren't purposefully trying to disrupt pages, sorry if i seemed abrupt. D4nnyw14 (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing here - redirects to character lists I've left alone. I'm only talking about redirects such as "Jonathan Smith" redirects to "John Smith," so I redirected "Talk:Jonathan Smith" to "Talk: John Smith." As is the practice I've seen before (or some don't have talk pages at all). I've left a comment at WP:SOAPS if you'd rather finish discussing there. Thanks! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also - please confirm if you are going to revert you are only going to revert the specific articles in question you'd like taken back? I've spent a ton of time today cleaning up class lists so just want to make sure. Thanks Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, i understand what you mean, but i don't see how that affects it, it should have the banners so it appears as part of the project and is listed as part of the list of redirects, even if they are only characters. Yep, i am only going to revert the removal of the redirect class banners and i am not going to revert the edits you have made that updated classifications or added tags to pages etc. D4nnyw14 (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks. I still think it's clearer to have the talk pages redirect to the same article the main page is, but don't want to mess with your project. Here are some examples of why I thought it was the way everyone did this - do you think these pages should have the banners too? I've asked at SOAPS but sometimes don't get much feedback there.

Carly Jacks, Carly Benson and Carly Alcazar(no talk pages)
Brenda Corinthos talk page redirects to Brenda Barrett talk
Felicia Scorpio, Felicia Cummings Jones (no talk pages)
Robin Drake (no talk page)
there are others but I think you get the point

Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The project is as much your project as it is mine, it is a group project and i don't want you to feel that i think i have some sort of ownership over the project. The banners i added were all for Hollyoaks as i mostly edit the Hollyoaks Wikiproject, i think if we get a consensus that decides we should have banners for redirects then we should go through all soap articles that redirect and add the banners to the page. I hadn't saw the discussion for on the Wikiproject Soap page, i will comment on it in a minute, i'm sure some other users will also comment too. D4nnyw14 (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sorry -meant your project as in the Hollyoakes project. you guys are much more organized it seems than the soaps project in general. Most of the banners I found to remove were Hollyoaks or Neighbours, and most all I've come across while editing US soaps don't have talk pages at all, or redirect. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, i get you. We are more organised because there are fewer editors :P when i updated the Hollyoaks wikiproject page and changed the layout of the wikiproject page i decided to go through all the pages and add banners to redirects, categories, files etc. that had previously been uncategorised. US soaps seem to have fewer dedicated editors and the pages seem much less organised, it is good that you are helping to organise the pages and clean them up. D4nnyw14 (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your unsourced tags

Hi. I've seen that you've added various unsourced tags to soap opera articles that mostly consist of plot. But, if you don't already know, plot summaries usually don't have to have citations. See where this is addressed in the WP:SOAPS guideline, and this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas/Archive 5#Storylines sections lack references. 220.255.2.100 (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, be careful to always use an "Additional references" tag, not an unsourced one, when an article has at least one citation. 220.255.2.125 (talk) 04:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summaries do not need references, but articles in general do. An article cannot consist of solely plot, and must have sources. So, just because an article currently only has plot information, doesn't mean it doesn't have to have sources. Articles in those states are subject to deletion tags. This is basic WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS etc, which WP:SOAPS covers. I use both unsourced and refimprove tags, but if the sole source was unreliable, I used "unsourced." Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 05:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Same person higher in this section; just a different IP] When deciding to add a plot tag, you should also keep in mind that soap opera plot summaries (that is daytime dramas, which usually debut a new episode every day of the week) are naturally going to be longer than television or film plot summaries, which has also been discussed at WP:SOAPS. And it's quite useless to add an over-quotation tag to an article just because an article has a lot of quotes; a lot of WP:GA and WP:FA articles, not just soap opera articles, have a lot of quotes, including Pauline Fowler. So it's difficult to gauge what article deserves an over-quotation tag. 202.127.28.67 (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a section is nothing but a WP:QUOTEFARM, that's easier to tag, although Reception sections are usually going to be full of quotes. 202.127.28.67 (talk) 01:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:plots, WP:SOAPS clearly discusses brief plot summaries and inclusion of real-world context. I do not see where it is mentioned that daytime dramas should have longer summaries. This should be discussed at WP:SOAPS and not directed just to me.

Re: quotes - I used one quote tag on one article where it was my opinion that it was using too many quotes, as more sentences had quotes than those that didn't. Calling it useless on my talk page is unnecessary, and better discussed at the article page if you feel it warrants discussion rather than simply changing it back if you know that to be the consensus. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned that the plot issue was already discussed at WP:SOAPS. That is why I directed this at you. You are new to all of this and don't know about it. As for quotes, I stand by what I stated previously about that. As for talk pages, for these soap operas, there's no use in taking most matters to the article talk pages since most people who add tags to articles move on and never look back at the articles after that; most of these article talk pages are very inactive. 202.127.28.67 (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional soap opera characters

Hello! I've noticed that you've been changing the classification of several soap opera character articles to Stub-class. While I don't doubt that these articles need to be expanded, most of these articles are not stubs, and should be tagged with {{References}} or {{Expand article}} instead. I have reverted some of your edits in good faith, but given the size of these articles in relation to {{WikiProject Fictional characters}}, please be a little more conservative about which articles you classify as stubs. Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if that is the consensus. From reading the assessment scale, it seemed that a requirement of start class was at least one reliable source though? That is what I based it on. If that is the case, then I think the edits I made were correct. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 04:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone back to reread it. Start class is defined: An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and may require further reliable sources. The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very fine line between what is considered Stub-class and what is considered Start-class. Usually any article that is less than 3000 bytes in size is automatically considered a stub. There is a grey area between 3000 - 4000 bytes in size, but any article bigger than that should be considered at least Start-class. And classification can't always be determined by the size of the article, but generally if there is more than a few paragraphs, it can be considered Start-class, especially if there is enough content for a table of contents to be generated. Of course this is all completely arbitrary, but please do not downgrade fictional character articles just because they are lacking sources, when most of them clearly have enough content to be considered Start-class. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case then the assessment scale description should be adjusted accordingly? The description does not mention size or word count at all but specifically does mention the requirement of sources. The articles without sources are mostly all plot. Is there a place where this has been discussed and described? I've gotten no response at WP:SOAPS. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, part of the misunderstanding might be because you're focusing on WP:SOAPS, and not seeing the bigger picture. Most of the articles in question fall under multiple wikiprojects, and the guidelines that I described above, are more for Wikipedia in general. You might find WP:STUB helpful, which states "Sizable articles are usually not considered stubs, even if they have significant problems or are noticeably incomplete. With these larger articles, a cleanup template is usually added instead of a stub template". I'm not trying to discourage you from classifying articles, because you seem to be editing in good faith. I'm just saying don't be so quick to change the classification of an article, if you're not actually adding or deleting any of the content. Fortdj33 (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that link was helpful and informative. I'm still wondering about the sources though (and it was amount of sources I had been basing ratings on as I went through). While the stub article you linked states that sizable articles are not stubs even if they are noticeably incomplete (which in my opinion "incomplete" is quite vague) the WP:ASSESSMENT (in general, not just soaps) specifically states Start Class as meeting notability and including reliable sources. Is there somewhere that says differently? And yes, I am definitely editing in good faith thank you for noticing. I found many articles classified incorrectly (redirects, etc, obvious ones) which got me started trying to clean up the lists over at wp:soaps. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fortdj33. Also, Kelly, some articles (not just soap opera ones) are rated a certain class, such as B-class instead of C-class, due to WP:Consensus among a group of editors at those articles. The difference between B-class and C-class can be subjective, but I wouldn't downgrade an article to C-class, or from C-class to Start-class, without discussion on the article talk page...unless it is very clear that the article should be downgraded. What is "very clear" can be subjective as well, but taking the time to assess if it's a "very clear" matter is better than nothing. 202.127.28.67 (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, I have been making a good faith effort to clean up the class lists in the soaps wikiproject, as there are many with obvious incorrect classifications (redirects not categorized as such, B class with zero sources, etc) and some that have obviously not been updated in a very long time. If in my efforts there have been changes as you describe where the article is in fact purposely classified a certain way and the majority of editors feel otherwise, then I'm sure they will quickly change the class back. I agree that B vs. C, C vs. start are subjective. I also feel that tags and classes help to bring editor attention to articles that can be improved, and should not be viewed as disruptive. If there is a strong opinion otherwise, it can be changed. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GH Comings and Goings

I checked the GH page and someone has reverted the Comings and Goings section back to the old version. Jester66 (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]