Beaconboof (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 100:
There is nothing more I can edit for now besides adding in sources. The 'Critical reception' section does state that many viewers believe that Sheila might not have had that surgery to look like Phyllis, that Sarah might have been an imposter and that Daisy & Ryder might not have been Sheila & Tom's (in spite of what was seen onscreen). IF 'The Young & the Restless' or even 'The Bold & the Beautiful' end up saying that Sheila did not have that surgery etc., we'll edit the article accordingly. But for now, all viewers suspicions, speculations, presumptions can only be voiced in 'Critical reception'. [[User:Israell|Israell]] ([[User talk:Israell#top|talk]]) 12:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I understand your perspective BUT I believe that the only way Sheila can be brought back as Kimberlin Brown is if the information regarding her character's fate were not so concrete. We all know the ineptitude of writers of recent years. For instance, how on earth did Sheila manage to have Phyllis' VOICE never mind her face, unless the woman she recruited already looked and sounded like Phyllis in regards to voice and body type? We have got to give Sheila's wiki page some realistic credibility by stating these people were 'speculated' to be Sheila or 'associated' with Sheila. Otherwise we are doing terrible damage to Bill Bell's artistic legacy. Sheila is one of his most successful characters. We are the only people left who can stand up for his integrity and Kimberlin Brown's vision for that part. Kimberlin wants to play Sheila again. Why should she be punished for the folly of talentless writers without vision or psychological depth?
|
Revision as of 13:58, 9 September 2013
Welcome!
Hello, Israell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Hyacinth 20:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Your edits to Courtney Love
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Israell! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, and try to reinsert the link again. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 06:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Regretably I do not know who you go about having someone blocked, but I agree that this user does need to be. All I can suggest is that you contact as Administrator, they will know how to. --Berks105 18:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Raise it at Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism (WP:AIV) if they are vandalising a page and have received warnings about it. Orderinchaos78 10:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that she is also known as Eilleen Lange, however, the infobox asks for an alias. An alias is the name most likely to be known as. In this case, it's Shania Twain. --Renrenren 03:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Madonna lyrics
First of all, it's not at all clear what point those lyrics are illustrating. Are they supposed to seem particularly insipid? They don't, to me. Moreover, we can't have links to lyric sites that violate artists' copyright, as the site in question seems to, by its own admission. Better to quote more actual reviews. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, please note that WP:ANI is not the place for vandalism reports unless it's widespread across a variety of articles (i.e., a concentrated vandalism attack). Normal vandal reports go to WP:AIV. – Chacor 11:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Your query on Michael Jackson
Can't help you on the question you'd left on my talk page. My sole interest in that page was reverting the vandalism done by 216.11.148.3. If you've got good sourced info, Be Bold and update the article! -- GJD 16:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Michael Jackson
Hi, I don't know the answer to your question, but I've moved the comment to the Michael Jackson talk page where someone should respond eventually. Cheers; JACOPLANE • 2007-01-11 05:08
Please be more careful
Hey, when you were editing WP:RFP you removed my President of the United States request and replaced it with your Madonna request. When editing, please use the "Show Changes" button below the textbox to confirm that you have not removed any important content from an article. Thank you. --Aervanath 15:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
"Queen of Pop" pseudo-title
I still have a problem with the title being included at all. It is not widely used -- certainly not within the mainstream media. If anything, it is more fancruft, and as such, does not belong in a Wikipedia entry. I'll leave it for now; I'm about to be away for a family emergency. But this is something that truly needs to be excised. --Mhking 12:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- 'Queen Of Pop' is widely used by the media and fans alike. Nobody else in the muscic industry is 'Queen Of Pop'. Britney Spears is sometimes called 'Princess Of Pop', and Courtney Love 'Queen Of Rock', but they are differentb titles. Queen Of Pop is fine as it is. 80.43.9.157 13:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Prince and Blanket
Oooo....I honestly don't know. Were you asking for a specific reason or did you just want to know out of curiosity?UberCryxic 02:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I'm not sure about the whole name thing. The KOP label is prominently in the lead now because of the consensus reached in another section of the talk page, not because of the vote. That vote was invalid from the start. Normally it's best to gain consensus on an issue, and if that fails after excessive efforts, then you can go ahead and start polling.UberCryxic 04:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Do not remove the relevant table. It is vandalism and you will be blocked from WP. Vikrant 07:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I sent this warning to the wrong person. Vikrant 08:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Replacing one reliable source by another is an edit war and a waste of time. Try avoiding this and instead replace fansites etc. Vikrant 11:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you, but the main editor has disregarded everything I've said at this point as trivial, so the article is no longer of any interest to me. Madonna's biography could be a lot more comprehensive than what it is now. It would be best to voice your concern at the article's GAR. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll check out the expansions you suggested as the GAR is likely to be in favour of them (as it was in case of marriage and children). But note meanwhile WP is not censored. Content may offend anyone, so our sole purpose is to make sure that it doesn't generate bias by the words being used. Ultra! 07:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- You still don't get this? The GAR would have got the article out without what I added (and summarised) in lead. Removing the line on the church as it offended somebody is not acceptable at all. Ultra! 08:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- The article says that she had a dip between the early to mid 1990's, its comletely fine. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 20:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at MarB4's talk page.
August 2011
Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Talk:Abortion. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Sorry, but this isn't just canvassing in its own right, it is also the most blatant invitation to canvassing I have ever seen. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:MDNA Vogue.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:MDNA Vogue.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 10:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Now that you've explained it is clear. The confusion is that you did not initially identify the source of the image (like the commons image you edited nor the flickr original) and the licence claims that "you" own the copyright which is clearly incorrect. Where editing an image that has been released under a free licence it is imperative that you use the correct licence and follow the attribution requirements stated in the original licence. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sheila Carter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Sheila Carter edits
Hi Israell. I really am not happy with your edits at all. The fans want Kimberlin Brown back in the role and the writers since 2007 have completely ret-conned her history, personality and storyline. Kimberlin was going to return several times but couldn't - reading her wiki page totally endangers the possibility of her getting to play the role again and for what? Some stupid thoughtless stunt storyline. Sarah Smythe and the Phyllis lookalike could all have been working on Sheila's orders - there is absolutely no proof that they are who they claimed to be. I don't know why you are so intent on not wanting Kimberlin back as Sheila - the way you have messed around with her character's wiki page clearly suggests you have an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaconboof (talk • contribs) 10:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Please just edit it again and leave your conclusions open. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaconboof (talk • contribs) 12:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
There is nothing more I can edit for now besides adding in sources. The 'Critical reception' section does state that many viewers believe that Sheila might not have had that surgery to look like Phyllis, that Sarah might have been an imposter and that Daisy & Ryder might not have been Sheila & Tom's (in spite of what was seen onscreen). IF 'The Young & the Restless' or even 'The Bold & the Beautiful' end up saying that Sheila did not have that surgery etc., we'll edit the article accordingly. But for now, all viewers suspicions, speculations, presumptions can only be voiced in 'Critical reception'. Israell (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I understand your perspective BUT I believe that the only way Sheila can be brought back as Kimberlin Brown is if the information regarding her character's fate were not so concrete. We all know the ineptitude of writers of recent years. For instance, how on earth did Sheila manage to have Phyllis' VOICE never mind her face, unless the woman she recruited already looked and sounded like Phyllis in regards to voice and body type? We have got to give Sheila's wiki page some realistic credibility by stating these people were 'speculated' to be Sheila or 'associated' with Sheila. Otherwise we are doing terrible damage to Bill Bell's artistic legacy. Sheila is one of his most successful characters. We are the only people left who can stand up for his integrity and Kimberlin Brown's vision for that part. Kimberlin wants to play Sheila again. Why should she be punished for the folly of talentless writers without vision or psychological depth?