Line 122: | Line 122: | ||
Excuse me, but I'm looking at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lorenzo_Lamas&diff=199009612&oldid=199008452 this] edit. How can the image you removed be considered as having a "questionable license"? There's OTRS archive of the proof from the author of the photograph (Luke Ford) granting clear permission for the image to used here. [[User:Tabercil|Tabercil]] ([[User talk:Tabercil|talk]]) 23:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC) |
Excuse me, but I'm looking at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lorenzo_Lamas&diff=199009612&oldid=199008452 this] edit. How can the image you removed be considered as having a "questionable license"? There's OTRS archive of the proof from the author of the photograph (Luke Ford) granting clear permission for the image to used here. [[User:Tabercil|Tabercil]] ([[User talk:Tabercil|talk]]) 23:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
:Actually, if you truly look at the licensing, you can't use anything taken after October 22, 2007 and this clearly was taken in January 2008. Additionally, several question the picture being actually Lorenzo Lamas. Even google searches do not hit on this picture and pictures of him don't look anything like that picture. The event was a look-a-like event and there's no indication that it is really LL. Regardless, the licensing doesn't allow for use. Look here at the licensing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tabercil/Luke_Ford_permission] it doesn't allow anything after 2007.10.22 so you can't actually use that picture. '''Addendum 2: Luke Ford sold lukeisback.com on October 22, 2007. Thus the rights to the photos on that site extend only to photos that he took prior to that date.''' And since he sold the site, how do you know the picture is authentic. Here's a 2007 shot of Lorenzo Lamas on Bold and the Beautiful [http://www.cbs.com/daytime/bb/about/bios/llamas.shtml], that not him in that picture previously in the Lorenzo Lamas article. [[User:KellyAna|KellyAna]] ([[User talk:KellyAna#top|talk]]) 23:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC) |
:Actually, if you truly look at the licensing, you can't use anything taken after October 22, 2007 and this clearly was taken in January 2008. Additionally, several question the picture being actually Lorenzo Lamas. Even google searches do not hit on this picture and pictures of him don't look anything like that picture. The event was a look-a-like event and there's no indication that it is really LL. Regardless, the licensing doesn't allow for use. Look here at the licensing [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tabercil/Luke_Ford_permission] it doesn't allow anything after 2007.10.22 so you can't actually use that picture. '''Addendum 2: Luke Ford sold lukeisback.com on October 22, 2007. Thus the rights to the photos on that site extend only to photos that he took prior to that date.''' And since he sold the site, how do you know the picture is authentic. Here's a 2007 shot of Lorenzo Lamas on Bold and the Beautiful [http://www.cbs.com/daytime/bb/about/bios/llamas.shtml], that not him in that picture previously in the Lorenzo Lamas article. [[User:KellyAna|KellyAna]] ([[User talk:KellyAna#top|talk]]) 23:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
::Ahem. Clean your glasses KellyAna. The license says photos from lukeisback.com before October are usable, and you're right that the photo was taken after October. But if you read what the source of the photo is, it says "lukeford.net". That site is still owned by Luke and he still contributes to it. Now that's apart from whether that really ''is'' Lorenzo. You have your doubts and I'll confess to having my own doubts as well; Luke is quite certain it is Lorenzo. I didn't think too much of the misidentification as the nickname that was given to his pics in the earliest days of lukeisback.com was "the Camera of Death"... because his earliest photos and morgue shots had the same unflattering creepiness to them. For instance, [http://www.lukeisback.com/images/images/Img0027/DSC_0009.JPG here] [http://www.lukeisback.com/images/images/Img0027/DSC_0047.JPG are] [http://www.lukeisback.com/images/images/Img0032/DSC_0016.JPG a] [http://www.lukeisback.com/images/images/Img0037/DSC_0128.JPG few] [http://www.lukeisback.com/images/images/images/photos2/0103267.jpg examples]. I just thought he managed to recreate the ambiance of some of those earliest photos. [[User:Tabercil|Tabercil]] ([[User talk:Tabercil|talk]]) 01:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:04, 19 March 2008
Credit goes to Pairadox for the big orange banner
Hey KellyAna
I know we ain't on the best terms, but I'd like to change that. Truce?--KingMorpheus (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Supercouples
I won't apologize for following Wikpedia guidelines. I'd also like to point out something at the bottom of every page we see when we edit:
- If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.
That being said, I really don't want you to leave the article. I'm quite sorry you think I'm ruining it, and I'm not doing anything out of spite, nor do I appreciate your characterizations of me. However, you're a valued and appreciated contributor, and hope you will continue to contribute. AniMate 19:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, KellyAna, you bailed on the supercouples list. But you haven't bailed on the Supercouple article, have you? Flyer22 (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I bailed on the list. It was better than me with my temper getting pissed and being more rude than I really should be. AniMate really, really pissed me off over the list, but the article is still on my watch list and I'm still keeping an eye on it. It's just the list and the removal of "notable wave" and "disputed by rivalry" that pushed my last button. BTW, EJami recently made a Supercouple list. I'll have to find it again even though I don't believe they are. KellyAna (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it'll definitely help add to the notability of their article, of course, once you find it. As for the supercouples list, once it's all fixed up in its new format, I hope you consider watching over it again. I'll see you around. Flyer22 (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure I will. I just need to keep away for a while or I'll explode. Hope you understand. I'll find the article that mentions EJami as a supercouple or even and "up and coming supercouple" which is just as good. KellyAna (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- At the risk of upsetting you, I have a question about your ideas about "fledgling" or "up and coming" suupercouples. What parameters would you put these types of couples in? Would it be popular couples who never quite made it to supercouple status or would it only be couples who could possibly make it to supercouple status in the future? In regards to the Disputed by rivalry removal... I understand the idea behind it, but that's a tough subsection to include. If Jax/Brenda and Sonny/Brenda should be in that subsection, shouldn't Carly/Sonny be there as well? John/Marlena and Roman/Marlena? I just don't see an reason for a special Brenda section, despite the fact that she's one of the best soap characters ever (and yes I fully believe that Brenda deserves that label in addition to most of the characters on Days except for Willow). AniMate 06:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- For Sonny and Carly or John and Marlena, I'd say no...because there are valid sources out there that cite them as supercouples...which seems to be lacking (as in we don't know for sure if they exist) for Sonny and Brenda, Jax and Brenda...and Roman and Marlena. Plus, in the case of John and Marlena, there's no dispute whatsoever on whether they are a supercouple. I know that and I'm not even a big Days of our Lives watcher (though I do watch; haven't been watching for as long as longtime viewers). Flyer22 (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- At the risk of upsetting you, I have a question about your ideas about "fledgling" or "up and coming" suupercouples. What parameters would you put these types of couples in? Would it be popular couples who never quite made it to supercouple status or would it only be couples who could possibly make it to supercouple status in the future? In regards to the Disputed by rivalry removal... I understand the idea behind it, but that's a tough subsection to include. If Jax/Brenda and Sonny/Brenda should be in that subsection, shouldn't Carly/Sonny be there as well? John/Marlena and Roman/Marlena? I just don't see an reason for a special Brenda section, despite the fact that she's one of the best soap characters ever (and yes I fully believe that Brenda deserves that label in addition to most of the characters on Days except for Willow). AniMate 06:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure I will. I just need to keep away for a while or I'll explode. Hope you understand. I'll find the article that mentions EJami as a supercouple or even and "up and coming supercouple" which is just as good. KellyAna (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it'll definitely help add to the notability of their article, of course, once you find it. As for the supercouples list, once it's all fixed up in its new format, I hope you consider watching over it again. I'll see you around. Flyer22 (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I bailed on the list. It was better than me with my temper getting pissed and being more rude than I really should be. AniMate really, really pissed me off over the list, but the article is still on my watch list and I'm still keeping an eye on it. It's just the list and the removal of "notable wave" and "disputed by rivalry" that pushed my last button. BTW, EJami recently made a Supercouple list. I'll have to find it again even though I don't believe they are. KellyAna (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, KellyAna, you bailed on the supercouples list. But you haven't bailed on the Supercouple article, have you? Flyer22 (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Shawn Brady
(title assumed because editor left random message) I'm a little confused. What was not proper about the changes I made?--Jbrut
Carly Corinthos blocked
Why is the Carly Corinthos page blocked? I have images below (my contributions) that I would like to share. THey are now marked as orphaned. Can you put them in 4 me? --Carly Fan 12 (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- No. Pictures on pages are there for a reason and your pictures are just because you like Carly, not for enhancement of the article. And the page is blocked because people seem to think this is a fan site for Carly and don't understand it's an encyclopedia. KellyAna (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Earl Ratings
I just added what was there, however, I did find sources. --Yankeesrj12 (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's cool. Just list the source and please fix the font. It's too dang small to read on my screen. KellyAna (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thats how the fonts are for every show. --Yankeesrj12 (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello and thanks
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
For all the work you do reverting vandalism! Avruch T 23:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC) |
Hi KellyAna, I've noticed that you do a lot of vandalism reversion and I wanted to drop this barnstar on your page as thanks. I also wanted to say that it seems like in the last few days you've been involved in a few conflicts, and it looks like you've been pretty frustrated. Its tough to assume that other editors contribute in good faith (that is, they mean well and want to help the encyclopedia) when you see a lot of vandalism and editors that don't follow policies like civility and consensus editing. Still, even when dealing with folks you disagree with or don't like its important to stay calm and polite in return. If you find that its hard to do that, generally a little time off is in order. With all of the good work you do, I'd hate to see you end up blocked because someone saw some warnings in your talkpage history and a few frustrated reverts in your contribs. Keep up the good work, and feel free to let me know if you need help with anything. About the banner below... You should ask on the village pump to see if someone can find a way to make sure your banner stays at the bottom, that way people who don't see it and want to talk to you can do it without messing up your page. (I also saw the MOSDATE thing from earlier... Personally, I think project and page consensus stacks up pretty well against MOS guidelines but its generally a good idea not to dismiss MOS out of hand, people get upset!) Avruch T 23:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Survivor Task Force
Hey there! User:Shapiros10 began promoting a possible Survivor Task Force today, and I decided to continue spreading the message. I figure this may help us gain a more standard MOS, which can benefit all related articles. As you are a frequent visitor to the Survivor pages, I thought you might want to help. If yes, then follow the link above (or to the left if your screen is really -really- long!) and help us start something great. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 09:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Civility warning
(copying from my talkpage) A comment that makes no sense is nonsensical and I have a right to remove anything from my page that I don't understand the wording of. It is not "uncivil" it is fact. Have people speak in normal English and I'll not remove their comments. Comments that makes no sense will be removed as "nonsensical." KellyAna (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- And how is it I can be called INSANE and that editor doesn't get a warning but I remove a nonsensical comment and I get a civility warning? Double standard much? KellyAna (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- You are correct that there has been problematic behavior on the part of multiple editors. I am trying to observe everyone's behavior in this dispute, and if rude behavior continues, from anyone, consequences can be expected. If you feel that something has been missed, I encourage you to let me know, with a diff. In general, before I take action though, I like to see that other efforts have taken place, such as a good faith warning from you to any editor that you are in a dispute with, where you formally caution them. If they continue with poor behavior after that, let me know. But in general, I would like to see everyone try to act in a more mature fashion from here on. --Elonka 04:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you advise TAnthony to stop following me to every editor's page I make a comment on, I'll be more than happy to play nice. I'm just SERIOUSLY tired of being followed everywhere I go by him. It's no wonder I'm "bitchy" (forgive the language, it's just the most accurate definition I can come up with) with him following me EVERYWHERE. KellyAna (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- And his disparaging comments, which is a personal attack here [1] "flying around here on your broom", wasn't reported nor retaliated to but this stalking, which he admitted to, is getting out of hand. If you really look around you'll find many, many personal attacks made against me by TAnthony, I just haven't reported them.KellyAna (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you advise TAnthony to stop following me to every editor's page I make a comment on, I'll be more than happy to play nice. I'm just SERIOUSLY tired of being followed everywhere I go by him. It's no wonder I'm "bitchy" (forgive the language, it's just the most accurate definition I can come up with) with him following me EVERYWHERE. KellyAna (talk) 04:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- You are correct that there has been problematic behavior on the part of multiple editors. I am trying to observe everyone's behavior in this dispute, and if rude behavior continues, from anyone, consequences can be expected. If you feel that something has been missed, I encourage you to let me know, with a diff. In general, before I take action though, I like to see that other efforts have taken place, such as a good faith warning from you to any editor that you are in a dispute with, where you formally caution them. If they continue with poor behavior after that, let me know. But in general, I would like to see everyone try to act in a more mature fashion from here on. --Elonka 04:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment about recent events
KellyAna, I do want to calmly clear the air with you on a few things. I admit I have been somewhat frustrated with some of your edits and comments lately, but I of course apologize for anything which may be construed as a personal attack. And though I have indeed been watching your talk page and looking in on your contributions (as anyone has a right to do), I have only "interfered" in soap article-related matters. I have had Sami Brady and Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald on my watchlist for awhile, and I started watching TheRhani's talk page before you even commented there (I had left my own comment there previously, after she made her first Sami Brady edits). I'm sorry if you feel "followed," I assure you that is not the case.
My main issue with your edits and behavior lately is what I perceive as you making repeated controversial edits and reverts without discussion and using false and misleading statements to support them (An example: "Soap articles are done this way"). You then seem to dismiss and ignore any and all discussion or criticism of these edits, including citations of policies and guidelines that challenge your edits. This is inappropriate. I don't believe you are purposely misleading; you obviously feel strongly about your practices, but I feel that some of them are incorrect and yet you will not consider this possibility. As I've said elsewhere, my concern is for the articles I believe you are impacting negatively, and also that other impressionable editors may see your edits and practices and mimic them. You yourself sometimes note that you're doing things how you've seen them done in other articles. As an experienced editor, you may be influential to others, and I am uncomfortable with your perpetuating some of these "questionable" practices by advising and admonishing editors when they contradict you or make edits with which you disagree.
I admit that I am guilty of this myself at times, but I feel that you often have an unnecessarily defensive, hostile and combative tone in your edit summaries and comments. I understand the frustration that comes with the constant senseless and incorrect edits to soap articles by IP users, etc. because I go through the same thing, so I do not wish to scold you but rather ask you to take more care in this area, as I will for myself.
I watch a lot of articles and user talk pages. I of course will never fully stop editing and commenting where I feel it is appropriate, but I regularly ignore plenty of edits I disagree with and discussions I could be useful in. You and I are a lot alike in that we are both very opinionated and strong-willed, and it appears very easy for us to goad each other into inappropriate and counterproductive behavior. Despite my dedication to the Project in general, I have little personal interest in the Days of our Lives articles, and will probably now ignore them and let you do whatever you want. I do ask that you try in the future to thoughtfully consider the good faith criticisms of other editors, and respect their opinions enough to sometimes just accept their changes to your work or leave their own edits alone — even if you disagree somewhat. You may also reconsider the way you maintain your talk page, as dismissing/deleting valid comments without acknowledgment can be considered uncivil. I also ask that you take more care with your justifications, and provide links to actual guidelines or precedents when you are asserting questionable practices or those likely to be challenged. — TAnthonyTalk
- Without commenting on any other posts from TAnthony, the above seems like very reasonable advice and a good blueprint for how editors who like to work in a collegial and harmonious environment should communicate with eachother. KellyAna, I hope you take these comments on board as both an attempt from TAnthony to clear the air and constructive criticism on some recent problems. All of the articles in your area of interest benefit from your presence, but improving the editing environment through some simple adjustments in your communication style will have an even more dramatic effect on these articles. There is a very active admin community out there in the Wikipedia ether, full of folks willing to help in various ways to resolve conflicts, and if you should need help with anything feel free to ask any one of them (or myself, though not an admin). Avruch T 01:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't want you to think I'm ignoring you. I'm not I'm just extremely busy and will comment. I will say thank you and will fully read what you have written. As time is short I would be doing you a disservice if I tried to comment but I would be doing us both a disservice if I didn't acknowledge the post and let you know I will be reading it fully. TAnthony, thanks for understanding my time is tight. I'll get to you this evening. KellyAna (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Don't feel pressured to actually comment, I basically just wanted to make my case calmly but still end the craziness. And Elonka has kindly pointed out that I still could have been more positive in my comments, so please take them in the constructive spirit in which they were intended and not as any kind of attack or condemnation. I really do just want to move on and get editing! Thanks. — TAnthonyTalk 18:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Right now I feel pressured to bite my tongue from what I've seen. So here's the deal, do I disregard comments on pages like John's or do I let it all go? I have a lot to get off my chest including issues with the broom comment. So here we go...
- The broom comment started it all. I'm intelligent and was raised by an ignorant bigot, I could say many, many mean things about your sexual orientation but would never. I mean, I can be mean as hell, but I never personally attack you, TAnthony. Not to the heart of that core. The broom comment was "religionist" (aka an attack against my religion) and a round about way of calling me a bitch. That started it and that's what got me to the point I can't deny I'm at.
- I've always respected you and this crap this week has been over the top. I read Elonka's comments two days ago and she pissed me off because I thought she was attacking me but I was wrong, her comments were fair and true and she recognized we were both wrong. If she hadn't gotten involved we might not have said "let's back off, let's work this out." We are two mature people, we're both as intelligent as hell. But we are both emotional and we need to stop. Both of us. You seem to be saying you will so I will to. But let's keep this "in the family" between the two of us. Okay. I can't be hit by 27345 sides, I'll just get bitchier. So let's move on, keep it here and work it out.
- Don't feel pressured to actually comment, I basically just wanted to make my case calmly but still end the craziness. And Elonka has kindly pointed out that I still could have been more positive in my comments, so please take them in the constructive spirit in which they were intended and not as any kind of attack or condemnation. I really do just want to move on and get editing! Thanks. — TAnthonyTalk 18:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't want you to think I'm ignoring you. I'm not I'm just extremely busy and will comment. I will say thank you and will fully read what you have written. As time is short I would be doing you a disservice if I tried to comment but I would be doing us both a disservice if I didn't acknowledge the post and let you know I will be reading it fully. TAnthony, thanks for understanding my time is tight. I'll get to you this evening. KellyAna (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Reliable sources
Not sure if you're still monitoring the talk page, but I added another set of comments because I don't think the question has yet been answered to the point where it will be useful for the discussion of screencaps-as-proof at Talk:Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald. — TAnthonyTalk 18:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
User:John
Thank you for not being upset about my comments there, which I intend to remove. Of course, the admin to whom I was referring was Elonka, and thankfully her interaction has helped us put this behind us. — TAnthonyTalk 02:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I replied here and, in my sweetest southern drawl, darling, I really do want to work this out. I know Elonka is trying to help, I'm all for that. I am all for moving along but the broom thing was really personal. I can get pissed off at you but would never attack your personal life. That broom comment, that just crossed..... KellyAna (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean .. are you actually a Wiccan? I would have no way of knowing that, there is nothing on your user page that gives that impression. I was merely (and inappropriately) using the "witch on a broom" cliche in reference to my impression at the time that you were sweeping across various articles and talk pages with harsh comments and edit summaries. Obviously, even that was inappropriate and I apologize, but please know that I was not intentionally insulting your personal life or beliefs. — TAnthonyTalk 05:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Bygones
Hey there, just wanted to say I am sorry for our conflict over Sami Brady, I may have disagreed with you, but losing my temper is never appropriate. I know you also only want what is best for articles. Look forward to collaborating in the future. TheRhani (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Credit goes to Pairadox for the big orange banner
"Questionable image with questionable licensing"
Excuse me, but I'm looking at this edit. How can the image you removed be considered as having a "questionable license"? There's OTRS archive of the proof from the author of the photograph (Luke Ford) granting clear permission for the image to used here. Tabercil (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, if you truly look at the licensing, you can't use anything taken after October 22, 2007 and this clearly was taken in January 2008. Additionally, several question the picture being actually Lorenzo Lamas. Even google searches do not hit on this picture and pictures of him don't look anything like that picture. The event was a look-a-like event and there's no indication that it is really LL. Regardless, the licensing doesn't allow for use. Look here at the licensing [2] it doesn't allow anything after 2007.10.22 so you can't actually use that picture. Addendum 2: Luke Ford sold lukeisback.com on October 22, 2007. Thus the rights to the photos on that site extend only to photos that he took prior to that date. And since he sold the site, how do you know the picture is authentic. Here's a 2007 shot of Lorenzo Lamas on Bold and the Beautiful [3], that not him in that picture previously in the Lorenzo Lamas article. KellyAna (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ahem. Clean your glasses KellyAna. The license says photos from lukeisback.com before October are usable, and you're right that the photo was taken after October. But if you read what the source of the photo is, it says "lukeford.net". That site is still owned by Luke and he still contributes to it. Now that's apart from whether that really is Lorenzo. You have your doubts and I'll confess to having my own doubts as well; Luke is quite certain it is Lorenzo. I didn't think too much of the misidentification as the nickname that was given to his pics in the earliest days of lukeisback.com was "the Camera of Death"... because his earliest photos and morgue shots had the same unflattering creepiness to them. For instance, here are a few examples. I just thought he managed to recreate the ambiance of some of those earliest photos. Tabercil (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)