User talk:Viper10803
Duplicate images uploaded
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:Burton&HerbstGH.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:46-54.jpg. The copy called Image:46-54.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.
This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 07:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Supercouple article
[edit]- Hello, Viper10803. In order to add a couple to any of the supercouple lists within the Supercouple article here at Wikipedia, you must provide a valid sourced reference along with the couple you are adding, validating that they are a supercouple or an important couple within popular culture. If no valid sourced reference is provided with a couple that you add to one of the lists within the Supercouple article here at Wikipedia, then that couple will be removed. Flyer22 07:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sean McNamara and Christian Troy is a good addition to the Supercouple article's Non-romantic or ambiguous section. Thank you for adding them. The Supercouple article is in the middle of somewhat of an overhaul by me at this time, thus it will look significantly different in the upcoming weeks, but whenever you can add a couple in a valid way to this article, don't hesitate to do so, of course. See you around. Flyer22 05:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Viper, make sure that when you add a couple to one of the supercouple lists within the Supercouple article, that its source displays that they are truly an important couple within popular culture. If it doesn't, as I stated before, that couple will be removed, especially if the source is not valid, such as a couple fansite. Flyer22 00:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sean McNamara and Christian Troy is a good addition to the Supercouple article's Non-romantic or ambiguous section. Thank you for adding them. The Supercouple article is in the middle of somewhat of an overhaul by me at this time, thus it will look significantly different in the upcoming weeks, but whenever you can add a couple in a valid way to this article, don't hesitate to do so, of course. See you around. Flyer22 05:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Your addition of Clark Kent and Lana Lang from the show Smallville was a valid add, but your reference format of that addition was wrong, and messed up the reference section just a little bit. I fixed that for you. Take a closer look at how the other references are formatted in the Supercouple article or a look at Wikipedia:Citation templates, and I'm sure that you'll get the hang of it. You can always contact me on my talk page or through email if you need help on anything with Wikipedia. Flyer22 17:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- For the Years of reign section, we're focusing more on when the couple or almost-couple really started to heat up or made it official...to their end or lack of reign after that. For instance, the reason that Buffy and Angel's Years of reign section is listed as 1997 to 1999 is because that's when they had a heated flirtation and actual romance going on, as well as when their romance rose to television media attention. In 1999, their romance ended. After that, it wasn't the same, and they rarely saw each other. Sure, there was that time in 2000 where Angel got to be human for a day...and there were the three more visits after that at later times, the latest one being in 2003, but that isn't really them still reigning. We could list it as "again in 2000" or 2003, or both...one of those alternatives or something similar of that nature. Though I feel that 2000 is more prominent than 2003 for them on this matter. Flyer22 04:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Viper, you know that you need a valid reference for those couples that you recently added or they will be removed. That factor regarding the supercouple article has not changed. Flyer22 03:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Since whether Sonny and Brenda or Jax and Brenda are the true supercouple out of that love triangle is a debate, neither of those couples should be on the main Supercouple list. Generally, a soap opera character is only part one supercouple, regardless, and it isn't that much of a debate. Though, yes, I suppose that Sonny was a part of two supercouples. But that whole deal about Sonny, Brenda, and Jax are mentioned already in the article, to where people can draw a conclusion, as to why neither...Sonny and Brenda or Jax and Brenda...are on the main Supercouple list. Flyer22 15:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- TV Guide is a valid source, of course...but usually not when it comes from a forum, even its own. We're not usually allowed to use forums as a source or as a link to another source on Wikipedia. Flyer22 15:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Since whether Sonny and Brenda or Jax and Brenda are the true supercouple out of that love triangle is a debate, neither of those couples should be on the main Supercouple list. Generally, a soap opera character is only part one supercouple, regardless, and it isn't that much of a debate. Though, yes, I suppose that Sonny was a part of two supercouples. But that whole deal about Sonny, Brenda, and Jax are mentioned already in the article, to where people can draw a conclusion, as to why neither...Sonny and Brenda or Jax and Brenda...are on the main Supercouple list. Flyer22 15:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Viper, you know that you need a valid reference for those couples that you recently added or they will be removed. That factor regarding the supercouple article has not changed. Flyer22 03:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- For the Years of reign section, we're focusing more on when the couple or almost-couple really started to heat up or made it official...to their end or lack of reign after that. For instance, the reason that Buffy and Angel's Years of reign section is listed as 1997 to 1999 is because that's when they had a heated flirtation and actual romance going on, as well as when their romance rose to television media attention. In 1999, their romance ended. After that, it wasn't the same, and they rarely saw each other. Sure, there was that time in 2000 where Angel got to be human for a day...and there were the three more visits after that at later times, the latest one being in 2003, but that isn't really them still reigning. We could list it as "again in 2000" or 2003, or both...one of those alternatives or something similar of that nature. Though I feel that 2000 is more prominent than 2003 for them on this matter. Flyer22 04:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Nickand ChelseaDOOL.jpg
[edit]
Thank you for uploading Image:Nickand ChelseaDOOL.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 06:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Spoilers
[edit]We do not put spoilers in articles, we do not put dates after spouses, we do not arbitrarily change a characters name. If you have any questions, feel free to ask but do not edit pages with incorrect information or out of style from the Soap Project. IrishLass0128 15:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Names
[edit]Your name changes have been and are being reverted per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Do not make unverified changes and do not continue to break policy with the name changes. Thank you. IrishLass (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Nash Brennan and Jessica Buchanan
[edit]I have nominated Nash Brennan and Jessica Buchanan, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nash Brennan and Jessica Buchanan. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Gromlakh (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
SORAS verses fact
[edit]Articles do not go by made up information, they go by verifiable fact. Your edits to the DiMera family have been reverted to the correct order based on verifiability. IrishLass (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Burton&Herbst.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading Image:Burton&Herbst.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Unnecessary lists
[edit]A list of couples is not necessary and just more WP:LISTCRUFT that makes an article more likely to be deleted. Do not continue to add unnecessary lists to articles including the Salem article. KellyAna (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
December 2008
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Aiden Dennison has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Springnuts (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I appreciate you sourcing your additions to this article (with valid sources)...when the sources are actually acknowledging the couples as supercouples, but take a look at this: Talk:List of fictional supercouples#Section break: See alsos and random_supercouple_mentions.
I am not going to remove your addition of Lucas Scott and Peyton Sawyer so far, but it is a random supercouple mention. And as noted in the linked discussion above, we are wary of those types of acknowledgments of couples being supercouples (for the reasons discussed there). Flyer22 (talk) 05:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have already pointed you to the discussion about random supercouple mentions above in this section. I will discuss your addition of Cole Thornhart and Starr Manning on the talk page, to consider whether they should be added and just how reliable Examiner.com is, but try to consider not adding any more couples (to List of fictional supercouples) who are simply randomly mentioned as supercouples...unless you have additional sources titling them as supercouples. Flyer22 (talk) 07:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Salem (Days of our Lives)
[edit]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Salem (Days of our Lives). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salem (Days of our Lives). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)