User:IrishLass0128/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Well it is common knowledge that Sami Brady is expecting and that is all she is..EXPECTING! The edit does not include any other information except for the fact that she is expecting a twins one male and one female. Miscarriage or stillbirth can be added after the children are born. Please do not undo the fact that Samantha is expecting twins, which those edits are correct! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AugustAugust (talk • contribs) 16:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• So it is my understanding, and I will report this, that you are in fact declaring an edit war and intend on going against the Manual of Style for Soap Opera articles. I will let an administrator know. IrishLass0128 17:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Miscarried and Stillborn children are added to soap character profiles. Example would be of Y&R's Jack Abbott stillborn son John Abbott III. The child was a character and is appropiately added to the childrens section of the characters bio. Expecting children are also to be added, remember Wikipedia is designed to deliver facts and information and it is a fact that Samantha Roberts is expecting twins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AugustAugust (talk • contribs) 17:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• No, stillborn children are added AFTER they are born, not before. Unnamed, miscarried children are not to be added ever. You do not need to condiscend. That shows personal attacks and shows no good faith in regards to another's edits. You have declared an edit war and have declared you do not intend to abide by the guidelines setforth. I will have an administrator deal with you further. FYI ~ in your exampled article, there is no bullet point list of children.IrishLass0128 17:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

IrishLass,

I left a gentle message on AugustAugust's talk page (see WP:BITE) explaining that this is not how we do things, and why. Hopefully that will be enough. Daniel Case 19:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Followup: AugustAugust says the two of you have "come to terms" without any help. Have you? Daniel Case 15:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No we have not. You can see s/he has not replied to me in regards to this. In fact, someone with an IP address has been doing the same thing to the page, I thought it might be him/her. But, no, there is no resolve to my knowledge. Could be s/he is having other issues with other editors, or "members" as she likes to call them.IrishLass0128 16:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

S/he hasn't made any edits since yesterday. Might not be. Keep an eye on this one. Daniel Case 15:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

De-linking should only occur for articles that, if created in the future, would fail to meet notability requirements. Those that pass notability requirements (such as those on Template:Pittsburgh Steelers roster and Template:Pittsburgh Steelers staff all meet notability requirements) should not be de-linked. Thanks. Pats1 ^T/C 00:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delinking is done in the case of bad links to no articles. This is something that anyone can and should do if there is no article about a person or the link goes to a page that doesn't exist or isn't about the subject it should be linked to. It is clear that there were several links to pages that did not exist. As one admin told me, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and should not be treated as one. If no article exists, not link should either. If you would like to bother to create a page, the link can be re-established. Notibility has nothing to do with delinking a bad link. IrishLass0128 12:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Additional information regarding links per the MOS

Internal links Items in Wikipedia articles can be linked to other Wikipedia articles that provide information that significantly adds to readers' understanding of the topic. This can be done directly ("Ant", which results in "Ant"), or through a piped link ("five new species", which results in "five new species" in the text, but still links to the article "Ant").

Internal links add to the cohesion and utility of Wikipedia by allowing readers to deepen their understanding of a topic by conveniently accessing other articles. These links should be included where it is most likely that readers might want to use them; for example, in article leads, the beginnings of new sections, table cells, and image captions. Generally, where it is likely that a reader may wish to read about another topic, the reader should not have to hunt for a link elsewhere in the page.

Links add to the cohesion by conveniently accessing other article. Therefore, linking to non-existant pages detracts from cohesion and convenience. IrishLass0128 13:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. WP:RED states that redlinks should stay as long as the article they are linking to (or will link to) meets notability requirements and will thus someday be created. The ONLY time redlinks should be de-linked is when whatever article they are linking to would otherwise fail to meet notability and/or verification standards. Believe me, I have been through this before at Template:Dallas Cowboys roster. Pats1 ^T/C 20:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

such as wiping an exchange with another editor like this one is considered vandalism by many of us, and certainly by me. (I stopped by to tell you how to archive from comments you left on 'that' users page, and am totally mystified why you should want to bury the conversation. We all have huge learning curves hereon about the society and practices. Given the triviality of the dispute, you hardly come off looking bad—quite the contrary, your defense of your action was quite impressive insofar as the "legal" guideline side of it goes, albeit I agree with him on the backwards results relative to the case of this kind of redlink. Moreover, most redlinks should be cured by creation, not obliteration of the link, as their presence reminds people that said article is needed. Note, I don't know him, and stopped in to introduce myself to him as I've recently edited a page he stubbed in, and thought it sad you were withdrawing from some controversies here. THAT I understand... I've been mostly off wiki for the whole summer because of one I disagree with. See my current top of talk page!) I'd like to ask you to revert your own 'wiping' of the companies records. Being able to see a parties interaction with others is important here for a lot of reasons and uses.

As to archiving, there are two common methods. One just create a redlink to the new archive page on the current talk or on your user page, and then cut N paste the material into it, whilst annotating a link on your talk. If you access such a new redlink page from a preview window of the current talk page, and then cut the material out into it, you know it's saved before you back up to the excerpted talk page and save that. Can't loose anything anyways--it's always in history.

For the second (rare) method, MOVE the page to the archive page name you desire and then recreate a user talk page. If you don't have the move tab showing up yet, that will happen eventually.

The latter method has the benefit of linking the also moved history with the archive, whereas the former has the benefit of keeping a overall running index of all posts to the page in a single history page. (There's also several methods of automatically archiving the page or stale sections thereon, but they all need page creation in advance so far as I know, which is the common element.) Just make sure the new page is of the form (especially the prefix and slash) with "user talk:IrishLass012/page name", as the name itself is relatively irrelevant. (Most of us just use Archive##, etc. in plebian boring fashion.)

Hope to see you around, and remember, if you don't fight the good fight, you can't expect to win it! Now I'll go introduce myself to 'him'. In case no one's told you, snooping around and stealing things from established editors is not only winked at in the culture, but really expected. Cheers, and belated welcome to the Online community we call Wikipedia. // FrankB 00:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Good morning FrankB, thank you for the explanation. I would be more than happy to archive the conversation but could use some help. CelticGreen tried to do this yesterday in order to walk me through it today when I'd be back at a computer and all heck broke loose on her. Is there any way you could create an archive page for me? I'm a little afraid to try. After all I did wrong on Tuesday, I don't want to do anything else wrong. Thank you.IrishLass0128 13:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This time the other editors are right. The very second sentence of WP:RED: Sometimes it is useful to create a red link to indicate that an article will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because it is about an important, verifiable subject. You mean well, I know, but this is a longstanding practice.

For example, I just created U.S. Route 209 in New York. It has red links to articles I intend eventually to create on three schools in Port Jervis, New York. {{Orange County, New York}} has a couple of redlinks as well. The cure for those redlinks is not to remove them; it's to create the article and turn them blue. Daniel Case 03:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

As for the Twinkle link, the software includes it automatically in edit summaries, just like AWB does. It was not meant to accuse you or anybody of vandalism, and as the Twinkle page points out vandalism reversion is not its only function.

And I'll suggest to Wilhemina Will that she apologize. Daniel Case 03:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks Daniel. I can admit to being wrong, but I don't think people need to be nasty about telling people they are wrong. Since I started doing mainly the soaps, where redlinking is removed, and I was given the link MOS, of course I had what I guess you could call a pre-programmed idea based on my experience with the soap characters. Thanks for your help and clearing things up. IrishLass0128 12:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Saving for myself to use.
User:IrishLass0128/Soap-char-stub

Hi IrishLass. I moved the blank template to a sub-page at the 'Soap-char-stub' link above. I think that's what you were trying to set up. If not just revert. --CBD 18:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That was very kind of you considering the level of pest I've been over this. I do appreciate it especially with all the pages I'm trying to clean up at this point. IrishLass0128 18:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Sorry I didn't anticipate the impact that changing the blank template would have on you. Let me know if there is more I can do to help format the template for easier use. Take care. --CBD 22:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, I've left more comments on the issue (just can't stop myself!!) but I just wanted to make it especially clear to you that I really really really don't mean to single you out or boss everyone around. I am very concerned about what I feel are negative trends in the soap articles which will lead to "ruin" (so melodramatic!) In any case, I'm so glad you're an active part of the Project and look forward to interacting with you in the future. TAnthony 17:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That was very nice considering I'm being a little bit hard on you. I understand and if you see my edits, I'm generally in favor of and working on improving articles or running around protecting them from vandalism. I just want the articles to be good, better, and best, without spoilers and opinion. I too look forward to working with you.IrishLass0128 18:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not randomly tag the Bradys as Irish-Americans. Because I am familiar with their history, I know that they are Irish-Americans. They are an American family of Irish heritage. Shawn Brady and his deceased sister Colleen are literally from Ireland, where all their flashback scenes took place (note that I categorized Colleen under fictional Irish people instead of fictional Irish-Americans, as she's the one member of the family never seen in America). Also, I did not tag a Greek as Irish. "Bo Brady and Hope Williams" was already categorized that way, as was Carrie Brady, when I noticed that most of the Brady family wasn't in the fictional Irish-Americans category. I agree that Bo and his children and granddaughter should not be categorized as Irish-Americans, because he is Victor Kiriakis' biological son. The same for Frankie and Max Brady, because they are adopted. -- Noneofyourbusiness 19:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you are not familiar enough with their history as you DID catagorize Bo Brady as such. Either way, the catagories are up for deletion and your random tagging is a waste of my time deleting the tags as overcatogorization. And to be "Irish American" both mother and father have to be Irish. Caroline is not, Marlena is not, Anna is not, etc. Just because half of a half of a person is Irish be decent, does not make someone Irish-American.IrishLass0128 20:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I assure you, I did not categorize Bo as an Irish-American. I didn't know that the categories were up for deletion, because notice of that fact had not yet appeared on their pages. Thank you for telling me. It would be best to wait and see if the categories will be kept before adding new articles to them. I am not aware of any rule that both parents must be Irish for someone to be an Irish-American. Working by the same logic, Victor Kiriakis' children and grandchildren shouldn't be categorized as Greek-Americans either, unless there's a different rule at work there. -- Noneofyourbusiness 20:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

As a pure Irish-American I can tell you, no true Irish person should be in a catagory of "Irish-Americans" unless they are pure Irish. I don't agree with categorizing Bo as Greek either. I don't agree that these categories should exist at all due to overcategorization. As the categories exist simply because someone was bored and made them up, there is no rule about who is or who isn't in them. That is the problem with random categorization, there are no rules but ask an Irishman and they will explain it to you.IrishLass0128 20:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably so, and you could probably also find many people who consider themselves Irish-Americans despite having non-Irish mothers, and tons of people with Irish surnames who don't even know or care about it. Which points to the problem of the category being subjective, an excellent reason to delete it. Now that I've given it more thought, I think you're quite right about that. Many people have Irish ancestry of varying degrees, so at what point do we consider them Irish-Americans and which point do we not? There's no objective dividing line that everyone agrees on. If the category is deleted, it would be good to nominate similar ones. -- Noneofyourbusiness 21:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty, this categorization of fictional people is by and large ridiculous. What exactly is the point to categorizing fictional people on television where heritage changes at the hiring of a new head writer? EJ Wells is a perfect example. James Scott was hired to be a British racecar driver with a mysterious past. New headwriter comes along and all of the sudden we're supposed to believe he's part Italian and what? Did anyone ever know what Susan was? Not likely. That's the problem. And how funny does it look having a tall Brit categorized as a fictional Italian (if he is, don't know) but if you believe the new HW for Days' we are supposed to believe EJ is Italian. This is why I disagree with the entire concept of "Fictional Irish-Americans" or are they "Fictional American-Irish" because they are Irish by decent but American by birth. This is why the categorization of fictional characters with ever changing backgrounds is a odd concept by Wikipedia.IrishLass0128 12:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello IrishLass, I noticed you filed a report at WP:AIV stating you weren't sure about how to nominate pages for speedy deletion. Perhaps you could read the policy at WP:SPEEDY, that may help! If in doubt, give me a shout. All the best, The Rambling Man 14:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh and one thing, if he's persistently creating inappropriate pages, give him some warnings before reporting to AIV. Warnings like {{uw-create3}} are handy for this purpose.--Alasdair 15:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. I'm new to reporting people who violate policy or make up new pages just for giggles. I may have to just assume he didn't know "notibility" or something. I could not find any reference to the character via CBS, or long time ATWT viewers. As it stands, the article appears to be a hoax or about a character that was so minor back in the early, early years of the show, no one has ever heard of them. All in all, the article has no business on Wikipedia.IrishLass0128 15:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Jenniferandjack.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Jennifer 10.jpg. The copy called Image:Jennifer 10.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 18:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When using certain templates on talk pages, as you did to User talk:Soapfan91, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thank you. AFUSCO 00:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If you could help, which one? I did two things on that page, one welcoming them (big mistake) and one warning them. Which one was done incorrectly? I won't say wrong since I did try and do it right, incorrectly is far more accurate. Thanks for your help.IrishLass0128 12:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess it was your addition of the {{uw-create1}} template in this edit. Really it's not a huge deal, a bot will be along soon afterwards to "subst" it for you, but it is best practice to try to remember to do this yourself. All the best. The Rambling Man 12:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This. Flyer22 17:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't think I feel offended or criticized by any of your comments, I know I have a bossy way of putting things and I know I don't know everything. I really do welcome and appreciate your input, even if we disagree. It's especially great to see people caring enough about the Project and these articles to get into discussions and disputes in the first place! And you make a good point, I don't necessarily look at things from the perspective of a casual reader or new editor, so it's helpful to have that input. — TAnthony^Talk 19:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

What is going on here? You seem to be as stubborn as CelticPride, as you refuse to acknowledge the correct changes made when I started revising the article. (Personal attack removed by Firsfron). Also, I don't get your incoherent comments you left on Firsfron's talk page, as you defend CelticGreen and paint ME as "the bad guy". Do your homework (compare the quality of the revisions) and get your story straight. Rollosmokes 17:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to help here, but I will be reporting the personal attack you've just made on CelticGreen. I will also be reporting your aggressiveness to me. Your attitude shows you are acting "the bad guy" as you claim. I suggest you look at all the changes I've made, the total package, and you will see that you are being overly aggressive in your behavior toward other editors. Please discontinue your behavior. Not sure what you mean by comments on Firsfron's talk page. I checked my contributions for today, and there is no Firsfron on the list. IrishLass0128 17:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Irishlass,

Thanks for your notes, both on CG's talk page and on mine.

Neither the "petty" comment nor the "do your homework" comment by Rollosmokes are welcome here. The first is a personal attack, and the second is certainly uncivil. I've removed the former, just as I did with CG's personal attack on Rollo. This has got to stop.

I appreciate your work on the article, Irishlass. I'm glad to see you are willing to compromise. That is a relief. You know, I edit several television-related articles, but never soap operas daytime dramas, so have a little patience with me and we will work through this.

You mentioned this statement on my talk page: There is no official word from the show's producer or the production company, NBC/Sony, on the current status of Drake's contract or position with the show. It strikes me that this is a great edit, but it still needs work. NBC and Sony are separate companies, so "production companies" (plural) might be better. And on a personal basis, I try to avoid using the same word twice in the same sentence, so "series" could be substituted for "show" either the first time or the second.

I certainly do count the six edits CG made on my page as six separate edits. Those edits were made over a five-hour period. CG stated she was done with the dispute, and then kept making edit after edit, both to the article itself, and to various talk pages. That's certainly a mixed message. And I did "harp" on CG's use of the word "correct" in her edit summary when she reverted to that poorly-spelled, WP:MOS-impaired revision. "Corrections" shouldn't include typos and reverting manual of style revisions. This is an encyclopedia, not a battle-ground. No one should be reverting to a "CORRECT" version which includes spelling errors.

You are absolutely right about the need for citations in the article. Since CG has refused to edit the page further, perhaps we can get Rollosmokes to add some citations, not just in that one section, but all over the article.

You have made a lot of changes to the article, Irishlass. Many improvements, in fact. Thank you for your hard work. I would like to see a citation, however, for the statement that NBC and Sony co-own the series. I know Sony (in part?) produces the series, but I don't see anything indicating they jointly own the show. Gimme a link. :) More later... Firsfron of Ronchester 21:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Firsfron of Ronchester, I did try and improve the article and address issues that appear to be sticking points, the repetitive linking of SOD awards (Soap Opera Digest) and found a better way of doing in on the Ken Corday page by just listing the single header and a bullet list of the awards and nominations. This is both encyclopedic and MOS compliant. Interesting that as soon as I was not around, Rollosmokes goes back to his version regardless and then makes statements on the talk page that do not address the actual current content of the article. He makes statements regarding issues that are no longer issues. He's determined that that article be his and no one else's, including placing redlinks in the article and removing correct links. I have reverted this morning back to my last version because his tirade on the talk page is addressing issues that are no longer issues. He is obviously set on having the article be his way or no one else's and that is both a problem and a bothersome feeling. As to the question regarding both studios jointly owning Days or having a hand in it, you'd have to go pick up a soap magazine. Not something I think you want to do. Drake's contract is until the end of December, it is also known that he was still filming, but in what capacity is not known, could be a dream or a vision or he could be alive. This is why it is crucial that things like "position" remain position, not "future" position because he is still with the show. I could try and find an online article, there are many print articles that came out when Ed Scott joined and comments that "NBC and Sony brought Ed Scott in to try and save the show" but, as I said, those were all in print. Or I could try and screen cap the end credits for you tonight when I watch the show. What that is is my lighthearted way of saying I'll do my best to get you confirmation. Thanks for your help. Off to reply on the talk page. IrishLass0128 12:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I wonder what is the policy (written or unwritten) about the notability of future characters on a soap opera. Are they important enough to warrant their own page just yet? Take a look at Charlie Baker (B&B) for me when you have the time. I am asking you because I notice that you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas. Thanks in advance! --Alessandro 22:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, he is not warranting a page. I will tag it. Even if he gets on the show, unless he is a prominent member of the cast, he should not have his own character page. IrishLass0128 12:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoever makes the decisions for that article make B.S. deicisons. It is common knowledge that Sami gave birth to both her babies today and they are unnamed and living. How could she miscarry something she already had???? The information was factual??? SMH...hopefully, if anyone is going to edit that page, they'll make a decent edit to it, one that makes sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.28.110 (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy makes the decision. You need to look at the page more closely before making edits that are not a matter of consensus per the Wikipedia Soap Project. As for the "common knowledge" that Sami gave birth today, you are assuming that people read spoilers. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and until the show is broadcast, we don't make assumptions. And it must be broadcast everywhere. In the future, please sign your comments. IrishLass0128 20:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

My comments were not abusive, they where the truth. Fonting my mind in other words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.28.125 (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes, they were rude. This is not a forum where you speak your mind and vent. This is a talk page to express ideas for improving the encyclopedia, not complain that you don't like the way things are done when they are done correctly. And, FYI, no, you can't miscarry at 9 months, but you can certainly deliver a stillborn child that died in the womb. IrishLass0128 12:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, sorry if I freaked you out, but there are 111 articles in the Days characters category and thought I'd give you a head start. AWB is not completely automated, it makes an edit but requires me to look it over and make adjustments before it actually performs it. I did a little tweak here and there but don't think I "undid" anything that was correct. Sorry if I did. Would it help you if I simply changed all the {{Infobox character to {{Infobox soap character ? Also, many of the stub articles don't have an infobox at all, would it help if I just added a blank one to only those needing it? Let me know if any of this will help, but otherwise I will leave Days completely alone. ;) — TAnthony^Talk 18:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the Brady mixup, bad coincidence! I was actually noticing that there are a lot of stubs of past characters that would be better merged in a larger article as we discussed in the past, but was going to suggest that to you at a later date. You're probably right to do that one-by-one as you go through and cleanup the boxes. Let me know if I can be of any assistance. — TAnthony^Talk 18:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You should read the message I just left you. We are thinking alike on this, I can see a true need for combining articles. Since it's been discussed, do we need consensus or could I create the page and just start the redirects? IrishLass0128 18:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You know me, I like the steamroller approach (LOL) but seriously, I think for the stubs like Melissa and such you can just "be bold" and do the redirects, etc. From my experience doing the same thing with OLTL, you shouldn't get any resistance when you're dealing with old characters and stubs. Current characters may obviously be trickier, but you probably have a good sense for what should be combined and what shouldn't. Anyway, if Vivian Alamain came back, the article could always be restored and the redirect undone, right? — TAnthony^Talk 18:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tango1.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 21:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I already took care of the fair-use rationale for that image, as you may have noticed. Flyer22 07:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It was my understanding fan board, message boards, non-official sites weren't supposed to be listed under "external links" but there are a bunch in that article. I removed a couple that were blatant this morning. What is the official rule?IrishLass0128 12:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The policy itself is discussed at Wikipedia:External links, which of course is both specific and vague; note #2 (unverifiable research), #11 (forums) and #12 (blogs/personal sites) in the section Links normally to be avoided. I think it's pretty much a common sense thing: a site where anyone can write anything without a source can't be relied upon, and I think your instincts are good. I would argue that there are instances where fan sites or whatever may be notable or useful or of interest, but for the most part the bulk of these sites have limited (if any) encyclopedic value and are increasingly redundant of each other. Good catch! — TAnthony^Talk 15:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)