User talk:JamesB3

Welcome!

Hello, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 12:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Santa Barbara

I think you might need to look at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view guidelines. While Santa Barbara was a memorable show, judgment is not really good for an encyclopedia article. Mike H 01:51, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Well thank you for your comment, but I wasn't even really a big fan of Santa Barbara. The items I put in the article were actual events in the show's history or reactions from most of the fans. If you don't believe me, you can go ask any of the fans how they felt about the last scene of the series. --JamesB3 12:16, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That is true. Believe me, I know. I've watched soaps for over twelve years. However, one fan may not think the same way as other fans do. It's really treading water citing "fans" because not all of them think the same way. I recently got into a bit of an argument...well, I don't think it was an argument, because no one was angry...about whether the '91 to '95 stint of Michael Malone at OLTL was a "renaissance" or not. A lot of fans thought so, but it doesn't make it fact if other people can disagree with it. Anyway, the whole point of that is to differentiate between what can be misconstrued as opinion rather than fact. I'm not trying to be mean or anything like that, I'm just saying what the guidelines are for factual reporting. It's usually best to avoid "fans" as sources in articles anyway, unless it's reported in, say, Soap Opera Digest (like most of the stuff in the article for Jill Phelps). Mike H 02:28, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Don't mention OLTL to me, LOL, I spent 3 hours writing a lengthy history and update of OLTL that disappeared as soon as I hit the wrong key. But as for Malone, I think that it's safe to consider that era a "renaissance" because the show won more major awards than they had in over a decade, and a majority of fans do consider many of the characters of that era special. Just compare the Malone characters and their current status on the show (he created Nora, Todd, Blair, Kelly, etc.) and the people created during the wretched Jill Farren Phelps era or the Gary Tomlin era. Now his last return was a disaster, and I will note that if I ever have the guts to do another update, but I think that (although I'm not really a huge OLTL fan -- my soaps of choice were usually ATWT, GL, AW) it's not inaccurate to say many fans consider the early 90's OLTL a renaissance.

I do think sometimes I go too far in talking about fan reactions, but that's the problem with daytime. There is so little press coverage or natinal debate that really all we can go on to gauge shifts in a series is viewer opinion. For instance, there's no doubt that even if a few dozen fans will tell you they hated Maureen Bauer, that most people consider her death the beginning of the end for Guiding Light. Anyway, I appreciate your advice and I will try to explain the positions a bit better. I'm glad someone else on here is interested in the soaps, because at times I think I'm alone. --JamesB3 12:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

When I first got here in June, there was absolutely NOTHING (or next to nothing) on soaps. The article on Another World was a pithy little stub. I wrote that one up and nominated that for Featured Articles within five days (it failed, due to the fact that some of the pictures, although they could be used as "publicity", were taken out of fan magazines, which is shaky use). I don't know what to replace them with, so I've kept them there. Two pictures I did replace with fair-use screencaptures, which are allowed. Anyway, see Category:Soap opera actors? I created that one, and filled it up with lots of the articles I wrote. There are over 350 articles in that category right now. I wrote up Coronation Street and nominated it for Featured Articles, and got it on the front page. There are a few other soap contributors that you might want to know about. Juppiter and Sterntreiber help me out on at least a weekly basis, if not daily. RickK and Lucky 6.9 also help where they can, although their expertise is limited to ABC shows (if I'm not mistaken, Rick really liked AMC and RH and Ralph's wife watched AMC for, like, 30 years). Mike H 17:43, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to say that no one else here cares about soaps. I guess since I can't post photos (my computer's too shabby) and only found the place a month or two ago I haven't gotten into finding all the people and their various favorite soaps. I tend to focus more on the individual decisions that led each show to rise or fall, and on trivia and other tidbits, whereas I know others may prefer just to write a basic history. That's why I wind up overrelying on the "some say" or "fan reaction". I do thank you for all the work you and others have done and for the expertise you have in navigating this site. Hopefully I won't clutter the place up and I can add some sort of unique contribution. --JamesB3 19:59, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're doing a good job, too. I find all of your edits to be quite agreeable. Mike H 22:51, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Noughties

Is that a word? I haven't ever heard it before. I guess it's better than calling it the "zeroes", like I do. Mike H 23:26, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Soap history

Juppiter listed History of As the World Turns (1956-1959) on VFD. Please vote. Mike H 01:55, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Heather Wilson edits

I'm actually not debating the factual content of the article - the material you added DID happen, and it's factually accurate, to the best of my knowledge. It's the manner in which it was written which I took issue with (and which I wanted to draw other contributor's attention to in order to balance my own POV). "no less than Howard Stern" for example, makes a qualitative judgement about Stern which may or may not be out of place in the context of the article. I didn't intend "POV" to be a pejorative term or to suggest that you were intentionally contributing in a POV manner. We each have a POV, and it's through the multiple editing process that the best articles come out. I left the article in a manner in which I feel comfortable, but wanted to draw attention (yours and other contributors) in order to improve the article in any way possible. If you've got a specific question about one of the edits I made to the language, by all means let me know. Thank you for adding the more recent material for Wilson - it does make the article more than the bio-stub it was before. Let me know if you have a question on anything, and thanks for the message about my edits. I always like working with other wikipedians on articles. Cheers. --ABQCat 04:37, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. I see "POV" used as a reason for editing so often, and sometimes bandied about like a four-letter word, so I wasn't sure what your intent was when you mentioned the POV. I understand now, and I apologize if the entry was too hyperbolic. --JamesB3 05:58, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Soap template

I saw that the soap opera template was removed from the Love is a Many Splendored Thing article without an explanation. Can you explain why? Mike H 21:31, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Do you mean the double parenthesesAmericanSoapsdoubleparentheses thing?

I removed that because for whatever reason, around the time I was editing the page, the template was displayed on the main "Love" page in a sloppy/erronous fashion, crowding the entire page, causing paragraphs to be out of whack and bleed into each other, and making the article difficult to read. Maybe that was just something wrong with the site for a few days, a bug, I don't know. I'll put it back. I'm sorry, I forgot I removed it. --JamesB3 02:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You don't have to, actually. I removed all the canceled soaps from the template, and I will remove the template from the canceled soaps' articles today or tomorrow. Mike H 16:53, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

OK. If I may ask -- why were you curious as to who had deleted the template, if you were going to delete it? --JamesB3 19:34, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on it before I asked you about it. I figured, afterwards, why inquire if the template's really too long as it is? Mike H 23:12, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Blocking

hi. I didn't block you, but the IP adress of an anonymous user vandalizing Wikipedia. It seems you shared the same IP adress (are you using AOL?). Let me (or another admin) know which IP adress is blocked, and I will unblock it. Sorry very much for the inconvenience -- Chris 73 Talk 11:35, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Here's the IP

152.163.101.11

--JamesB3 05:41, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hello. Please provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy edits. Hyacinth 02:10, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

article on Larry Kramer

I was looking at something that I belive that you recently added (excuse me if I have the wrong person).

I happened to be at Kramer's address to the community (I'm a friend of his nephew) and I don't think that I heard him say: "...AIDS was created as part of a long-range plan by the government...". I was thinking that changing "created" to "used" would better capture his point, but I wanted to first see if you have a different recollection.

Best regards, Morris 17:57, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

I changed the wording to "exploited". --JamesB3 22:17, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I concur that "exploited" reflects the meaning of what Kramer said. Morris 02:41, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Soap article policy proposal

Since you edit soap articles, I figure you might be interested in the policy proposal I've brought up on the talk page for the Soap WikiProject. If you haven't done so yet, be sure to sign your name on the regular page, noting that you support the work in such a project. Mike H 07:48, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Ad

I think I had the most problem with "Monday - Friday." We aren't supposed to be promoting when to watch programming on SoapNet through any article, not even SOAPnet. I wouldn't have a problem saying something like "Anne Heche's portrayal of Vicky and Marley is currently being rerun on SOAPnet", but nothing really more in-depth than that (for example, the AW article already says the episodes are on 1989). Mike H 15:47, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I put Monday-Friday because Anne is pretty much on every episode - she worked constantly in the 4 years she was on the show. But I can see how it may come across as being spammy. I will put the new version without the Monday-Friday tag. --JamesB3 16:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Articles on Gavin Lambert and Nick Adams

Hi James, I saw you adding some useful information to my new article on Gavin Lambert. May I ask you to have a look at the Nick Adams page, too? There is an edit war going on, not only on the Lambert page, but also on some other pages. For instance, I have included two additional passages in the article on Nick Adams, but User:Wyss and his alter ego User:Ted Wilkes have repeatedly deleted this text. It's the same strategy as in the Lambert article to suppress the assertions that some Hollywood stars may have been gay. Interestingly, both users seem to take turns in doing repeated reverts in order to delete what I have written, presumably to escape violation of the three revert rule. See Nick Adams, history. To my mind, both users are identical. They seem to use different IP addresses, which is possible, as in the past, User:DW, another of the many aliases of Wyss and Ted Wilkes, had repeatedly been banned. Significantly, a user has written on the User:Elliot page (one of the aliases of DW):

Isn't it amazing how much Elliot's contributions mirror DW's and Ron Davis's. Same refusal to answer questions. Same insistence that he is always right. Same vicious rudeness to anyone who dares to question his judgment. Maybe we could call them the Blessed Trinity, or maybe 'The Popes', given they seem to believe in their own infallibility.

This sounds as if it has been written against users Wyss and Ted Wilkes. See also the history of the User:Ted Wilkes page. Erroneously, Wyss has also contributed to that page. See [1]

Be that as it may, I have added these two passages to the Nick Adams page:

1. At about the same time Adams was also a close friend to Elvis Presley. This is confirmed by Red West, member of the 'Memphis Mafia' (pals and employees of Elvis), and Judy Spreckels, the platonic girlfriend of Elvis in the early days of the singer's career.

What is wrong with this passage? It should be added that there are photographs showing Elvis together with Adams. So it is quite clear that Adams and Elvis had been close friends at that time. See [2] and [3] Their friendship must be mentioned in the article. It is part of Adams's biography.

2. According to several sources, Adams had homosexual leanings. In his 2004 biography Natalie Wood: A Life, Gavin Lambert writes, "Her first studio-arranged date with a gay or bisexual actor had been with Nick Adams..." In 1972, Sal Mineo stated that Adams told him that he had a big affair with James Dean. The book Elvis: The Hollywood Years (David Bret, 2002) even claims Elvis Presley was intimate with Adams. That the singer had an affair with Adams is also confirmed by Elvis's stepmother, Dee Presley. However there are no court records, contemporary letters or statements attributed to Adams to support the rumours that Adams was homosexual.

It is quite clear that the reputed biographer Lambert, who also worked for many years as a Hollywood screenwriter, was a lifelong friend of Wood's. He was deeply involved in Hollywood's gay scene and must have known that Adams had homosexual leanings. It is also a fact that gay actor Sal Mineo was in close contact with both Adams and Dean. It should also be noted that in the Hollywood world Adams is more widely known for his contacts and affairs with other well-known stars than his acting career. So his affairs with James Dean and Elvis Presley are of much importance and should be mentioned in the article, but user Wyss/Ted Wilkes frequently deletes such additions to the Nick Adams article.

In my opinion, the last sentence, written by Wyss, is not necessary as many Hollywood homosexuals did not "out" themselves, but I am willing to make this concession to user Wyss. I have only cited what is written in independent books and articles (see Talk:Nick Adams). I think this is in line with the Wikipedia guidelines, as administrator User:Ed Poor said:

unless an assertion is utterly uncontroversial, it's going to need some back-up. Especially, if one of more contributors challenge the assertion. Then, it's better to move the disputed passage to the article's associated talk page.

A good way to deal with disputed ideas is to attribute an assertion to a source. Like:

Nick Adams says James Dean screwed Natalie Wood while Elvis watched (note: this is a made-up example); or,

Nick Adams says Elvis Presley paid X to cover up his homosexual affairs with Y and Z (another made-up example)

Note the common theme here. Wikipedia is not saying Adams [in the made-up example] is right, it's merely passing along his claims clearly attributed to him.

I think I have accurately cited my sources. In addition, gay biographer David Ehrenstein, who has written a book on Hollywood gays, sent me an email in which he confirmed the assertion that Adams was gay (see Talk:Nick Adams). As an expert, he must have used several sources which prove that Adams had homosexual leanings. I am the person involved in this edit war who frequently cites different sources which all prove that Adams was gay, and Wyss/Ted Wilkes is the person who is constantly disparaging these sources - in lack of further evidence supporting his view. Indeed, user Wyss is unable to cite any sources which undoubtedly prove that Adams was heterosexual. I don't know what else I can do. May I ask for help? 80.141.183.104 00:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Primary candidates VFD

Many of the candidates for the June 14, 2005, congressional primary have been proposed for deletion. I am writing those who worked on election articles to request that they offer their votes against the proposal. The VFD's can be found starting at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_8#Peter_Fossett. It is my view that we ought to provide a complete record of the election and my deleting so called "minor" candidates we do a disservice to them and the historical record. Please vote against all these proposals.PedanticallySpeaking 14:54, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I see PS has already pointed them out to you, but for the sake of fairness and consistency I'd like to point out to you two other VfDs that you seem to have missed at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Arthur Stanley Katz and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jeff Sinnard. -R. fiend 02:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for sources

I note that in the Gavin Lambert article you inserted "He became Ray's lover for a period of time." Could you please clarify this in the article as to whether it is a statement by Lambert himself or if by another source. For either one, would you please cite your source. In that same edit you also inserted "He named Mart Crowley executor of his estate." In keeping with the Wikiquette guidelines, would you kindly advise me or directly cite in the article your sources for this information. Thank you. Ted Wilkes 23:14, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Ted, he seems to have shared the information about Ray in his '04 biography on Natalie Wood. It's mentioned here. As for the information on Crowley, I think that was in the New York Times obituary. If you think I'm wrong then feel free to delete what you want.

Many thanks for your help. I'll touch up the article tomorrow according to the (convoluted) mention in the Guardian and delete the executor appointment until we can verify it. Please check the article tomorrow to be sure you are satisfied with my edit. I'll also look for it, but if you find that NYT reference, be sure to reinsert it. Thanks again. Ted Wilkes 01:11, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Schmidt and Hackett

I've reworked the Schmidt article re the general election. I'd appreciate your comments on both candidates at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jean Schmidt/archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer review/Paul Hackett/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 19:22, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Jean Schmidt

Thanks for your praise on my peer review. I've submitted the article as a FAC and would appreciate your vote at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jean_Schmidt. PedanticallySpeaking 17:06, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Jean Schmidt

Thanks for your praise on my peer review. I've submitted the article as a FAC and would appreciate your vote at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jean_Schmidt. PedanticallySpeaking 17:09, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

One Man's Family - TV help

I just created a new page for One Man's Family and in the process of writing it I realized just how popular and long running the show was. If any of you were fans of the show, or frequently edit/create TV pages, please consider going to the page and seeing how it looks to you. Thanks. --JamesB3 12:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Breyer

The "Must be nice" reference was to Roberts getting to enjoy seniority on his first day in office. I was not irritated at all. In fact, I appreciated that your edit summary explained so well why you were making the edit, and I wanted to explain my revert fully as well. Keep up the good work, I have seen you doing quite a few good edits too. :-) NoSeptember 11:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Of course I see what you meant now. Thank you for the compliment. I wrote up a short entry on the "Ginsburg Precedent" for the Ruth Bader Ginsburg artricle, since no one else had. If you have a chance, I hope you can take a look and see if there are any mistakes or errors in what I wrote. And good luck with the Edith Jones pick, although for some reason I think he will go with Luttig. --JamesB3 11:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Stephens

Would it be possible to get another source for this death? You see, the church page makes no mention of Stephens career. Although there seems to have been a Perry Stephens on Loving, one cannot be sure from the available evidence this is the same person. Also, the IMDb doesn't know the actor is dead, and I had trouble finding a Google press report. Thanks, Xoloz 07:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll include another link. I didn't include the TV Guide Soap News link because I don't know how long the information will stay up there, but since this would be viewed more as a source. I'll include it on the recent deaths page. [4]

Perry Stephens is the one and same Perry who appeared in Loving and the Bold and the Beautiful. Originally from Alabama, I sat next to his step-mom and dad as they were flying from Houston to Alabama for his funereal. It is my understanding that Perry contracted a disease while on location for a production in the Phillipines and had been ill for over a year and a half. He was buried in Annistion, Alabama.

Irna Phillips

Hi there,

I noticed that you have worked on a few soap opera related article and I wanted to tell you that I have nominated the article on Irna Phillips for a peer review as well as nominating it for biographical colaboration of the week. If you could take a look at the article and see if you might be able to fix up anything or can think of something to add that would be great.

thanks Dowew 01:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you. I just saw that you can created the These Are My Children page, i didn't notice that you had seconded the nomination :)

Please, I'm not bothered! What do you think of the These Are My Children page? I'm glad you nominated the Irna Phillips entry, I hope others appreciate the work you did. --JamesB3 10:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I liked your These Are My Children article, I am wondering though what site (or probably book) you utilized to find the cast info. I only learned about the show from the book "Prime Time, Prime Movers" which is where I found much of the info I added into Irna's article. I wonder if that show was ever recorded, although I guess its unlikely as it was cheap entertainment broadcast live. 129.100.49.217 19:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC) - Sorry, I was working at school and didn't realize that I had been loged off Dowew 04:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I got the cast info from Soap Opera Encyclopedia, by the late Christopher Schmering. I will add that to the page when I can.--JamesB3 10:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hanoi Jane

I just wanted to say that I hate jane Fonda (if I ever saw her I'd want to throw my beer at her, to me she commited treason), and thats why i didn't personally spend the time to work on her page. I did however appreciate your comments, and agree that people who have time to criticise also have time to do research, and work on the article. It would have been pretty cool if User:Jimbo, or that op-ed guy had decided to come on down and do some work on the article, instead of just complain. Anyways, I just wanted to thank you for your 'edit the damn page already' attitude, it is one I can respect and agree w. Sam Spade 03:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. I appreciate your honesty, and I can't blame you, she elicits strong feelings. It was more the horror and histrionics over the page by some people who seemed to think they could do nothing to fix the page that baffled me. --JamesB3 09:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Biography

Template:Infobox Biography has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Infobox Biography. Thank you. DreamGuy 07:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion vote

Greetings, James!
In the VFD on Peter Fossett you supported my position to preserve the article, which was on a candidate for Congress in Ohio. Several of the candidates whose articles were deleted I put on a special "minor candidates" page, which is now up for deletion as well. I wonder if you would offer your comments there. It is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ohio second congressional district other candidates. PedanticallySpeaking 17:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mitt Romney

James,

I saw that you have edited this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney

This page is the #2 site that comes up when doing a "Mitt Romney" google. In my opinion, it is better than any other Mitt Romney article. However, it is not very comprehensive. I'm trying to make something more like a Mitt Romney book, instead of a Mitt Romney Article. The website is here:

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/

I examine many additional topics, but I want more perspectives than just my own. I would like you to help contribute, if you would like. Just e-mail me at: mike.laub@gmail.com, and I will give you the password!

Until we get more people working on it, I would like to keep the password a secret. I do not have enough time to correct graffiti.

Deletion debates of a few supercouples within the scope of Wikipedia: WikiProject Soap Operas

A few articles within the scope of Wikipedia: WikiProject Soap Operas have been nominated for deletion. But this is before we've gotten around to truly improving these particular articles. At this rate, if these articles are more so targeted because they are soap opera couple articles, I find it very off, given that these articles are a work in progress. I was hoping that you could lend your voice on this matter in their deletion debates, as I will contact all participants of Wikipedia: WikiProject Soap Operas to weigh in on this matter as well. I do not believe that getting rid of these or any supercouple articles on Wikipedia is the answer, improving them is.

So far, I know of three true supercoupe articles nominated for deletion:

Alan Quartermaine and Monica Bard

Victor Newman and Nikki Reed.

Nicholas Newman and Sharon Collins. Flyer22 14:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor characters

Hi. Thanks for the extra updates you've done to the list. Just a few suggestions (pointers maybe) - please can you use British words (fall is not used here), and I think it is probably best to just abbreviate characters to their first names (where obvious), but obviously link using the proper article name. Cheers :). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 10:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate the tips. I'm still new to this type of editing, so what you say is a big help. Thanks for all the work you're doing on the Hollyoaks pages, especially the minor character page. --JamesB3 (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem :). As I said on the main Hollyoaks talk page, I'm going to see in the next few weeks if I can start consolidating down some of the other character pages. I'm sure it says somewhere that character pages should try and tie into the real world, and shouldn't be a day-by-day account of what happened (Wikipedia is not a fan site basically). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 10:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do that sometimes, type what happens to them day by day, probably because I think I can just go back and edit later on. You're right, that probably isn't right for Wikipedia. I know there are a few pages that are too thin though, like Zak's, I will try to work on his page. I added a few new people to the minor characters list, I hope that's OK. I don't plan on putting small parts like a judge or a customer in a pub, but parts that were in a few episodes or had some minor impact on the story, I thought that would be OK. --JamesB3 (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to ask my permission to add characters to the page - I don't exactly own it :). And yes, we don't want general nobodies on the page, but minor characters who played some part in the story line, or are mentioned in other character's pages (so they can then be linked to her). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 11:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm glad we are on the same page with which characters to submit. --JamesB3 (talk) 11:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Thanks for your great work on the minor characters page - it is looking really good now. Just a point about spelling - please can you use British spellings (apologise instead of apologize) on that page since it is about British show. Cheers :). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 17:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'll remember that. Thanks.--JamesB3 (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Again, thanks for all your work on the minor characters page - it is looking really good now! Just an opinion of mine, but rather than specifying exactly when a character was in the show, it is probably just best to say which month it was. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 12:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did as you suggested for the characters who made multiple appearances. For the characters who were only in one episode, I think maybe leaving that date only is better, because I don't want to imply they were on the show throughout a month if they only had a day, but if you think they should be changed to month only, then I can see your point and understand if you want to make that change. --JamesB3 (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they were just in for one episode, then the date should be fine. I was thinking for ones that were in slightly longer, that was all :). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 18:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kieron Hobbs

What do you think to this? ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 08:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what HEC is either. As you said, the Kieron page was originally nominated for deletion by another poster, and if not for the minor characters page, there wouldn't even be an entry on Kieron. I don't really know what to say. I think that his story for the next few months would tell us whether he should be a main character or not. --JamesB3 (talk) 09:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I guess we'll just have to see how it plays out. By the way, did you see my proposition? Any chance you could comment on it? Cheers. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 10:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think I'm going to worry. It appears that the user who left that "essay" on my talk page hasn't even been back to Wikipedia since they left it. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 22:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Patrick Sherry

I have nominated Patrick Sherry, 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/Patrick Sherry. 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. Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor characters

Hey JamesB3. Just a quick point - I think we should decide on a criteria for "minor" characters. I noticed you added a few characters recently that I think are minor minor roles, and probably not really necessary on Wikipedia. People like judges and barristers and police officers that only have a few appearances probably don't need to be included. Anyway, I'd like to hear your thoughts on it. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 06:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought since they were in several episodes and the trial was important, I'd include them, but I do see your point. If you think they and some of the other characters who made only quick appearances as doctors or salespeople are too minimal to have an entry, then you can remove them. --JamesB3 (talk) 07:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't want to undermine your efforts by not saying anything beforehand :). I guess they are quite important (as they were part of the trial) but they aren't really referenced by any of the other characters, and don't really have much of a backstory aside from those small parts. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 07:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking beforehand, I do appreciate that. I know what you mean, and if you think they should be removed, I can understand. I think on the Eastenders pages for minor characters, they sometimes have a list at the very bottom of that year for characters who weren't worth their own entries, but were included in a quick sentence. We could do that. Or we could remove them entirely. --JamesB3 (talk) 08:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a bulleted list of minor minor characters would probably be more appropriate. Maybe even the date that they appeared on screen too, but nothing too "full on" :). ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 08:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea. Do you want to work that part out? Or you could do the first few, to show how it's done, and I could put the rest. --JamesB3 (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I think I've got a "structure" set up and I've done all the characters I consider "minor minor" on the past characters list page. Take a look and see what you think. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 14:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good to me. I will try to add Spike to the minor characters page later. I think that's the last of the character pages who would be minor characters, isn't it? --JamesB3 (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. I've also moved Melissa Hurst into the minor characters page as her page is currently up for an AfD, and that is probably the only way to save it. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 09:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your message on the Hollyoaks 2008 minors and other minor character pages; I'm gutting the whole section and rerouting ala EastEnders and Emmerdale. So there will be some redirecting. Conquistador2k6 14:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tense

Please note that all plot information should be in eternal present. These are fictional people, so using the past tense does not make sense, as they don't actually "die" (for example), because they always are alive in their episodes. I will be reverting your recent changes where you have changed tense and would be grateful if you don't change more tenses. Please also use edit summaries.--UpDown (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the profiles I've seen for characters have been written in past tense, but I'll keep your suggestion in mind. Thanks. I will also remember to use edit summaries. --JamesB3 (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC) --JamesB3 (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed many are in the past tense, but please see WP:TENSE - "Works of fiction are generally considered to "come alive" when read. They exist in a kind of perpetual present tense, regardless of when the fictional action is supposed to take place relative to "now." Thus, generally you should write about fiction using the present tense, not the past tense.". Thanks.--UpDown (talk) 08:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Lambert

Sorry I had to revert your edit to Paul but I did so for the following reasons. You reverted my changes to the lead - I had changed this to reflect he has now left the show, so I don't understand why this was changed. The quotes about Jonny's return are on Jonny's page, where they belong, and aren't really needed here. There is no need for a seperate section "Departure", and that level of detail about the flowers/airport etc is over the top for an encylopedia. We must try and keep these are encyclopedic - otherwise it makes some people more tempted to put them up for deletion or merger.--UpDown (talk) 08:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to revert the changes to the lead, I was going by the version before you updated, and I hit post again before I saw the edit conflict. I'm sorry about that. I see what you mean about being too over the top, but maybe we could consider at least putting a cut down version of the part in where Paul finds out the truth and confronts Val? I was also going to ask if we could put separate titles for his stories, so it wouldn't all be cluttered together. --JamesB3 (talk) 08:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest the text is not long enough for different sections - and nor should it be for a character who only appeared for just over 4 years. It looks far more encyclopedic having just a "Character history" section, rather than several different sections. With an article like Pauline Fowler, seperate sections for character history is understandable, for a character that appears for 4 years, its not necessary. We need to try and keep the article concise, otherwise as I say above, some editors like merging saying its not "encyclopedic" etc. How he actually finds out the truth is probably too much detail, afterall its only about 10 minutes of Paul's entire screen history. But I'll put in a bit about forgiving Val etc.--UpDown (talk) 08:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now edited the lines about his departure. What do you think? It now also links to Pam Montclare, where what happended is described in full detail (as is needed for her).--UpDown (talk) 08:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think it looks just right, concise but still gets the point across. Thank you for updating. --JamesB3 (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good. You were right, it did need a bit more detail!--UpDown (talk) 08:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 10)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 10). 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 Wikipedia:Notability and "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/Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 10). 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) 01:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello JamesB3! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 331 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Eunice Groark - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Billy Tauzin III - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ann Jackson

Hello James, I am wondering if you can remember what the source of the information you added in this edit to the Mary Ann Jackson article was? We have received an email through WP:OTRS contesting the information concerning Jackson's death. Skomorokh 10:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the information and started a thread at WP:BLPN#Mary Ann Jackson; could you weigh in there? Thanks, Sandstein 21:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lesson to be learned from this, that will prevent you from having difficulty down the line. Months or years from now, someone is going to turn around to you and ask you what source you had for, say, this edit or this edit. You're going to be unable to remember, and the content is going to be removed from the encyclopaedia wholesale as a consequence. (It wouldn't be the first time that an accrued plot summary was challenged on verifiability grounds. And it wouldn't be the first time that in-universe content about fictional stuff that no-one could actually prove after the fact was removed wholesale.) Cite sources as you go along. If you want your content to stick, make it checkable by others who come upon it. Uncle G (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Soap Operas alert

As a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas, and in accordance with the appropriate notification in deference to canvassing, I am alerting your attention to several current discussions for deletion pertaining to soap opera characters. This is an invitation to participate in the discussion. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 19:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Gay Soap opera characters

Is the SA soap opera notable though? I'd imagine you would be able to find one source. I know it seemed a bit like I chose your edits to revert - when there is quite a few entries filled with in universe storyline development - but now it is a little more controlled, we should atleast work to add any new information the correct way. EastEnders' entries on that page kind of set what it should look like. As for your other question, yes, include any gay characters in soap - but be careful about the description you give. What the page shouldn't be turning into is another storyline guide. I'll make an edit to it now and show you what I mean.RaintheOne ^BAM 02:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is fine. :) Well, if you added sources - I doubt anyone could refute that, they shouldn't be able to remove it.. However, as I said above, without sources I wouldn't make any claims other than adding the character and actor names for the soap you mentioned.RaintheOne ^BAM 02:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of soap operas with LGBT characters may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of soap operas with LGBT characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Bowe. 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) 10:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, JamesB3. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, JamesB3. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 1 Day With

The article 1 Day With has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable show that breaks WP:GNG. I was unable to find multiple significant coverage this show needed. The only source attached is a site that presents it's biography, which does not establish any notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Athena Starwoman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Athena Starwoman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athena Starwoman until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sgerbic (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]