Jump to content

User talk:Flyer22 Frozen/Archive index

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


  • why can't you keep your nose out of other people's business? I have looked at many articles that have CORRECT TITLE CASE PUNCTUATION. If you have such a problem with a page, just leave it alone and walk away. You don't own Wikipedia so why don't you just leave others alone?Antigone28 17:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • First, your post to me shouldn't be at the top of my talk page...nor should it have such a hostile tone. Second, not once did I state that I own Wikipedia. Third, it is Wikipedia's policy that correct title headings be the way that I keep changing them back to in the EJ and Sami article, not mine...just like this link...[1] showcases. Fourth, those articles, you saw were either all wrong in that regard you mention, or you misunderstood that aspect of those articles. And, finally, if I hadn't gotten to this article when I did and fixed it up somewhat, it would have most likely been speedy deleted by well-respected Wikipedian editors. Flyer22 17:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • If I wanted your help with the article, I would have asked. You are barging in an butting in where you are NOT WANTED. Why is that so difficult for you? You are not the author or co-author of the article so why do you care what goes on on OUR page? You have issues, you truly do. If you want an administrator to be involved, FINE, at that point hopefully they will have YOU back off of our article that we are putting together Antigone28 18:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not your article. Jeez, you have a lot to learn about Wikipedia policies. And I care because I am a Wikpedian editor, and having crappy formatting within articles makes Wikipedia look completely un-professional...and bad, quite bad.

As for your saying that I have problems -- Jeez, the name-calling you spew at editors bettering Wikipedia is truly distasteful. Flyer22 18:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • and the reputation of editors you give is even worse.
  • No, it isn't...because I follow Wikipedia policy, as demonstrated by User:Yamla. And I didn't attack you. You attacked me, when I was only bettering the article.

If you are going to keep throwing out insults at me, then stay off of my talk page. Flyer22 20:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey

An editor has nominated J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. 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 by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey and 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. Thank you. 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. Jayden54Bot 18:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(In response to HD question): I'll start by acknowledging that my personal view of articles about characters from soap operas is that they inherently lack encyclopædic value. But I will put that aside and take these on their own merits or otherwise. With regard to reference sources, I would have to describe Luke Spencer and Laura Webber and your article as to some degree poorly sourced by the standards demanded of a good article. Articles of this nature have to work to prove their worth, perhaps more than – for example – a Physics article or something like that. Your article provides no real-world context – material that establishes what makes these characters notable and valuable outside the confines of the television programme. That is also where "impact" comes in. Think of some highly notable, iconic television characters and look at their articles. Then we come to plot summary, which is pretty much your article in a nutshell – a series of plot summaries that describe what happens to the characters, but does not analyse either them or their circumstances and place that in a wider context. But, bear in mind also that Wikipedia is not an essay depository, so everything must be encyclopædic in the sense that it must be contained within reliable sources. Well, more than reliable – quality, respected, encyclopædic in themselves. Your references should probably not be confined to soap opera magazines and websites. I'm sure you know how to include proper sources, so I won't bore you with that, except to provide one link, as a benchmark: WP:FA. Finally, take note of everything that has been written during that deletion debate, because it certainly applies. You can always ask an editor to explain their comment. Also, I note that DES referenced WP:WAX – that is a very good point, because Wikipedia inevitably has widely varying standards of articles and it is nigh on impossible to deal with them all, either deleting or improving as appropriate. It may seem unfair that one article can survive untouched while another is apparently singled out, but that is really just the luck of the draw. Don't look at the average; look at the best. Adrian M. H. 21:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for all of your great help. I will try to apply all of that into improving my article. And as you suggested, I will also ask DES the same questions as I asked you, but I think you pretty much covered it all. Thanks again.Flyer22 22:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:HD#Need Help On Meaning Behind Certain Context

The Transhumanist    23:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Other spots for the article you created

There are other wikis of a more specialized nature, where such an article might be more welcome. For example the Soap Operas wiki at Wikia. DES (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you, DES. Of course, I'm still working on the article here at the moment, in my Word Processor, and I feel that it can make it here once the right components are in place. I just want to give it a shot, and see how you will respond to it then in considering to let it stay here at Wikipedia. I really appreciate all of your help. Flyer22 18:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Josh and Babe together on a deserted island.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Josh and Babe together on a deserted island.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 16:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:JR, Babe, Josh Love Triangle Screenshot 1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:JR, Babe, Josh Love Triangle Screenshot 1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 16:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Babe's first sight of J.R. after her fake-death..jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Babe's first sight of J.R. after her fake-death..jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Thanks, I'll take a look, though it appears it's already been getting extensive discussion. In terms of joining the WikiProject, yes, just add your name to the Participants list. You can also help by adding the {{soaps}} template to the talkpage of as many soap articles as you can. And, just a tip, please create a userpage. Having your name show up as a bluelink, instead of red, is A Good Thing.  :) --Elonka 23:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  • No, after I downloaded MSN messenger, then I tried to sign up, the page kept going blank. I've been having computer problems lately.

But please feel free to edit the J.R. and Babe article, of course, if you feel the need to as you help me.

  • I've heard of Gmail. Someone wanted to invite me once, because sometimes I couldn't see attached images with my email account on bigstring.com, but I ended up being too busy to accept the invite. Yes, I would love for you to invite me on Gmail. I know that it's an email service, but does it also have some type of instant messenger aspect to it? If it's just about emailing me, I could give you my bigstring email account. Flyer22 00:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay. I'm about to do that now. Oh, and I appreciate what you're doing to contribute to this article. Flyer22 00:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Sure, go ahead and word it whatever way you think is best, and then I'll copyedit as needed. I'm also going to start putting the references into "ref" format. In the top paragraph, I pulled one ref that was to a message board, since we're not allowed to use those. As for the "top 10" list, the ref needs details like date and publisher, so I left those entries blank. --Elonka 04:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD #2

Removed your comment, as I hadn't finished starting the debate yet. Let me explain: in my view, while you have done a lot to improve the article, the previous debate still hadn't settled the issue of whether to keep the article or not (and was unlikely to, as it had become long to the point where new participation would be very limited). Normally when a debate doesn't reach a conclusion, there's a default of "keep" but in this case, the delete side had a clear majority. In some cases on Wikipedia, an article's current state is so bad, it has to be deleted. In other cases, an article topic is deemed inappropriate, and is then deleted regardless of the state. From the debate, I think the appropriateness of the topic is still in question, and I think Wikipedia owes it to you to come up with an answer to that concern as quickly as possible (so that you don't put in even more hard work only to have the article removed)! Let me suggest the following to you for this debate: keep your comments limited. The more you comment, the less others will come to the debate, but it is important that we hear from many people, it's how consensus is formed. (Do please state your own opinion, though!)

For what it's worth, I have the feeling the article will be kept, but there's a possibility people might want to see it merged to a more general article (such as an article on the storylines of AMC). But you never know, which is the whole point of having these debates. :) Oh, and btw, welcome. You might want to try to use edit summaries and the "show preview" button more often - it helps people understand your edits. Mangojuicetalk 17:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Mangojuice. I appreciate your not just deleting the article but rather giving it reason to stay. Flyer22 17:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Whoops! Sorry about that. I was working on the storyline, and evidently you were in there at the same time. I went ahead and saved my version since I'd made many changes and it would have been very time-consuming to splice things. Hopefully your changes can be easily re-added? If not, let me know and I'll fix it, since it was my error. --Elonka 21:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I gotcha. Flyer22 22:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
    • You'd probably know that better than I, since you actually watch the show. Personally, I'm fuzzy on the timeline. I'd recommend adding more dates to show when events happened, and toning down more of the, "This is what the character thought/felt" language, unless you have a clear source for that kind of language. --Elonka 22:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • LOL. Yeah, I'll get the citation for J.R.'s hateful words weighing heavily on Babe's mind. I'm basically trying to leave key themes in with J.R. and Babe's romance that were (or are) mentioned quite frequently in the show between them, like their undying-love status, which is shown through things such as "J.R. wished on a shooting star that their love would never die."

Or Tad commenting on how J.R. and Babe's love is like Tad and Dixie's love, but I just noticed that you removed that part about Tad's comment, which, of course, is certainly fine. You're helping to clean up this article. And it's awesome working with you on this. Flyer22 22:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I probably got tangled up in the pronouns.  :) By all means, you're the expert on the subject, so please fix.  :) --Elonka 23:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
checkY

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

There has been an issue with autoblocks today; it should be fixed now.

Request handled by: —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have reviewed the history of both this editor and User:Amdrummer90, and agree that they are not the same person. The block should be lifted as soon as possible. Flyer, sorry about this! --Elonka 22:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes.
  • Never mind. The template is gone now. I suppose I would have known it would leave after request was granted, if I had been here longer. Flyer22 22:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Deathnote0108LG.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Deathnote0108LG.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Amc11june22.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Amc11june22.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 17:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetical order

No problem. I was just glad to see a properly sourced addition. If you'll look at the edit history on the anti-heroes list article, you'll see that the majority of additions get promptly deleted because they're not linked to appropriate sources. Thanks for contributing. Doczilla 05:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Deathnote0108LG.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Deathnote0108LG.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 15:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)==Orphaned non-free image (Image:J.R. and Babe's introduction as a couple - Image 1..jpg)== Thanks for uploading Image:J.R. and Babe's introduction as a couple - Image 1..jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 06:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Jabe hot pic.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Jabe hot pic.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 06:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Josh B.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Josh B.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 08:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Supercouples

Thanks for the heads-up, I've weighed in. My recommendation is to make a backup copy, and not worry about fighting too hard on all of them at once. Regardless of whether or not the AfD consensus is "delete," the articles can always be re-created later, once there's enough information to reinforce them at a higher standard. --Elonka 17:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for also letting me know! I already voiced my opinion. By the way, I don't know why, but the deletion article for Nicholas Newman and Sharon Collins directs to the Victor Newman and Nikki Reed deletion page--is this on purpose? Miss Burkle 18:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me know if you'd like help making "sandbox" versions? --Elonka 18:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing

I appreciate your enthusiasm for the current AfDs, but please be aware that posting a message on multiple users' talkpages and asking them to participate, is a big no-no on Wikipedia. It's called canvassing, and editors can be blocked for it. In the future, simply post a message or two in various "central" locations such as WP:SOAPS. One or two talkpage messages are probably okay, especially if it's to someone that you regard as a mentor. But posting to a relatively new user and asking them to participate can also run you afoul of WP:SOCK policies, so please use caution. FYI, Elonka 18:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Elonka, I wasn't aware that I had done anything wrong. I wasn't expecting all of the editors I contacted to automatically say "Keep"...I just truly felt that they'd want to weigh in on this matter, which seems to be just rising before we've even had a chance to work on some of these articles, then see what the consensus would be.

I was aware of the sockpuppet policy, but not so much on the canvassing policy. Thank you. I hope no one feels that I was in complete bad faith in contacting everyone as such. I thought about posting a message or two in central location, but ultimately decided to contact everyone individually. I'm sorry for jumping the gun in this way. Flyer22 23:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Time cover

A year or two ago, there was a big discussion about TIME covers and where they should belong. It involved a lot of purging and writing fair use rationales and limiting usage. At one time, the cover was on "Days of our Lives," "supercouple," and "soap opera." After some consensus, we scaled down the picture to make it more fair use-friendly, and limited its use to "soap opera." I think it's best that we leave it just at that one page, for fear that it will be deleted altogether as a misuse of a fair use magazine cover. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    • I did find that recently, someone re-uploaded the picture bigger and clearer, which totally goes against what "fair use" goes for in this jurisdiction. It's not supposed to be 100% as clear as what you would see if it were in your own hands. Not if you want to use it on a website, anyway. I might have to revert to the previous version. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 19:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Penny and Jeff and Doug and Julie

Yes, I think your conclusion is correct. The term "supercouple" did not exist back in the early 1960s, but if we were to judge it now, it would fit. Doug and Julie's time would be when it actually came into being, the word itself. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 02:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you for clearing that up, Mike. I'm going to go ahead and provide the citation in the supercouple article for Doug and Julie being the world's first supercouple. Do you think that we should mention Jeff and Penny at all, or rather that mention isn't needed? Flyer22 02:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I also noticed that the "today" section on supercouple has Lumi and Shelle on there, two couples I would not consider "super" at all. If I had to pick ONE, it would have to be Shelle, only because Ken Corday has said in interview after interview about the show that they're "meant for one another," but even then, there's been horrible fan reaction to them. Usually supercouples are...liked, you know? Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, we need to take care of that. I'm working on somewhat expanding the supercouple article, as I mentioned on your talk page. The supercouple article will be updated some time later tonight or by early morning. New editors just coming in an adding couples to the main supercouple list, without proof of the couple being a supercouple, or when they just aren't a supercouple, is out of hand. As much as I like the J.R. and Babe romance, they shouldn't be on the main list yet, they already have a mention in the Supercouples Today section, alongside Zach and Kendall. Also, someone recently added Sonny and Brenda to the main supercouple list, and while I know that a lot of people considered that pairing a supercouple (though I don't usually watch the show General Hospital), shouldn't we only have a character mentioned within one supercouple on the supercouple list, not two? Are Sonny and Carly more popular than Sonny and Brenda were as a couple? Maybe we should go by that in deciding which of those two couples is removed, or if both should stay on the list. It definitely seems as though Sonny and Carly should stay on this list, their article needs fixing up though. I'll get around to fixing that article up later. Flyer22 04:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • From what I've seen of soap opera magazines, fan-talk, and all-time favorite couples lists by soap opera magazines, it appears that Sonny and Brenda were truly a wildly popular couple, and while I hardly watch that show, I knew of the Sonny/Brenda/Jax love triangle. Flyer22 04:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm really not for adding Sonny and anyone to a supercouple list. A big thing about supercouples is that they really can't have a relationship with another person, because the whole supercoupling thing means "one true love." Sonny has had a billion relationships, and more than one love of his life. Same goes for Brenda. She was hot for both Jason and Jax. Now if the relationships were obstacles to being with the one true love, I'd understand (like Kate with Cord and Tina, Santana with Cruz and Eden), but these were clearly not the case. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 06:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, you are certainly more of an expert on the show General Hospital than I am. As for the one true love bit, yes, that's why I questioned having the supercouple article have a particular character within two couples. I do feel that a person can love another person romantically after the great romantic love of their life, but I don't believe in two true loves. However, I have noticed how Sonny and Carly are considered a supercouple, whether it's by some fans, or official soap opera sites, and how they make the top ten SID couple list often, so I'm not so sure on if they should be removed from the main supercouple list. We'll probably have to endure a slight edit-war where some editors keep putting them back on the list anyhow, but if you want to edit them off of the main list, Mike, I won't put up that much of a protest. Flyer22 06:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


Cristian and Evangeline

hi i need help doing a couple page if theres any way you can help me i would greatly appreciated

Re: Cristian and Evangeline

hey thank you for the offer i really need your help i am very new to editing pages and i dont no what I'm doing so what do i need to do to make the cristian and evangeline page possible with out getting blocked. Thunderclap3000 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I explained some on your talk page. But as of now, I have to search for reliable sources for the Cristian Vega and Evangeline Williamson article. If not enough, or any of the right sources can be found, then the Cristian Vega and Evangeline Williamson article won't be valid in staying here on Wikipedia. Flyer22 04:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair-use

Fair-use images must be used according to their license. Please see WP:FU. For film screenshots, this requires that the image be used to provide substantial critical commentary on the film. You may not use a screenshot from Mr. & Mrs. Smith solely to depict Pitt and Jolie, for example. --Yamla 15:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yamla

You said: "Yamla, I noticed that you reverted my first edit as of the internal-link of Supercouple in the Tom Cruise article. I hadn't noticed before I switched the placement around of the word Supercouple within the See also section of that article, but I just wanted to know why you reverted my first initial edit in concerns to that article? I think that you're the first editor here at Wikipedia to revert one of my edits, which will definitely serve as memorable to me. Anyway, you seem like a great editor, and I'd love to work with you here at Wikipedia at some point as I improve here as a Wikipedian editor."

I checked out the article and from the introduction and the first half, it looked to be solely about soap-opera couples. By the time I realised my mistake, you had already readded the link. So no worries.  :) --Yamla 16:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(More responses on my talk page) --Yamla 16:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hello, Anetode

Hi. The lead paragraphs are completely unreferenced and there is no given etymology for the term. Being unfamiliar to the subject, I was confused upon reading the article. Is this an arbitrary catchphrase? When did it begin appearing in journalism? Why is it applied to real celebrities as well as fictional couples? Etc. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 16:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Oh, so you feel that the term "Supercouple" needs to have some sort of mention as to where it derived from, is that what you mean, Anetode?

I suppose I can find some references as to how it came about, but there's really not much to say on that aspect, except that it came about with a fictional couple being extremely popular way beyond expected (which is referenced), thus being titled a supercouple. As for celebrities, of course, it goes with the public and press having a high amount of interest in particular celebrity couples. I'll add a few more sources there at the top, and see if I need to re-word some of the introduction of that article. Flyer22 17:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. "Supercouple" is basically a neologism, so I am concerned about the inclusion of original research. I see no reason to think that the article is inaccurate in its claims, but I also don't see sources that discuss the term itself (rather than the couple the term is applied to). Note that one of the sources, Associated Content, actually refers back to Wikipedia for the definition of "supercouple". ˉˉanetode╦╩ 17:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Citation for callers

I have it in my book All My Afternoons, published in 1978 and written by Annie Gilbert. Let me find the exact page and passage. Quote as you wish. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 19:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it was actually letters, not callers. It starts on page 112 and continues on page 116. The passage, in its entirety, says:
Meanwhile, off-stage, Susan Seaforth, the actress who plays Julie, and Bill Hayes, the actor portraying Doug, began to develop a romance of their own. At first it was publicized by the soapmill as "just friends," but slowly it developed into a full-scale love affair. One weekend, unannounced except to a few friends, Susan and Bill got married. This set off a commotion among fans, who wrote endless letters to the show asking that the couple also be allowed to get married in the story. If they could get married in real life, so the argument went, they certainly should be able to get together on screen.
The writers resisted the popular pressure, naturally milking the romantic tension for all the audience devotion it was worth. Nothing was ever such a guarantee of good ratings as star-crossed lovers everyone knew belonged together. But finally the producers set the date for the marriage and Days put on one of the most extravagant weddings imaginable on the screen. It was such a soap opera media event that the local L.A. press (Days, along with General Hospital and The Young and the Restless, is produced in Los Angeles) was invited to the studio to watch. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 19:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Santa Barbara

Also, Santa Barbara was a pioneering supercouple show in the 1980s. Cruz and Eden and Mason and Julia were the show's flagship supercouples, with lesser-grade couples following behind them. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 19:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Mike.

Right now, I'm having image problems. Also, User:Anetode stated that a few more sources are needed for the top of the supercouple article as of where the word Supercouple derived from.

As for the passage you just gave me above, we would need a link to the citation for that so we can use it in the supercouple article. Flyer22 19:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Alright. Thanks for letting me know. I still have more to learn as not having been here at Wikipedia longer than some other editors here. I'll get around to it, Mike. Or either you can go ahead and edit it in. Flyer22 20:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Spangel

Yeah, I was having this discussing with User:Zythe a few days ago. I personally think that the two had a drunken one-night stand, and that there is some homoerotic subtext between them. However, I also believe that it was left deliberately ambiguous and that it doesn't belong in the romantic/sexual section because it isn't confirmed. However, Zythe feels that having such high-profile characters such as Angel and Spike included in Wikipedia LGBT studies would be good for social progress and people's expectations, and that not including them as romantic/sexual interests is too vague. If you wish to move them back to "other", be my guest. Oh, and as for the article tag, I asked the editor who it put there to look things over but apparently she's too busy. If you think it's unnecessary to have it there, remove it by all means. :) Paul730 17:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Hmm, I'll address User:Zythe with the same exact message that I approached you with. Zythe probably still won't want to change it, as you've alluded to, but I'll approach Zythe about it anyway.

And, yeah, I feel that it's time that the tag about the topic being in-universe be removed if the topic truly isn't in-universe anymore, but I'll read over the Spike article some more before feeling if one of us should remove it, or just wait for User: Elonka (the editor who tagged it as being in-universe) to evaluate it and see about removing it. Flyer22 08:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose a solution would be to put "Angelus" with only one line mentioning the confirmation of the one-night stand under "romantic", and Angel with the regular blurb about their parallels and rivalries in the "Other" section. ~ZytheTalk to me! 12:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I won't protest too much of Angel/Angelus and Spike being placed in each other's romantic interests section, Zythe. The name of their romantic interests section is Romantic interests and sexual liaisons. And, well, a one-night stand is a brief sexual liaison, in the true definition of a one-night stand, so if you'd prefer that they stay in the romantic interests section of each other's article, I don't protest it that greatly. Flyer22 16:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Updated Supercouple article

Suite 101 is a user-generated content provider, it is not really a reliable source. I am still concerned that the article describes a characterization of the term, a synthesis of many individual mentions of the term from forums and fansites. I found a reference to the term here, in a 1999 book that discusses the Luke & Laura supercouple from the 80s and perhaps a clearer definition here. The problem is that both of these mentions are fairly recent, and there are many uses of the term "supercouple" that do not coincide, or have anything to do with, soap operas (see [2] [3]). There appears to be potential for defining a more limited terminology for use of "supercouple", but that would require cutting a few unreferenced assertions from the article. There's also room for a thorough copyedit. I'll gladly help out with a few fixes, but the bulk of these concerns should be tackled by someone knowledgeable in the field. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 18:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

  • That's some great stuff on the supercouple topic, Anetode. Yes, if you can help with the supercouple article in any way, it will be appreciated. I definitely want to keep the supercouple lists, however. I will see how to go about incorporating the information in which you've provided on this topic within the supercouple article. That's what I was/am tackling within the supercouple article, that the term supercouple is not limited within soap operas, but the soap opera genre is no doubt what was responsible for the term having been coined, starting with the romantic pairing of Luke and Laura. We try to stay away from having our sources come from forums. But as for some of the sources coming from Soap Opera Central, or a source such as the official Days of our Lives site, that seems to be more acceptable, such as the Days of our Lives article, considering that finding mention of soap opera supercouples is a bit difficult without it coming from an official soap opera site, unless that supercouple is like Luke and Laura, Cliff and Nina, Victor and Nikki, Jessie and Angie, or Patch and Kayla. I'll also inform two of the most prominent members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas about what you and I have discussed on this matter. Flyer22 08:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie as Mr. and Mrs. Smith (Main 2).JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie as Mr. and Mrs. Smith (Main 2).JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 16:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Relationships

Just wanted to ask your opinion on something. In the Buffyverse pages, what constitutes a notable relationship (ie, one that deserves mention on the page)? Spike has romantic/sexual and lots of miscellaneous relationships, Willow has romantic and enemies, and other characters only have romantic. Since every character on the show has a relationship of some sort with the other characters, what relationships actually warrant being included on their page? I'm concerned that the articles are going to become very cluttered if we start inluding "other relationships" subsections. For example, Anya has just been added to Willow's 'ships. Does that mean we have to include Buffy, Xander, Giles, and Dawn in that section as well? They have relationships too, after all. Paul730 17:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Hmm, Paul, I'm feeling that a notable relationship should be one that intrigued the audience, but as you state, there also the obvious relationships, of friendship or enemies, for instance, that almost every character on the show has with each other, so I feel that relationships that intrigued the audience...yet are also not the truly "Well, of course" ones, such as Willow, Buffy, and so on are friends should be included. If there is a friends' section and enemies section, then those relationships in which state all the characters' main friends or enemies could be listed. I mean, stating something simple like "The Scooby Gang" could pretty much sum up all of Willow's friends, without getting too much in detail. You've brought up interesting points with this topic, Paul, because, of course, in the enemies section, every major villain that they've fought could be considered an enemy. However, those would be very obvious enemies not really needed to be mentioned within all of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel character sections, therefore only enemies who've had a closer relationship with the character being discussed should be mentioned, as well as friend relationships that are closer than some other friend relationships.

Re: EJ and Sami Page

Hi there. Thank you for your help editing the EJ and Sami page but I'm a little confused as to why you are attempting to make the article neutral when the whole intention of creating it was because of the popularity of the pairing. I can understand an article on EJ or Sami individually being neutral but I just don't see this page as one that is neutral by its very nature. I figured as long as it was factual (fans of the couple have been treated is a correct statement - not all fans consider the storyline a treat but fans of the couple do), it would be fine.

I hope we can establish a balance between what you want and what I think is best for this page. I really do like some of your edits so thank you for your contributions.

  • Hey, thanks. I just read your message after once again changing that section, so I'm sorry if I've been a pest to you in that way.

I understand your take on that, but trust me -- I learned the difficult way of editing a supercouple article on what is supposed to be included, and even in couple articles, neutrality should be included. If something about fans must be stated, it should be in a fan reaction section with a link or a few links validating its claims, or in some instances...it would be mentioned in a section dedicated to all controversy of a storyline, if there's controversy, with links validating its claims as well.

I saw this page you have created and I knew that I had to hurry up and tackle it before an editor proposed its deletion due to how it was originally set up.

I will continue to help out with this article if needed, if you want. Flyer22 15:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi again. Sorry about not signing my message, I didn't know about that. I would still like your help and I appreciate you wanting to help keep the page going since it is my first article on Wikipedia. I was just surprised by your edits in some cases because I've read a lot of stuff on other pages that is not at all neutral - the EJ Wells page is/was very bad for assumptions and speculation being presented as fact. I made a few edits but I think the whole article needs work. I've also seen on other pages references to polls supporting a couple but no reference to said polls was given. I guess I thought with fictional characters, there was a bit more leeway.

I think maybe I'll take your advice and create a fan reaction section or something. I don't have time to do that now but perhaps tonight.

I can get a reference to statistics showing the growth of the fan site for EJ and Sami - would that help lend credibility and neutrality to the stuff about the fanbase growing? Radiantbutterfly 16:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, that would help, but you must be careful linking to EJ and Sami fansites too much. Wikipedia requires that editors provide reliable sources. Also, it would be best that eventually we create a Cultural impact section for the EJ and Sami article, and then some fan reaction centered detail can go there.

As for other articles on Wikipedia not presenting a neutral point of view, yes, some articles definitely need fixing up in that regard. And experienced editors have been coming down with strict concern as to couple articles. They have to be what Wikipedia defines as notable, and more like as seen with this link...[4] to fit with what is required of notable soap opera couples. There are definitely soap opera couple articles here at Wikipedia that need fixing up to meet at least one of these requirements. Talk with you later. Flyer22 16:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • {deleted question - I think I figured it out myself. :) Thanks anyway!}

As for the requirements to fit as a notable couple - EJ and Sami are listed as a couple on many sites, have been referred to as such in Soap Opera Digest, Soap Opera Weekly and they regularly win Most Wanted Couple at a website called "VoteTheSoaps". They have not been referenced in a non-soap magazine or publication that I know of but very few soap couples would comply with that requirement. I am not referring to them as a current supercouple just a popular one with that potential.

Thanks again! Radiantbutterfly 18:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • There is a better editor that can help with the EJ and Sami page. She is going to fix some things for us that are incorrect and tell us what needs to be done.Antigone28 20:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd just like to say that I appreciate any and all help with the article. I may question some of the edits but as long as they are just to ensure the article complies with Wikipedia standards, I have no problem with that as long as an explanation is provided. I hope that we can all work together to create a great article that is informative, as neutral as the topic will allow and that provides references where appropriate. I have noticed that on many couples pages, references are not provided for blanket statements and I would like very much to avoid that mistake with this article. Radiantbutterfly 20:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Radiantbutterfly, for being so much more respectful, and actually taking the time to listen as to what is required of Wikipedia articles, understanding that my interest at Wikipedia is in bettering articles, as well as expanding on and creating articles according to Wikipedia policy.

After all, why keep the EJ and Sami article in a structured state where it can be considered poor, when it can be improved to being better, good, or great? Thanks for listening in concerns to that. Flyer22 21:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Image-Babe Carey -- Main Image.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Image-Babe Carey -- Main Image.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Image-J.R. A.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Image-J.R. A.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Un-dated section: Stuff by a persistent IP

TV pgs

I 'm astonished at the fact that MANY wiki pages exist that shouldn't , while others that shold exist remain non-existant. Here are some that should be created.

Many are American TV writers/novelists/playwrights/producers/directors/media personalities who've been NOTABLE in their chosen profession for more than 10 years & have recieved numerous acclaim in the form of award nominations & wins: Dave vonKleist, The Power Hour, Genesis Communications Network, David Shaughnessy (ex-Executive Producer of Y&R), David Goldschmid (writer on General Hospital), Tracey Thomson (writer on General Hospital), David Hiltbrand, Burton Armus (Emmy nominated writer of NYPD Blue), Neil Landau (writer with many credits to his name), David Schulner, Mathilde Ferro, BigMuscle, dudesnude, hegelian

Robert Mason Pollock, Joan Binder Weiss, Sibyl Gardner, Conal O'Brien, Angela Tessinari, Mary O'Leary, Cynthia M. Jervey, Doris Silverton, Jeanne Davis Glynn, Tim Citrano, Jack Urbont, The Bahler Brothers, David Rupel, Shelly Moore, Mark Teschner (award winning Casting Director of General Hospitall for more than a decade!), Nancy Ford (co-wrote the 1st ep of Ryan's Hope)

Cornelius Crane, Ginger Redmon, Royal Miller, recast, Bruce S. Barry, Lynda Myles, Christine R. Magarian, Josh Reims, Patricia Wenig, Eric L. Roberts (protege of William J. Bel), Nancy Bradley Wiard, Jill W. Newton (ex-casting director of Y&R), Esther G. Hudak, Robert E. Costello, David Robert Kanter, Miriam Trogdon

Josh Reims, Dana Baratta, Patty Lin, Diane Messina Stanley, Michael Berns, Alfonso H. Moreno, Valerie Woods, Peter Frisch, Tony Morina, Tina Andrews, Norma Safford Vela, Doris Quinlan (ex-EP of ABC's AMC), Robert Cenedella, Lyle B. Hill, N. Gail Lawrence, Judy Blye Wilson, James A. Baffico, Michael Eilbaum, Sofia Landon Geier, Richard J. Allen, Johnson-Liff Associates, Robert Soderberg

Dorothy Ann Purser, Elizabeth R. Woodman, Mary K. Wells, Joan D'Inecco (casting director of AMC for about 20 years), John Saffron, Bud Kloss, Jacqueline Babbin, Bill Wolf, Ralph Ellis, Maria Wagner (winner-Best Directing-ATWT-2007 Daytime Emmy), Elizabeth Harrower (wirter), Joseph Behar, Judith Pinsker, John C. Zak, Marlene Clark Poulter, Charlotte Savitz, Joyce Corrington, Steven M. Wasserman

Maria Arena, Story Consultant, David Bennett Carren, Steve Kent (ex-TV producer-Capitol; TV exec for Sony Pictures), Sherman Alexie, Randall Harris, Ana Castillo, Quinn Eli, Robyn Hatcher, Ginger Smith, Robert Scinto, Tracey Bryggman, Samuel D. Ratcliffe, Patti DiZenzo, Caroline Franz, John Kuntz, Paul Lammers, Robert Calhoun, John Boruff, Ron Weaver

William Kelley (wrote the 1st ep of the 82-87 TV series Capitol), Anne M. Schoettle, Corday Productions Inc., Gary Donatelli, Leslie Kwartin, Larry Carpenter, Susan-Sojourna Collier, Grant A. Johnson, Valerie Ahern, Deborah Joy Levine (writer of Any Day Now & Strong Medicine), Randall Caldwell, Stephen Wyman (Soon to be ex-EP of DOOL), Jeff Koz

Julia Jordan, Nina Tassler, John PiRoman, William R. Keates, Michelle Patrick, Nancy Williams Watt, Jill Lorie Hurst, Anna Fricke, Maralyn Thoma (ex-Head Writer of ABC's GH), James Fryman, David Cherrill (ex-Head Writer of Search For Tomorrow), Fred Bartholomew, Jean Arley, George Lehane, Randy J. Robbins, Betty Rothenberg, Marlena Laird

Maxine Levinson (ex EP of OLTL), Jim Sayegh, Nancy Curlee, Hal Corley, Mike Denney (longtime director of Y&R; left in May 2007), Tina McElroy Ansa, Nina Shengold, Marina Alburger, Jenelle Lindsay, Andrea Lee (author of Interested Women), Frank South (writer of Melrose Place, John Fisher (Worked on Y&R for more than a decade. He's the Co-ordinating Producer on the highest rated American daytime drama), Jeanne Glynn, Ellis Marcus, Cindy Jerney Prial

Cathy Coote, Faces of The Heart, William Dale Smith, Alan Pultz, David Smilow, Annamarie Kostura (VP of NBC Daytime; ex-casting director of OLTL), Dave Grusin, David Pressman, Larry Starkey, Jack Turley, A.J. Russell, Marvin Paige, Dwight D. Smith, Peter Brinckerhoff, Carol Saraceno, Bob Bardo

Charles Rosin, Gene Palumbo, John Chambers (longtime writer on The Bold And The Beautiful; left in May 07), Mark St. Germain, Jennifer Crusie, Mary Ryan, Ken Corday, Mark Alton Brown, Anthony Morina (American TV producer/director), Jill Ackles (TV director for more than a decade), Noel Maxam, Sally McDonald, Dean LaMont, Danielle Faraldo, Matthew Diamond (directed a 07 ep of Desperate Housewives; directs about 55 eps of General Hospital each year since 2005), Michael Montgomery, Marnie Saitta

Lisa Leiberman, Selig J. Seligman, Phil Sogard, Robert J. Shaw, Larry Auerbach, S. Michael Schnessel, Mel Brez, Lanie Bertram, Margaret DePriest, Craig McManus, William Ludel (Longtime TV director-at least 20 years), Owen Renfroe, Ron Cates (music composer/TV director on many projects incl. General Hospital, Chris Van Etten, Frances Myers, Leslie Nipkow, Cameron Stracher, Aida Croal, Story Coordinator

Janet Iacobuzio (ex-Head Writer of General Hospital), Casey Childs, Steven Williford, Conson Studios Inc., Rudy Vejar, Judi Ann Mason, Brian Mertes, Betty Rea, Robert Short, Michael Lindsay-Hogg (directed 1st ep of ABC's Loving), Paul Avila Mayer, Marc Beruti, Shannon Bradley, Kevin Kielty, Writer's Assistant, Matthew C. Jacobs

Once again, way too many pages on wiki need to be deleted, while way too many need to be created a.s.a.p. All you have to do is an Internet search on Yahoo on each of the aforementioned names in quotations. (Eg. "William Ludel"). I hope that Wiki can be a much better source of info for all who seek knowledge. Thanks!

Smile

 BIGNOLE  (Contact me) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Neil Landau

Neil Landau

Neil Landau is an American screenwriter, playwright, producer, and director. He has held various positions such as script consultant (Monarch Cove), breakdown writer (The Young & The Restless), and script writer (Don't Tell Mom The Babysitter's Dead). Landau has taught creative writing for the UCLA Extension Writers’ Program. He currently serves as a Visiting Assistant Professor in the MFA Screenwriting Program at UCLA’s School of Film and Television and is a Faculty Advisor for the MFA in Creative Writing Program at Goddard College.

Landau is developing new dramatic programs for Fox TV Studios, Warner Bros. TV, and Avenue Pictures. His TV pilot, WitnessX, was purchased by CBS Corporation. He works as a writer and Executive Consultant under contract for Sony Pictures, Sony Pictures TelevisionInternational, and Freemantle Media.

Television Credits

Directing Credit

  • The Fred Astaire Complex

Theatrical Credits

  • Johnny On The Spot

Awards & Nominations

  • The Fred Astaire Complex: Grand Prize by the California Media Association
  • Etcetera and Intentions: Best Play-L.A. Valley College One-Act Play Festival Bank of America Award for Drama Excellence
  • UCLA: Outstanding Instructor of the Year 1994

External Links/Sources

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flyer22_Frozen/Archive_index&oldid=1190107724"