User talk:Rocksey
Thom Bierdz and Phillip Chancellor III
Hi Rocksey. I work for the production company. Mr. Bierdz is back to play PCIII. I can't give too much away regarding the developing storyline but it will be revealed shortly that Thom Bierdz will assume his old role. Some history will be re-written. These items should appear in the mainstream press later this week. Watch for a few more "blasts from the past" to re-join the show in the coming months. Celtix7 (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Silly deletion nominations (of images)
I reported it under the title
Ethan Lovett
Hey, thanks for your adds to the article ... by chance do your Soaps in Depth mags have anything on the actor Nathan Parsons himself? That article is also up for deletion ... Thanks again! — TAnthonyTalk 08:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, some of the articles have information on Parsons. I'm not sure what's important for an actor article so here are the scans [1], [2], and [3]. I'm still looking for sources for the Lovett article. I might have enough for a little bit of a reception section. Rocksey (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
File:Stacy Haiduk as Patty Williams.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered,
Let me know if you object to any new main image I upload of her. I am not fond of the current main image in her article, and feel that it is a little too cutesy to represent a vixen (that outfit in particular); I feel the same about the current
- I don't have any objection to a new image for the article. Why do you have a problem with the image of Greenlee Smythe? Rocksey (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Too cutesy, like I stated above, LOL. Another editor felt the same way about it, as seen in my #3 archive about that image.
- Too cutesy, like I stated above, LOL. Another editor felt the same way about it, as seen in
- As for the Chloe image, I felt you would not necessarily object to the idea of a new image...but may object to a particular image (as in however the image looks, of course). If you do not like any new main image I upload for Chloe, I am just saying let me know; I would definitely be okay with compromising. That goes for any television-related article we have both been involved in. talk) 04:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)]
- As for the Chloe image, I felt you would not necessarily object to the idea of a new image...but may object to a particular image (as in however the image looks, of course). If you do not like any new main image I upload for Chloe, I am just saying let me know; I would definitely be okay with compromising. That goes for any television-related article we have both been involved in.
- Really? I always thought it depicted all of the different sides of the character (strong, independent, sassy, girly) well.
- As for the Chloe Mitchel image, I'll let you know if I have any objections to it. Rocksey (talk) 06:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Okay. And since you like the current Greenlee image, I could ask you your opinion on any image I am thinking of replacing it with, if you would like. talk) 07:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)]
- Okay. And since you like the current Greenlee image, I could ask you your opinion on any image I am thinking of replacing it with, if you would like.
- As for the Chloe Mitchel image, I'll let you know if I have any objections to it. Rocksey (talk) 06:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Luke Spencer and Laura Webber, Part 2
So...do you want to start fixing up that article now, since it is up for deletion? Or wait and see how the deletion debate goes first; if it is deleted, simply recreate it (without all that plot, of course) and fix it up then?
- The article has been removed from the deletion debate upon request, but it is probably best that we start fixing up that article really soon. There are other articles I have been focused on lately, and I know the same goes for you, but this article needs our focus more. talk) 17:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)]
- I agree. We really need to get on this. I've gathered a good deal of information on the creation and writing of the couple, so I can start on that and hopefully have something written up in a day or so. Rocksey (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Good. I will pitch in when I get a good chance to. Right now, I am about to add more to the Supercouple article article, and tweak it some more, before someone tries again to take that article down (no matter the plenty of reliable sources in it backing things up). talk) 19:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)]
- Okay, I have started on the article. It is tricky to add to the Writing section without knowing what you are typing up/going to add to it, so I only started that off with a little bit. The Cultural impact section has more. I will let you focus on the Writing section for now, and I will add to it after seeing your additions. In the meantime, I may focus more on the Cultural impact section. When AniMate gets back from his vacation, I plan to ask him if he would not mind cutting down on the article's plot; he is most definitely good at trimming plot sections. We would have three different editors focusing on three different parts of the article, which is good and may make this process go faster. talk) 08:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)]
- It looks great! I'm sorry I'm taking so long in getting my stuff together. I'll definitely have it up tonight. I'm thinking the rape will need it's own subsection inside of Writing. Rocksey (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. I should be the one apologizing for having taken so long to fix up this article after having been the one to ask you to collaborate on it with me and when you were ready months ago. talk) 23:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)]
- Good work on the Writing section, as expected, even though I know you have a lot more to add to it (if you are planning on having a subsection about the rape, as you indicated above). I, of course, have a lot more to add to the Cultural impact section. I went ahead and asked AniMate about trimming the plot section, since he is currently editing Wikipedia a little bit while on vacation. talk) 00:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)]
- Thanks! I'm still going back and forth on how to format it all. There is information on the rape which could go in the writing and some that could go in the reception, so I'm not sure if they should all go in the same place or if I should split it up between the writing and the reception. I also wish I could find more on the times General Hospital revisited the rape with first Lucky and then Lulu. Rocksey (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Considering that some of it is about the reception of the rape, I would say they should definitely be split up. You certainly would not be in my way in the Cultural impact section, of course. We are working on all this together; it is just that, individually, we are currently focusing more on different parts of the article. talk) 20:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)]
- Considering that some of it is about the reception of the rape, I would say they should definitely be split up. You certainly would not be in my way in the Cultural impact section, of course. We are working on all this together; it is just that, individually, we are currently focusing more on different parts of the article.
- Thanks! I'm still going back and forth on how to format it all. There is information on the rape which could go in the writing and some that could go in the reception, so I'm not sure if they should all go in the same place or if I should split it up between the writing and the reception. I also wish I could find more on the times General Hospital revisited the rape with first Lucky and then Lulu. Rocksey (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Good work on the Writing section, as expected, even though I know you have a lot more to add to it (if you are planning on having a subsection about the rape, as you indicated above). I, of course, have a lot more to add to the Cultural impact section. I went ahead and asked AniMate about trimming the plot section, since he is currently editing Wikipedia a little bit while on vacation.
- No problem. I should be the one apologizing for having taken so long to fix up this article after having been the one to ask you to collaborate on it with me and when you were ready months ago.
- It looks great! I'm sorry I'm taking so long in getting my stuff together. I'll definitely have it up tonight. I'm thinking the rape will need it's own subsection inside of Writing. Rocksey (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I have started on the article. It is tricky to add to the Writing section without knowing what you are typing up/going to add to it, so I only started that off with a little bit. The Cultural impact section has more. I will let you focus on the Writing section for now, and I will add to it after seeing your additions. In the meantime, I may focus more on the Cultural impact section. When AniMate gets back from his vacation, I plan to ask him if he would not mind cutting down on the article's plot; he is most definitely good at trimming plot sections. We would have three different editors focusing on three different parts of the article, which is good and may make this process go faster.
- Good. I will pitch in when I get a good chance to. Right now, I am about to add more to the Supercouple article article, and tweak it some more, before someone tries again to take that article down (no matter the plenty of reliable sources in it backing things up).
- I agree. We really need to get on this. I've gathered a good deal of information on the creation and writing of the couple, so I can start on that and hopefully have something written up in a day or so. Rocksey (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey Rocksey, I agree with you, I was just shocked that all of them were gone. But anyway, most of the articles for Bold and the Beautiful were strictly plot, and most of the plot overviews did not need to be included. Hopefully in the future, some of these characters can get articles with more expansion that just the plot. Thanks. 98.104.165.68 (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
::ee my comment on the talk p. there. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Jerica
IN this suppage of mine User:BigPadresDUDE/Workspace/Article im currently working on a article for jerica jackson montgomery and erica kane of amc would you help me get it ready for the mainstage? BigPadresDude 22:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know how much help I can be because I generally don't watch anything having to do with Jackson. Here are some sources on the topic that could be of use: [4], [5] [6] [7] [8]. Rocksey (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thanks and how am i doing on this article? im trying to get it to ga once it hits the mainstay you know any amc experts? that can help me write the article? BigPadresDude 01:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- I finally got a chance to really look over the article and it has a lot of issues with grammer and the lack of sources. Also, most of the casting section looks like it's just copied from the Background and Castings sections in the Erica Kane article. It's redundant to have basically just the exact same thing in both articles. It's probably fine to mention it a little, but not just to copy and reword what's in the other article. With sources, you don't just paste a link in and call it a source. Here's some info to read up on with sourcing: Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Citation templates.
- Also, articles have to be about notable subjects. Do you think you can establish notability with this couple article that would meet the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines? If not, it might be best just to elaborate more about this pairing in either the Erica Kane article or the Jackson Montgomery one.
- On a side note, what are your plans at improving the Brooke Logan article?Rocksey (talk) 18:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey
please participate in this discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Soap_Operas#Criteria_For_A_Characters_Page thanks BigPadresDude 23:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Edit war
Hello. You appear to be involved in an
Tammin Sursok recurring
Why do you keep insisting that Sursok is not on recurring when I have shown you concrete evidence that she is? She was listed as recurring in this week and last week's closing credits and if that isn't a credible source, nothing is. Kogsquinge (talk) 07:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Quick note
We may not need to worry about this, but our friends at Wikia have tried to import an article to Wikipedia.Here's the deets. AniMatedraw 01:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)