User talk:TurtleMelody

Welcome!

Hello, TurtleMelody, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard
  if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

A couple of contributions did lead me to want to say whoa there, pilgrim. For instance here at

here at Utica, New York you deleted the entire section. But there is some notable stuff in there (some is just cruft, true); I restored it and would rather see a more nuanced approach to the matter.

Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater, I'm just saying. Cheers, Herostratus (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, take a look at it now (There are now two section, "Notable residents" as well as "Utica in popular culture and literature"). This is better than wholesale deletion, to my mind. Herostratus (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Jane scharf.jpeg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2010/01/21/12555276.html. As a copyright violation, File:Jane scharf.jpeg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Jane scharf.jpeg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Jane scharf.jpeg and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:Jane scharf.jpeg with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the
  CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Jane scharf.jpeg
  .

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. -M.Nelson (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to make potentially contentious comments about

So how are we supposed to discuss someone's sexuality without actually discussing their sexuality?TurtleMelody (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can't "discuss" it here unless it's published by a reliable source. Since we can't include anything non-sourced in the article, there's no real point in discussing it anyway.. -M.Nelson (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it all goes down the Wikipedia 'memory hole'. It's nasty but some people refuse to come out until the media outs them. Turns out that they're a better person once they're outed anyway. I think this would be the case for Jim Watson. TurtleMelody (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but Wikipedia isn't a "medium" that can do this. Wikipedia reflects the published media through sourcing. If the media outed him (or anyone else) then we would include it, but Wikipedia can't be the instigator of new (ie unpublished) ideas per

WP:OR. -M.Nelson (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for uploading File:Fairlawn plaza.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Degrassi: The Next Generation, you may be blocked from editing. 117Avenue (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing insane amount of detail to a horribly written article counts as disruptive? You've got some serious problems.TurtleMelody (talk) 04:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a

featured article, just because you don't want to read an article that long, doesn't mean that you can remove information from it. It is not a horribly written article, it hasn't had major changes since it passed a feature article review in May 2010. 117Avenue (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

There are numerous errors in grammar. The article itself looks like it was written by a gang of prepubescent Jolt Cola addicted fangirls. The intro could be much shorter. It needs to be concise and it isn't. It reads like fancruft so I'll be adding all the appropriate tags. But you're acting like I've messed up your article. It isn't yours and you should

assume good faith. I think some of my edits were fine and you didn't even bother looking at any of them. This isn't your article. You might be a fan but this is a badly written article.TurtleMelody (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I did look at your edits, and none of them were improving grammar, you simply removed material. If you would like to discuss changes, please do so on the talk page. 117Avenue (talk) 07:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're hard of seeing because I did improve grammar by reducing run-on sentences which were written by fangirl committee. Read what I edited again and get back to me. You're still not assuming good faith. Time to notify an administrator?TurtleMelody (talk) 00:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you rang? Please take your concerns to the talk page. The templates do not appear necessary, and (based on one of your observations about tense) you should discuss your thoughts there first. Simply restoring them repeatedly may be considered disruptive. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TurtleMelody. You should read

WP:Lead

. The lead summarises all the main parts of the article. Yes, it needs to be concise, and I think it is. It touches all the main points in a few sentences. One sentence for producers, one for creators, one for premise/storylines, one for country of origin, one for reviews, one for awards, one for ratings and viewing figures, one for broadcast details (dates, network), one for new media. If you look at the sections of the article, you'll see that each of those points has a corresponding section. The Lede does exactly what the guideline says it should do.

As for your edit summary comment about past characters being referred to in present tense, that is due to a couple of guidelines we have that say that we must refer to all fictional events and characters in present tense, because even though the film/episode/series may be over, the story/character continues to "be" on reruns, DVDs, etc. (see

WP:WAF By convention, these synopses should be written in the present tense, as this is the way that the story is experienced as it is read or viewed and 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.) If you are unconvinced or unhappy with that, you should open discussion at the talk pages of one of those places rather than edit one article against current consensus, guidelines or practices.

Almost finally, besides 117Avenue, I'm probably the primary editor of the article. I successfully brought it through

Libel

. I am a 31-year-old male, married, with 1 child and another on the way. I'm university educated and have also been working full time since I left secondary school. I didn't even start watching Degrassi until 2007, quite some time after I'd completed the pre-pubescent period of my life. :)

While I don't claim the article is perfect (I don't think even the FA directors and reviewers will say that any FA is perfect), I don't see any major problems with it; having said that, I'm not a professional writer, so I'm open to the observations from others as to how to improve my writing. I don't edit Wikipedia as much as I used to any more, and I don't watchlist user talkpages so I'm unlikely to see any reply made here but if you would like to discuss the article, its prose, anything you think the article is lacking, or any improvements you think could be made, feel free to do so at Talk:Degrassi: The Next Generation, which I do watch. Best, Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I am also a male with postsecondary degrees. Degrassi, a show targeted to the youth audience, isn't even a show a like. I have become the primary editor to most related pages because I am the only other responsible Wikipedian interested in Degrassi. 117Avenue (talk) 06:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of

These trivia entries have no place on Wikipedia. Read the guidelines for trivia and you will see that if the references have no direct effect on the subject then they can be removed. [1] I have removed them. Please do not disrupt valid edits in the future. TurtleMelody (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are better ways to deal with trivia sections on Wikipedia. At least a dozen of your recent edits

violated many policies on Wikipedia. Please see recommendations for handling trivia for more info on how you can deal with what you consider unnecessary trivia. Fayerman (talk) 13:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Do you have the authority to actually issue such warnings and I believe you're forgetting the first rule, assume good faith. Do you really think references to lousy CGI animal movies are relevant?TurtleMelody (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I and many other editors will generally treat an unexplained (no

edit summary) deletion by an editor with several earlier warnings as vandalism without wasting time trying to mind-read to determine if there was some other intent. And yes, any Wikipedia editor, yourself included, has the authority to issue such warnings. Leaving edit summaries to explain the thinking behind your edits will help avoid them. --CliffC (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I have added a topic in the talk page for that article about why the reference to a cat in a bad, CGI, Hollywood movie is not relevant. You are either not listening or assuming bad faith. I will continue removing 'bad trivia' from articles. You're free to undo them but do not call them 'vandalism'. It isn't vandalism, it is quite purposeful and I believe being done for the good of Wikipedia. There are countless wikipedia articles with serious topics that have bad references to Family Guy and other stupid shows for fat, white, adolescent boys, which just happens to be the description of most Wikipedia editors, oddly enough.TurtleMelody (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edited the

Balinese (cat). Fayerman (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I've declined your request for speedy deletion as it did not seem to fit the article in question. With reference to your query above, yes, that editor is able to issue a warning like that if it is thought appropriate. As to "fat, white, adolescent boys" - you must have a secret source of information, because I certainly would not advance that as even a hypothesis, let alone an established fact. You refer to 'good faith'; I ask you to please look at

]

2013 NHL Winter Classic

The article

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 article 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. Cloudz679 14:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Joyland (novel) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't appear to (yet) meet the

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

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 article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joyland (novel) 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/Joyland (novel) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. – 

It was withdrawn so I removed it. The user who added it didn't want it there anymore and it met criteria for books. End of STORY.TurtleMelody (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No, you don't. The closing administrator, in this case me, removes the template. Also, this comment is just silly. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Sounds like someone's beating their chest and stroking their dick at the same time. It was withdrawn so I deleted it. No one else wanted the article to be deleted so the issue was settled. TurtleMelody (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• What is wrong with you? Drmies (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm an anarchist. That means 'without leaders' in Greek. I know you're probably used to people kissing your shoes, but I will not.TurtleMelody (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• You sound like a high-schooler, not an anarchist. Don't confuse ideology with a lack of manners. Good luck with your further career in this collaborative project: "anarchist" or not, you have to play by the rules. Drmies (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Gods, No Masters until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article.

Assume good faith. Don't remove content which has just been added before citations can be added. This seems to be an attack on the article which you nominated for deletion. TurtleMelody (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only just noticed this - may I remind you that, as you added the information, the onus is on you to provide sources to back up your claims, and that the verifiability policy states that unverified information "may be removed".

_berate 02:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

You're overreacting. There are thousands of articles without citations but you are targeting this article because of some crusade against it. I would suggest knocking it off and focusing on articles that really need references.TurtleMelody (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TurtleMelody - editors have every right to remove unreferenced content that they are concerned about. It is your responsibility to provide the references if challenged. The fact that there are "thousands of articles without citation" is a detriment to Wikipedia and is not a valid excuse to continue to add to the problem. If you are adding the information, you must know where it is that you are obtaining the information from, so please include your source. Review of your talk page has shown that following Wikipedia's policies on both sourcing and civility have been difficult for you; I strongly suggest that you take the time to understand and abide by both or you will in all likelihood find yourself blocked. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over your edits, I agree with Guy Macon. You seem to misunderstand how

WP:TRIVIA are used and how they are to improve articles. Do not remove any more trivia's in the meantime until you understand the ideas behind trivia's especially popular culture categories. ViriiK (talk) 02:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Go read

WP:IPC as well. This unlike trivia have more strict requirements and it specifically says They should be verifiable and should contain facts of genuine interest to the reader. Meanwhile I'm looking at your entire contribution history and you seem to have been reverted constantly by other users as well. Who are these supposed users/admins you are referring to? You do have a discussion on this, correct? Is there a DRN that you can point me towards? ViriiK (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

TurtleMelody. care to name three of these admins who have allegedly thanked you? It does not appear that the thanks made it to your user page. (Sound Of Crickets...)

It looks like his "A lot of users/admins" consists of exactly one editor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Michael_C_Price/Archive_7#TurtleMelody --Guy Macon (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you realize how far off the rails you have gone here. Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content#Good and bad popular culture references lists several examples of what we want to see in "In popular culture" sections. Look carefully at the third example. Now look at This Edit. Disruptive editing doesn't get much clearer than that. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:48, 3 August 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

TurtleMelody, when multiple editors express concerns with your content blanking, the appropriate response is to discuss the concerns, not to tell them "nope". Your are applying an overly strict interpretation of a guideline and further blind reverts without discussing the merits of the case is considered tendentious editing and is disruptive. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your

If it's fancruft then it should be blanked as according to Wikipedia.TurtleMelody (talk) 02:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a policy page. ViriiK (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, neither is

WP:POPCULTURE, if you're going that route. Ravenswing 05:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Many essays are simply bringing together policies and guidelines and explaining them (

WP:CONSENSUS. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Let me add my voice here, your campaign to remove popcult sections in toto, rather then to clean them out by discussing their notability with other editors, is pointy and disruptive. There is no consensus for what you're doing, and I urge you to stop, especially since other editors are determined to revert your edits - a group I will add myself to if you don't start editng in a collegial and consensual manner. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:TurtleMelody regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.ViriiK (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SmashTheState regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Guy Macon (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh. That isn't me.TurtleMelody (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your flagrant violations of

WP:NPA mean that you are blocked indef, sock or not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The article Fairlawn Centre has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

NN mall.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

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 article 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. Epeefleche (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]