User talk:Callmemirela

Hello mirela

hi mirela,

hi, i was just wanting to know how is you were able to locate the article Oetosyrus so soon after i had created it. I'm just curious that's all, hope i'm not intruding and everythings' well otherwise with yourself . Thanks! Whalestate (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Whalestate: No, no intruding at all. I was able to find your article through here. It's a page specially made for newly-created articles for users to review them and make sure it's in the right order. Your article was on the list. Thank you for using my first name, by the way. Callmemirela (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks mirela, it was a great help Whalestate (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subject

I'm not trying to vandalize anything. Please don't block me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.55.157 (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What copyright issue!!!!!!!!!

The article List of Young & Hungry episodes was flagged only because of the copied text. This should no have been done as a simple removal of the text was needed as I did. Are you trying to get the article deleted???? helmboy 16:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Helmboy: READ THE FRKN TEMPLATE! YOU CANNOT EDIT THE ARTICLE UNTIL IT HAS BEEN RESOLVED BY ADMINS.Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 16:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callmemirela: That's a template that is for images and whole text articles, not issues with summaries that are simply removed when they are copied from other sources. The editor that flagged it, should have done what I did in the first place and removed the summaries, but instead took the lazy approach of flagging the whole thing. This is very inconvenient given the whole article would have to be recreated without the summaries. helmboy 16:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Helmboy: Quite frankly, your editing proves that you really know nothing about editing. Read the template then come back to me. Should I quote what it says for you so you actually listen? Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent. REMOVING THE COPYRIGHT TEXT IS IT NOT PERMITTED UNTIL IT HAS BEEN RESOLVED BY ADMINS. Stop acting like a know-it-all editor, because you don't. You are engaged in bad editing that will result you in a block. Yet, you don't care because you continue argue with invalid and unjustified arguments when me and User:AlexTheWhovian are right. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 16:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callmemirela: I wouldn't quote the other editor if I were you given that was a separate issue with his conflicting style edits and that editor has a reputation for controlling a number of articles. As for you you really need to get off the broken record of just stating "read the template" when the real issue is the copyright template should never have been used for a trivial fix. You are currently putting the article into peril with being deleted. As if it is recreated the original title can't be used and the other non-copyright details will be lost. So you are technically being a vandal by trying to force it's name change and/or removal. helmboy 16:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callmemirela: Also rewording as you did on Talk:List of Young & Hungry episodes/Temp fixes nothing as the text still has the same structure. helmboy 16:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callmemirela: Also after reading your comment "once the article is restored if it is" I seems you are wanting the article deleted. helmboy 16:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No style edits were conflicting, it was simply you reverting the article to the mess that it was. However, this wouldn't have happened if you haven't violated Wikipedia rules by removing the template. I wasn't aware that you either can't read or an an administrator now? And Callmemirela is repeating this because YOU CANNOT READ. The template was added. Noted, it was added by someone who is far more reliable, knowledgeable and mature than you and your attempt at editing. There's no changing that. So there's no points in your constant "What if"s. It's not changing anything. Alex|The|Whovian 16:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Callmemirela shouldn't have added the template and should just have removed the season one summaries. And your comments were about your style edits. helmboy 16:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And your reverts were removing the styling and the correctly source information (episode title). Now. Great. Thanks for your opinion. Now that we know what you think, and that we all know that from now there's only going forwards and not backwards, care to drop it? Arguing it is going to make zero difference - it's up, it's there, it's not moving. Alex|The|Whovian 16:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was still editing when you decided to change the stupid col widths. Now go away. helmboy 16:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very mature conversation skills. You don't own the article - you have no extra rights over anybody else in the priority of editing. Yet another complex to add to your case, alongside knowing-it-all and always-right. Alex|The|Whovian 17:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Removal

In regard to this, I'm pretty certain it wasn't intentional. It happened to me once on that same page a long time ago because of the many edits it gets. I think it's to do with if you submit an edit and then someone else submits their edit at just about the same time, it causes that. Cheers! - Amaury (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Amaury: I wasn't of this. It must be the edit conflict. I thought the user actually removed my comment. Thanks for this, Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 23:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. Glad I could clear it up. :) - Amaury (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops sorry

Re [1] an edit conflict where I wasn't careful enough checking intervening edits. Thanks for fixing it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnBlackburne: No worries. Amaury, through the message above this one, explained to me. I initially thought you did remove my comment. It never occurred to me that it was edit conflict. Thank you, Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 23:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oetosyrus

Hi, I see you are interested in the article on the talk page. After removing tons of useless information only one reference turned out and good and the page remains a stub. I though I'd let you know and am seeing if you think it should be deleted or merged with Scythian religion. With regards Psychotic Spartan 123 12:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PsychoticSpartan123: I am not exactly familiar with the article or its origins. I was merely reviewing that article during the time. However, after reviewing the article, I do agree that it should be moved to Scythian religion as there is not enough content to go on with the article and it's just a waste for a page with small content. However, I don't if the move should be made right away or we should consult other involved editors? Though, since no replies have been to your discussion on the talk page, the first option seems to be fitting. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 23:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Scream Article

I don't want an edit war, there pointless and a waste of time. I don't see how those are opinions when they're in the official character descriptions. The show will be coming on MTV and those are the descriptions that MTV gave so I don't see how those are opinions. Like on the Red Band Society (U.S. Series) it has the title "leader" in their character description, someone can say well that's an opinion, but it's not because that's what the offcial people behind that series gave in the description for the character.

I can see if those weren't official character description and I was just making up my own, but I'm not, MTV gave those. DrewAllstar (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DrewAllstar: I'll quote what I wrote previously (I've updated it since you wrote on my talk page):

This is to end edit warring going on in the article. It has to follow WP:POV, even if it's from sources.

It can't be:

He's hot
She's ugly
He's a geek
She's odd
He's not smart
He's dumb
etc.

These are opinions.

It has to be:

She's the main character's sister. She suffers from depression after her friend's death.
He's a drug addict with a fear of spiders.
She's a mean girl, who has had a thing for Sophia since first year of high school.
Olivia is Sophia's mother. She is the chief at Monroe Police Station.
etc.

Plus, you have not stated explicitly on the article who plays who. And looking back at the diffs, it violates WP:COPYVIO. It's copied from Screen Rant; something prohibited on Wikipedia. Also, the sources have stated what they think what the characters are and explained. Again POV problem.

These are all the reasons why I removed the content in the first place. This is a whole lot of problems,

What you are reverting is not neutral point of view (it contains opinions from sources of what they think). We don't know if what they wrote is true, plus somebody is smoking hot. One could consider a woman to be ugly whilst another on would consider her to be gorgeous. Again, opinions. Red Band Society contains descriptions of the characters. Who they are and what they do. This was a bad example. RBS is neutral in POV. The content on Scream was not.

The content you are reverting to is WP:COPYVIO. It has copy-pasted into the article. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 00:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What? Dude posting the actors name before the character is saying who is who and how is that copying and pasting when it's the official character descriptions! Those are everywhere from the articles, blogs, Scream wiki, MTV press release etc! It's not breaking the rules to post official character descriptions, Screen Rant didn't make those descriptions MTV did! How can someone break rules by posting the official character description. DrewAllstar (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) You've just given your point there. It's everywhere - hence, it's copied. Hence, it's against Wikipedia policy. Anything copied from one place to Wiki is against policy. Did you even read WP:COPYVIO? Wikipedia is meant to be a source of completely original content. Character descriptions, episode summaries, musician profiles, etc. Everything. Alex|The|Whovian 01:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all don't treat me like I'm dumb by saying "don't you even read...". Its everywhere because it's the official character descriptions. That's like saying you can't post a link to an article because everyone is posting the link. No offense man, but how are you just gonna jump into the conversation out of the blue without knowing all the facts. DrewAllstar (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DrewAllstar: I feel like the previous comment was a threat... If so, that's a big no-no on Wikipedia. Either way, it doesn't matter if we are fans or not of the series. We are enforcing rules applied by Wikipedia, something I think you can't understand. If you revert the edit again, I will report you. It was WP:COPYVIO, it didn't follow WP:POV and it didn't contain WP:SOURCES. Three major problems. Also, AlexTheWhovian is allowed to interfere and give their opinion as well. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 01:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callmemirela: So now it's a threat to call someone a fan or not? Really? So I'll take that as your not a fan and just doing things for the edits. Feeling threatened? Well in that case I feel threatened that you and AlexTheWhovian are ganging up on me and that Alex calls himself a "talk page stalker", if you really wanna get down to complaints. This just proves that you love edits wars just as the other edit wars you have started with other users of Wikipedia. DrewAllstar (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DrewAllstar: Now you are heading into WP:PERSONAL territory. I do not love to edit war. I revert edits because it doesn't follow what Wikipedia asks for. If you want to continue to accuse me of loving to edit war, go ahead. That just worsens your intentions on Wikipedia. I've been on Wikipedia for over 2 years with nearly 4000 edits. I have rollbacker and pending changes reviewer rights. I have nothing but good intentions to do on here, even at my age and the giant age differences between me and other users who are a lot older than me. I enforce rules, like any other well-experienced user. Call me whatever you want; my edits say otherwise. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 01:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing you of anything, If the shoe fits, it fits. You're the one who's making things personal and are you trying to undermine me by saying you have "good intentions" on the wiki and "how many years" you've been on Wikipedia. So that's your approach now. There's a lot of bad users who say they have "good intentions" and have been on Wikipedia for "2 years" and more. You don't know me so don't tell me I have "bad intentions" for Wikipedia when I do not. I'm editing a page of a TV Series that's apart of a franchise that I'm a big fan of. It's funny how you wanna get personal and acting like you're above me when I use your "feeling threatened game" against you. I don't have time for this so it's whatever, I think it's established that you don't like me and the feelings mutual. So I rather leave the Scream TV Series page alone then stoop to your level. Don't write me back because that would be harassment because I told you to stop. I'm not wasting my time on this, I have more important things to do than get into a war with someone who acts all big and bad beyond a keyboard. DrewAllstar (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
298	Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 14) (talk)	Add sources
264	Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 5) (talk)	Add sources
3,547	American Idol (season 14) (talk)	Add sources
106	Tristan MacManus (talk)	Add sources
239	Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 13) (talk)	Add sources
250	Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 8) (talk)	Add sources
1,457	Let's Be Cops (talk)	Cleanup
11	African Rally Championship (talk)	Cleanup
101	Child slavery (talk)	Cleanup
4,633	It Follows (talk)	Expand
16	2008–09 Montreal Canadiens season (talk)	Expand
5	1976–77 Pittsburgh Penguins season (talk)	Expand
989	Fernando Alonso (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
133	Expulsion of Asians from Uganda (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
986	Alexander II of Russia (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
25	Bramalea, Ontario (talk)	Merge
127	Bauer Hockey (talk)	Merge
47	Matoke (talk)	Merge
573	King v. Burwell (talk)	Wikify
110	That '70s Show (season 5) (talk)	Wikify
18,593	Mortal Kombat X (talk)	Wikify
3	Nursultan Belgibayev (talk)	Orphan
2	Daulet Kenbayev (talk)	Orphan
2	Anthony Batt (talk)	Orphan
6	Plainfield East High School (talk)	Stub
25	Boone Jenner (talk)	Stub
745	Shadowhunters (TV series) (talk)	Stub
9	Karl Dykhuis (talk)	Stub
69	Anahim Lake (talk)	Stub
20	Michaël Bournival (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2015 May newsletter

The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.

Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.

Coemgenus (submissions) was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Dragonfly to Good Article for a 3x bonus - and if that wasn't enough, they also took Damselfly there as well for a 2x bonus.
LeftAire (submissions) worked up Alexander Hamilton to Good Article for the maximum bonus. Hamilton was one of the founding fathers of the United States and is a level 4 vital article.

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie episode guide

What's wrong with saying "Kids" in the episode descriptions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.55.157 (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SLANG. It's been explained a bunch of times. I will not reexplain for others. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 22:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Guide

"Kids" isn't slang at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.55.157 (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. It is the informal version of "children". Please open a discussion at Talk:List of Jessie episodes to discuss about with other users. It's been explained before and it is wrong to use kids on Wikipedia. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 01:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DWTS season 20 chart

Callmemirela, just wanted to let you know that I reverted your removal of the 7+8 column. Those columns are standard when an elimination is based on two weeks of scores, which is what the week 8 results show used this time. If you look back, you'll see an x+y column in every season going back several years—the last season not to have one was season 13.

If you strongly feel that it does not belong, I'm happy to discuss this with you further on the talk page, but I think it's definitely worthwhile to see the actual combined scores for both weeks, which they did display during the results show this past Tuesday. Thanks for your consideration. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: Well duh you reverted me if I receive a notification, telling me someone has posted on my talk page. Regarding to my removal, it should be more obvious/informed. Quite honestly, I was unaware, and I only follow what previous seasons have done. It should be more precised. And in the future, if other users want to jump on the project, we should have somewhat of a guide what the article should have, such as the x+y column here. I am sure I am not the only one confused by some things done on DWTS articles. *shrugs* Just an idea. Thank you for the info, Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 02:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]