User talk:Callmemirela/Archive 1

August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=571005494 your edit] to Adam Irigoyen may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

English on the 50soG pages
Hey Mirela! Thank you for all the typo help on Freed I think I typed that plot summery out in about and hour or two!

Anyway I thought I would respond to your comment. Like I said in my note I'm not going to change the spelling in the pages back to British English (because in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter so much) however in the Fifty Shades of Grey page at least because the author is British it was decided a while back to write the whole page in British English, much like the original ebooks.

So it wasn't about which spelling is used more often. I had thought that the new Freed page should follow that precedent. DSQ (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=624081662 your edit] to Twisted (TV series) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * | Kanal 4

AldezD
I know how you feel. All of this sourcing is so unnecessary after an episode airs. There was NEVER a problem in past seasons, and if there was, no one seemed to care enough to take action. Why now, I have no idea. Whoever this person is, they're taking it way too seriously. I, too, was confused and annoyed that we're not even able to set up tables before the show airs, even though what we put in them is sourced. Heck, the dances for the next week are up for an entire week with sources. But the dance order cannot be edited in a few hours before it's revealed live on TV? It makes no sense. I pray that this person finds another page to "monitor" before next week. It's just ridiculous that our efforts to keep the page up-to-date are being shot down at every turn. Some things do need a ton of sources, but a reality show? A few, sure, but not a thousand. Wilted Youth (talk) 02:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Wilted Youth I TOTALLY agree. They've been messing around too much. I just asked on Wikipedia about it to stop the shenanigans. Also, you could have removed the citation and just say that week 1 has no citation, why should the others? I am truly annoyed by their self-proclaimed superiority. I hope they "monitor" another page instead as you say (: I will stand up for myself and other editors if and only they join me.

Callmemirela (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 19), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samba (dance). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 19)‎
Callmemirela, I've noticed your good work helping to keep this article in good shape. However, I feel I have to warn you that you're in danger of violating WP:3RR. With your three reversions to HarpBasedBand a little over an hour ago, you've used up the number of reversions you're allowed to make in a 24-hour period. Even upcoming edits removing some portion of another edit could be considered a violation. I realize that you're trying to keep unsourced material—and this was not only unsourced, but the second and third edits were almost certainly unknowable, since the running order is typically determined on the live show when there isn't a separate results show, as we witnessed this past Monday. However, removing unsourced material is not a valid exception to the three-reversion rule, so if there are edits over the next 24 hours that cause you concern, you'll have to let one of the other editors on the article undo the damage. I'd hate for you to be blocked while trying to protect against another user who deserves blocking more than you do. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * BlueMoonset Thank you. It means a lot someone noticing my work after the whole dilemma from the month of September. Yeah, I noticed. I am still not used to the revert rule. I am still adjusting myself to that policy. At some point, I will let other editors handle the work instead of risking my potential block. Thank you for the warning. I appreciate that. I will reduce my reverts as of now. Thank you! Callmemirela (talk) 03:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Usernames
When you find an account that violates WP:CORPNAME in any way, the easier thing to do is to warn them with uw-coi-username. That will place them in a category monitored by admins, and will get them blocked eventually. WP:RFC/NAME is for more subtle situations. Highly recommend Twinkle if you're going to be doing it often. Cheers! § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * User:FreeRangeFrog Understood. Thank you! Callmemirela (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Interstellar
Haha, I don't know what drug or drugs had I been on, read my description for the "undo", I consistently thought that you had changed it from "its" to "it's", sorry. Freshness For Lettuce (talk) 02:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Haha, it's okay. I understand. The its/it's mistake gets my nerves. I honestly would never make mistakes in correcting grammar and spelling on Wikipedia English articles, considering I am currently enrolled in an Enriched English class. Even that class is too basic for me. Haha, too much on me. It's okay for your mistake. Callmemirela  ( talk ) 02:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Rollback
Hi Callmemirela. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3A enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. &mdash;  MusikAnimal talk 23:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alfonso Ribeiro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cha-cha-cha. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Question
Would you please translate the entry "pt:Críticas à Rede Globo" for the wiki-en? Thankfully. 177.182.54.27 (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

2015 TV Categories
I'm not sure of the reason behind the removal of the commented out categories. WP:TVUPCOMING states not to add the year in the header for the season (e.g. Season 3 (2015) or Season 6 (2014-15)), but nothing about the categories? (Which are, once more, commented out for convenience for next year.) AlexTheWhovian (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * AlexTheWhovian Those categories are apart of episodes for next year which have not aired. TVUPCOMING (and other pages) is related to everything about future episodes, such as headers, original airings, categories, season sections, season overview, etc. Therefore the 2015 category for season is not accepted at the moment because no episodes have aired in 2015 at all. Plus, the tags   have a purpose of hiding text (WP:HIDDEN), not hiding and not showing elsewhere. Even adding those tags will put the article under that category as stated in WP:HIDDENCAT. Those tags do not hide the fact the article is under the category thus still making that article falling under that specific category. This all goes back to my reverts and first sentences of this reply. No episodes have aired in 2015.  Callmemirela  ( talk ) 03:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Please tell me how to delete my account permanently then.
Please tell me how to delete my account permanently then. BT80 (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * BT80 here. Callmemirela  ( talk ) 04:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Flickr searching
Hello Callmemirela, following up on your questions. So, this page on Commons gives good instructions on how to search Flickr only for files that have the right license. There is also an upload tool that is fairly easy to use. Finding pictures of celebrities isn't always easy. The majority of our pictures of celebs are ones taken at public events by volunteers. You can also try to contact the person and get them to submit a photo under a free license, sometimes this works, and sometimes you will get a "no" or no response at all. But, if someone says yes, here are the instructions for them to use to declare their license: Commons:Email templates. Happy New Year! The Interior (Talk) 21:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The Interior This was helpful thank you. I have one more question: would screenshoting from a video count as a copyrighted image? Say there is an interview being filmed with this celebrity. I screenshot the celebrity. Is that a copyrighted image? Thanks!  Callmemirela  ( talk ) 21:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Watch out for 3RR
Callmemirela, you're past 3RR on DWTS 19. Give it a rest for a while, and let others deal with this vandal. I don't want you to get blocked in the fallout, but it's going to happen if you don't watch your reverts. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 14 January
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Jane the Virgin page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=642523219 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F642523219%7CJane the Virgin%5D%5D Ask for help])

Disambiguation link notification for January 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brett Dier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fear Itself. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Brett Dier (January 29)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Kvng was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Brett Dier and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Callmemirela Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kvng&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Callmemirela reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

~KvnG 19:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Brett Dier


The article Brett Dier has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 05:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Love Me like You Do
No offense, but you may wish to take your own advice. The word "like" can be one of 7 parts of speech depending on context. "like you do" in this song title is a prepositional phrase, thus "like" is a preposition, not a verb. –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Never mind, it appears you figured it out before I left this message. –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge,  led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:
 * took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
 * worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
 * developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
 * And last but not least, worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. , and

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge,  led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:
 * took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
 * worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
 * developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
 * And last but not least, worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. , and

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited One Big Happy (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Williams. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Ranking for DWTS
In past seasons, the "place" or "rank" has always reflected ties by counting a tie as taking as many places as there are people tied for that number. So if there's a two-way tie for second, the next place is fourth, not third. I think you'll find that you'll get a lot of people holding to this standard way of determining place.

I strongly recommend that if you believe your way is correct, that you make your case on the talk page. Otherwise, you're going to run afoul of 3RR, and I imagine you're getting close to that already if you're not already there. I'm bowing out of editing the article (except for additions) for the next 24 hours, because I don't want to cross the line. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * BlueMoonset, I think I understand what you're saying. I am getting the idea that if there is a two-way tie for whatever place, the next is placed in the next rank right away. I will revert my edit, I wasn't aware of this. Callmemirela  ( talk ) 02:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Eye Candy
Why are you insisting that the identity of the killer is in the Cast List section of Eye Candy, it's a huge spoiler and could be happily elsewhere in the page....just not required on the cast list. Not everyone internationally will have seen the show yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.164.120.250 (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. Look at all the other pages, it's the same exact thing. Majority what happens in the seasons are included in the cast list to an article based on a show, whether the person has had a glimpse of it or not. You're the only one with this opinion. Even if you had more supporters, it wouldn't be taken off due to "tradition". Callmemirela  ( talk ) 04:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Scream Queens
Hi, now that the full protection is up, the IP's are back to their disruptive ways. Would you mind getting the ball rolling with pending changes? If you need something from me just holler. :) 16:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * User:LLArrow Will start on the "conquest" right now :P Although one would argue that there hasn't been enough disruptive editing in recent times. If the number of the same disruptive editing reaches, say, 5, I will make an RPP request for pending changes (:, Callmemirela  ( talk ) 20:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * User:LLArrow After the recent edit, I've filled a request here. Callmemirela  ( talk ) 21:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: We now have the pending changes protection until late June! Callmemirela  ( talk ) 21:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank goodness! A bit of a break haha. LLArrow (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Kurds article
I removed my request related to population in Germany.

But why you didn't add population in Israel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.50.111.125 (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you correctly read my response? It appears not. I said you had to make that request on the template's (the template that has the populations) talk page. Callmemirela  ( talk ) 13:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that.
I didn't read the page history alas why the bracket got added. (A note: Please notify me on my talk page when you respond.) ️Thanks! The GRVO fLigh tning (talk)	 02:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

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.

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) 23:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

What?!
Let me just explain myself.


 * 1) I made the last bracket edit yesterday.
 * 2) I have not received a message from you on my talk page or a notification from you if there was other discussion on the article talkpage regarding the bracket.
 * 3) It was added as the Anaheim Ducks clinched the Pacific Division so they were placed in the bracket.
 * 4) Also. "Stop"?. I added the bracket ONCE, Did not revert your first edit to my edit and also messaged you about the edit. So please explain what I need to stop doing because if improving the page is what I need to stop doing then frankly that destroys the entire foundation of editing here!

Once again. Please message me at my talkpage if you have any other comments. The GRVO fLigh tning (talk)	 04:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring?! You've got to be kidding me. I didn't break The three revert rule I did ONE edit and you didn't message me back when I messaged you orignally after I attempted to explain the first edit. The GRVO fLigh tning (talk)	 04:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

"Official"? Hmm. This is the ONLY account I have here! I have never clean started or vanished usered. Also. The latest edit by was made a little over 28 hours since your first revert. The GRVO fLigh tning (talk)	 04:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if you've read my latest reply. This edit comes from your account. Edits don't magically appear. Either your account was compromised or you really did make that edit. This is why I came onto you. I also mentioned edit warring because it was the second time. I will let this one slide, as you appear to have not recollection whatsoever of making such edit again and I apologize if this was not your doing. Callmemirela  ( talk ) 04:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It is my doing this account has not been comprimised and never has to my knowledge, I will state this. The first bracket add was reverted by you at 11:18 my time yesterday. I added the bracket with Anaheim having clinched the Pacific at 15:35 today my time. You reverted it and stated it was edit warring despite me just adding the bracket again after Anaheim clinched. You furthermore didn't reply to my original message I sent. If you truly believe this is edit warring send a report to WP:AN3RR. The GRVO fLigh tning  (talk)	 05:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I was only pointing out the 3RR. I am not nor have I said it is 3RR at the moment. Please only add the bracket once all pairings have been official to avoid empty content which is a habit of fans and well-experienced users. That is all. Callmemirela  ( talk ) 20:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: SVU season 16
No one looking in the guest section is your opinion. Seeing as you're perfectly capable of adding the source within the template yourself, you don't need others to do it. The Guest section is there for a good reason - not just for good looks. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 03:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Derek Hough
Please stop changing week 1 to "safe" and the last week to "TBA". There was no elimination on week 1 and the last week is done and they are safe! I am changing it back every week explaining on summaries but you keep doing it. I know the votes count for next week but the right format is not the way you are putting it. IF they get eliminated next week what are you going to write on week 5 if you write on week 4 that they get eliminated? Eliminated twice or eliminated previous week? And if the way you are putting it is the right one, why on the main article of DWTS Season 20, we don't have "TBA" to all the couples on week 4? Please stop changing it! Thank you! TeamGale (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Removing without discussion is not the most polite way to act. I am not failing at all to see how the elimination happens. As I already wrote I know that the votes count for the next week. I watch the show and know how it works. And it works like that since we don't have Results show. I think you are the one who is failing to see and understand or answer my questions.
 * a) If Nastia and Derek get eliminated this Monday, following your format we will have to write on week 4 "Eliminated". Right? What are you going to write on week 5 then? "Eliminated the previous week"?
 * b) IF your format is the right one, then go to Season 20 page and change all the couples on the week 4 table to "TBA" since the elimination is from the previous week.
 * All the last seasons that votes move on to next week, we never had "TBA". I just tried to explain but by removing what I wrote and with the summary you used you are being insulting. I understand pretty well how the show works. If you disagree then discuss and don't insult. TeamGale (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy?
For Yaacov Kaufman? really?E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, when you have that little of the article. What you've written is not enough to describe the topic. All you've describe thus far is that he is involved with art. There are only seven sentences. That is very low. You have to expand the article to explain thoroughly what he did in his early life, how his art became, and so on. Look at other articles, and you will understand what I am talking about. Callmemirela  ( talk ) 01:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you thought so, you're tagging too fast. Also, an article does not have to be perfect.  I have noticed that when short articles on patently notable people or topics exist, inexperienced users will sometimes take the time to flesh them out, and for this reason, it can be useful to start an article, however brief, provided the subject is notable and the seven sentences are sourced to places as reliable as Wallpaper (magazine) and, as in this case, written about an artist who has been recognized with solo exhibitions in major art museums.
 * I'm not trying to start a fight, just pointing out that it is very easy to slip into editing too fast.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether you like it or not, an editor is allowed to tag a newly-created page for many reasons: advertisement, lack of content, spam, copyright, people not notable, etc. Your initial article contained barely content explaining the topic what he did, how he did it, how he achieved, and so on. All you included when I reviewed the article was his awards and one real sentence about him, all of it being unsourced. Excuse me for wanting to create a proper article, something you should know about. So don't come whining to me or those responsible for speedy deletion when your article fails many guidelines and WP:BLPSOURCES. Callmemirela  ( talk ) 00:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are proving my point about editing too fast. There were 5 sources when you visited, and the page clearly showed 2 exhibitions at major museums.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And you are proving my point that the article, when initially created, created no significant content to explain the topic. When I reviewed it, there was the main sentence (birth of date and nationality) and his awards. This falls under the No Context criteria. You have to learn this. I could easily write about a topic with one sentence and their awards, such as myself. Whether it's new or not, as an editor with over 1000 edits, you should learn the basics of creating an article. If the article was in construction, you should have known there was a template you could have added to indicate the article is being built. Or again, you should have known you could have first written a draft then have it reviewed by admins. This has nothing to do with tagging fast. This is to avoid the unnecessary articles that users create by reviewing them to make sure it is in right condition, or have the basics at least. One sentence and their awards is lack of content, which is the primary reason why I speedy deleted whether you like it or not. You should have followed the draft process or have the template to explicitly remind reviewers that it is being constructed. Again, one sentence and their awards is very lacking for a Wikipedia article. I have seen a lot more for little topics, which I have not request speedy deletion. Callmemirela  ( talk ) 00:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What template is to be used "to explicitly remind reviewers that it is being constructed"? This sounds like a useful template to know about.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Here and here. For drafts, WP:DRAFTS. Callmemirela  ( talk ) 21:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but...
I don't follow bread crumbs. No one's done anything to either in a week, so why should I? —  Wylie  pedia  03:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what that expression is supposed to mean. It explicitally reads, on the box, "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent." Any edit made while the investigation is ongoing will be reverted until this is all resolved. As a well-respected member of Wikipedia, I expect you to follow that "rule" until further notice. You can update the rewrite in the mean time. Callmemirela  ( Go Habs Go! ) 10:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The phrase means I don't edit "queues", certainly not in those not maintained recently. I read your comments above in the edit summary, thank you, and made my comments here. —  Wylie pedia  12:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 &#124; The &#124; Whovian  16:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 &#124; The &#124; Whovian  16:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I was still editing when you decided to change the stupid col widths. Now go away. helmboy 16:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 &#124; The &#124; Whovian  17:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)
 * 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)

May 2015
Everytime, I add the new teaser on the marketing section of Scream Queens. it is removed? Why!? its on deadline, its airing on FOX, and I'm just confused.Vmars22 (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Coming soon is not trustworthy. Use Deadline instead of fansites or unreliable sources, please. Callmemirela  ( Go Habs Go!  ) 21:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I used Bloody-Disgusting for the second time, I added it. Is it reliaable?Vmars22 (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No. It's a fansite. Fansites aren't allowed. You said it was on FOX and Deadline. Use those instead. Callmemirela  ( Go Habs Go!  ) 21:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah okay! I just added it again with FOX's website as a source. Vmars22 (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I love when I use FOX it gets removed! Vmars22 (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That was not me. Go to the history of the page and check who it was from and ask them instead. Callmemirela  ( Go Habs Go!  ) 21:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, can you instead just add it? Maybe if you just re-added it Vmars22 (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC) what I had, it wouldn't be remove?
 * I wouldn't remove it. But if someone else does, I'll talk with them. Callmemirela  ( Go Habs Go!  ) 22:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I appreciate it, sorry if I seemed rude, hope your having a great day! :) Vmars22 (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No rudeness at all XP Callmemirela  ( Go Habs Go!  ) 22:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Removed again, please talk to them. Vmars22 (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

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 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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! , and  17:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

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

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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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 &#124; The &#124; Whovian  01:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

Oops sorry
Re an edit conflict where I wasn't careful enough checking intervening edits. Thanks for fixing it.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 23:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)

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