Jump to content

Talk:Alexa Nikolas/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Dubious Phrase

Noticed the following and requested comment:

Alexa recently starred in Am I Me? a disney channel film about a young girl searching for self-actualization amidst the hardships of an unplanned teenage pregnancy, anorexia nervosa, alcoholism, and other typical teenage angst issues that every teenager goes through at some point in their life.

Never heard of this movie, and as there is no way in heck Disney Channel would produce a movie touching on those topics, I brought it up here so someone could determine if the entire thing is vandalism or not. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like someone else thought so too, it's already been reverted. I think it's pretty safe to assume it was just vandalism too. For An Angel (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

File:Alexa-nikolas.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Alexa-nikolas.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Alexa-nikolas.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Alexa Nikolas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

BLP's and language choice

To the IP editor who has been consistently trying to change this article's wording – "let go" (e.g. "laid off") is effectively a more accurate wording of the situation at Zoey 101. "Fired" implied that Nikolas was "fired for cause", and no evidence has ever been provided that Nikolas ever did anything wrong except have a conflict with her co-star. Therefore the word "firing" has negative connotations and could reflect badly on this BLP subject, in addition to basically being inaccurate, and should not be used.

Bottom line – please try discussing your concerns at this Talk page rather than continually trying to edit warring your preferred wording into the article. Thank you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Lawsuit against ex-husband Milosh

Should we mention her current lawsuit against her ex-husband Mike Milosh as she had made it public as well as there are sources provided?2600:100C:A200:C366:5119:6635:516D:F46 (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

OK Magazine is a crummy source – it's equivalent to TMZ or other tabloid gossip rags. That she has filed a lawsuit against her ex-husband at least needs a WP:RS like People to be included. Even then it may be WP:UNDUE, or violate aspects of WP:BLP, but at least its inclusion can be discussed at that point. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@IJBall: she did post her court docs on her Instagram account. It is from her account here and it also verfied on the subject. Although I don't know how Instagram works in terms of sourcing on here, since I've just start editing on here a few months ago... MichaelFansz (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
We can't use that. WP:ABOUTSELF only applies when the BLP subject is talking about themselves. This involves another living person – Milosh has protection on Wikipedia too. We cannot allow this encyclopedia to be a forum where one person can potentially attack another person like that (esp. before any trial is held)... The only way this can be covered is if, 1) it's covered in reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject, and 2) it's reported in a "neutral point of view" manner without an inflammatory rhetoric or claims. Basically, if there is reliable independent secondary source coverage of this, assuming it is not WP:UNDUE, all we can say is "On [X date], Nikolas filed suit against her ex-husband, Milosh." But even that may be too WP:UNDUE. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Website in infobox

Should we include Eatpredators.com as her website on the infobox? It is well established she is the founder and primary organizer of this organization.2600:100C:A205:743B:2D9D:ADF9:FE0E:58A3 (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Bias in Revisions

I read the suggested revisions of @eleanoretheturtle, and the activism section in particular reads like a press release; it's very biased. It does not hold to the standards of neutrality that wikipedia promotes. KlausUlrich134 (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Amaury do you have any thoughts on these notes? Happy to remove/discuss things that seem questionable to you. @eleanoretheturtle also happy to find a middle ground on revisions. KlausUlrich134 (talk) 10:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Revisions

Hello everyone,

I have made several revisions to this page after seeing the warning on it. I have added more high quality sources, and tried to frame the controversies as impartially as possible. I hope this is helpful!

Best,

K KlausUlrich134 (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems like they were deleted entirely out of the history now. These do feel like important, sourced context, so I'm a bit confused. @Amaury, please let me know how best to proceed. I did post about the revisions specifically in the chat page, happy to discuss them individually here.
Many thanks,
Klaus KlausUlrich134 (talk) 11:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Just to note, they are still present in the history in the form of older revisions: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexa_Nikolas&action=history -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much! @Amaury, look forward to having the discussion to get this page properly sourced and up to date so the warning label can be removed. KlausUlrich134 (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps if I can facilitate the discussion by discussing the changes I made. I made a minor change to the summary section to include her activism work, which is most notable as she is still active as an activist.
I did not touch the career section.
I split the Personal Life section and the First Marriage, Divorce, and lawsuit, leaving the Personal life untouched, as it felt like they needed separate categories. In the previous version they were lumped together, so this felt more appropriate.
I added sources from People magazine, NPR, Billboard, and others to discuss the controversy around their divorce, which has now ended. This felt like a crucial context for Nicholas's activism.
It felt inappropriate to address the accusations without documenting the response, which has been done with both quotes and sources of those quotes.
I created an additional section called "Further allegations" to cover the work Alexa has done on Eat Predators, all of which has received significant coverage. Again it felt necessary to report the responses. when present, as well.
I expanded the activism section to include activism and controversy. I included the history of the movement and its founding, as well as the source of its name from a demonstration at at Diplo concert. I also used a podcast interview with several founders of the same movement to show the controversy around it's founding, as well as its initial intentions.
I included sources for an interview with Nichols on her use of the Barbara Streisand effect, to clarify her strategies as an activist. This came from the LA Times.
This all felt important to include to add better context and sources.
Please let me know which pieces are not working for you, happy to discuss more.
Many thanks,
Klaus KlausUlrich134 (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi @KlausUlrich134I took a look at these and feel they're landing good, just not sure about citing the attorneys, as it looks biased. Maybe ditch those? Otherwise seems fair, especially since the main thing she's known for is activism. Tiredelf (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Revisions

Hi Everyone,

I made some sourced revisions after messaging with @Magical Golden Whip. This adds closure to the lawsuits and sourced material for the beginning of the relationship. Hopefully this helps close the warning box. @Amaury As always, happy to discuss. Perhaps we can discuss here before simply reverting the page again?

many thanks,

K KlausUlrich134 (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Like I said on my message wall, I reverted due to the reasons by Amaury here [1]. I have not followed this issues, but don't think there is an issue adding it, but, I am just following Amaury's edit since they have been here longer then me. I didn't see the previous messages left to talk about this issue or seeing that Amaury responding to the tags, so I decided it was fiine to add back in after seeing that they tried to engage in census. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Mike Milosch Accusations

After reviewing the Mike Milosch page, which includes the aftermath of the lawsuit, and was recently added, it looks like libel not to include his response, and not to include that their lawsuits against each other ended. I will try and add this again, with proper citations of course. If it gets deleted again, and I see no response on this page, I will escalate the page to the higher ups, and report the current admins who keep deleting things.

With no responses, and no debate, I can only conclude that the admins are somehow trying to prevent the page from being edited in a way that is truthful. In this case either the page should be deleted or we need new admins.

many thanks,

Klaus KlausUlrich134 (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, can't let this turn into a celebrity gossip page. @Amaury please share your thoughts. Tiredelf (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
@KlausUlrich134I think it is important to include proper source material and quotations from the Judge that contextualizes the validity of the lawsuit after Michael Milosh's countersuit towards Alexa Nikolas' lawyers was dismissed. Otherwise is appears a misinformation in favor of Michael Milosh when that was not the end result in the court. @Amaury ElanoreTheTurtle (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
@ElanoreTheTurtleI have been looking at the various revisions, which honestly seem to express very strong bias bias. Some examples from the personal life section:
1. A legal document has been swapped for a pitchfork article.
2. Several direct quotes were removed (personal life) along with sources. After the sources were removed, the remaining fragments were removed because it was claimed they were “unsourced.”
There are also multiple new revisions without any description of what they are and why. It feels a bit like a bot army. This is the only instance of someone trying to discuss on the talk page.
@ElanoreTheTurtle as regards your claims, we list a lawsuit directly above against Milosch by Nikolas where her accusations were kept intact. In the interest of fairness, it would seem reasonable to keep Milosch’s accusations, which were also thrown out, as that would treat them the same way as Nikolas’s. Her accusations are present on Milosch’s page, so it seems fair to list each set equally. The presence of the court document allows readers to judge the claims made on their own merit.
I may be wrong here, but your revisions create a page that seems shorter, less sourced, and more biased. You are severely eroding the quality of the sources, the thoroughness of the piece, and the accuracy of the narrative in a way that feels very biased and against the standards of wikipedia. KlausUlrich134 (talk) 11:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Just a note that trial transcripts, court records, and other primary sources can't be used to support claims about living persons. See WP:BLPPRIMARY. Claims need to be supported by reliable, independent, secondary sources. For claims that are controversial or negative (which allegations of assault definitely are), we require top-tier sources—and often multiple sources to demonstrate due weight. Woodroar (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Please stop pinging me. I am watching this page and am aware when messages are posted. I have nothing to post about the matter at hand other than to say you've been reverted multiple times by multiple editors, not including this random Elanore fellow. Cease the edit warring or you will find yourself blocked. Amaury • 05:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Infobox image

We don't have a recent image that shows her current appearance. We have an image in the article that shows what a character she portrayed as a child 19 years ago looks like in the career section of the article. That image is not appropriate for the infobox as it is not a picture of her natural appearance at age 13, it is a picture of a actor in character made up and dressed as that character and doesn't reflect her natural appearance at that age. Also she is 13 in that image not her current 32, and as she is still notably active a more recent image of her adult appearance should be there. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

First off, the image is not in the infobox, it is further down in the "Career" section. Second, any new image would have to comply with the WP:NFCC policy. If you think you can find something that does comply, feel free to upload. Third, and having said all that, I would not be opposed to the removal of the current image on the grounds of "its kinda creepy." The subject has made allegations of sexual misconduct that happened when she was a child actor at Nickelodeon. using an image from the time period of the abuse is IMO a bit inappropriate. Zaathras (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
The issue is an infobox image in the |image= attribute and the many attempts to move the current career section character image to the infobox which I oppose for the reasons given. I have no problems with the character image in the career section where it is appropriate in context of that section as it illustrates her in an acting role. Yes free-use images are sometimes hard to get, the one in the career section is properly licensed which is why we have it. It is always presumed we can get a free-use image for a living person, until we do get a current one showing her as an adult, we shouldn't have an image in the infobox. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Activism

I don't have much to say here. And Alexa Nikolas herself would be about as upset as I am that her page is being targeted for removing the activist label from her page. The edit reversal harassment ends now. If she's not an activist, what do you call a person/group who protests at corporate office buildings and hosts a podcast dedicated to stopping the abuse of actors/musicians at the hands of people of power? Various sources (which you ignore) would say she's an activist, because that's what she's doing. Marino13 (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

1. Stop the whinge. 2. Stop taking this personally. 3. Provide the sources. Zaathras (talk) 04:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Unrelated to the matter, but here is one source. It confirms which network aired the docuseries Quiet on Set. And I'm having my edit reversed for putting in the correct channel.[1] Marino13 (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
That source does not mention activism in any fashion. You are likely being reverted because you are trolling other editors via snarky edit summaries. I suggest you stop that, and limit your summaries solely to the text you are adding or removing. Zaathras (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
That's why I said unrelated. Remind Magical Golden Whip that the docuseries did air on Investigation Discovery, and not Discovery Channel. Marino13 (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
In order for us to call Alexa Nikolas an activist in wikivoice, the label should be widely used by reliable, independent, secondary sources. I mean, it's not uncommon for celebrities to get involved in social or political issues, but that doesn't automatically make them an activist. Marino13, if you're aware of such sources, please bring them here—but keep in mind that they need to directly and explicitly call her an activist. Nothing short of that will suffice here. Woodroar (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
TMZ probably has sources related to Alexa and her movement. But I'm hesitant to use them as a reference because of what's real and fake. Marino13 (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Here’s a source from the LA Times.
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/music/story/2023-11-21/diddy-la-reid-neil-portnow-metoo-alexa-nikolas-eat-predators 2600:100C:A20C:6C0F:7D72:EBCA:6771:58DA (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. You've been most helpful, and I don't say that a lot here. Marino13 (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Are there any more sources? We should really have several. (As I said earlier, the label should be widely used by reliable, independent, secondary sources.) Woodroar (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Stenzel, Wesley (March 18, 2024). "Pedophiles on set, sexism in the writers' room: Everything said about Nickelodeon on Quiet on Set". Entertainment Weekly. Archived from the original on March 19, 2024. Retrieved March 19, 2024.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexa_Nikolas/Archive_1&oldid=1245352562"