Jump to content

User talk:TurtleMelody

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

Welcome!

Hello, TurtleMelody, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Herostratus (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

[edit]

Hello TurtleMelody! Welcome and thanks for your contributions. I'm glad you're here and I hope you find your sojourn here a happy one, and if I can help you in any way drop me a message.

A couple of contributions did lead me to want to say whoa there, pilgrim. For instance here at Koko (gorilla) you deleted "Koko was the subject of the 1978 documentary Koko: A Talking Gorilla, directed by Barbet Schroeder." The film is bluelinked and I don't see why that wouldn't fit in the article.

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]

License tagging for File:Jane scharf.jpeg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Jane scharf.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

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]

[edit]

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 Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

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]

Re Talk:Jim Watson

[edit]

If you are going to make potentially contentious comments about living people, they must be cited to a reliable source, even if the comments are made on a talk page. Please review WP:BLP before making any further such comments. Regards, -M.Nelson (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:NOT#OR and more specifically WP:OR. -M.Nelson (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Fairlawn plaza.jpg

[edit]

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:

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

March 2011

[edit]

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. --Ckatzchatspy 10:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, TurtleMelody. You should read WP:What is a featured article?, and also 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 MOS:TV References to the show should be in the present tense since shows no longer airing still exist, including in the lead, 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 its GA and FA and a FA review. I should have you know that to the best of my knowledge, at no point in the last 2 years has any female made any substantial edits to the content of the article. Some may have done a few minor cleanups or reverts, but that's it. At the time I wrote the most substantial edits to the article I was not pre-pubescent; pre-pubescent Jolt Cola; addicted to Jolt Cola, prepubescent Jolt Cola, or Degrassi or any other substance; a girl or a fangirl. Unfortunately, because of the way you strung the sentence together I wasn't able to fathom exactly what you meant. Surely if you're going to complain about prose you should learn to use grammar correctly? "...written by a gang of prepubescent, Jolt Cola-addicted fangirls" perhaps? Anyway, I'm pretty sure that at no point in my life could any of those permutations be used to describe me (well, except for one, used by itself: "pre-pubescent" but that was a long time ago). Also, I have not been, and currently am not, in either a "fangirl committee" or a committee made up of fans of girls. I couldn't quite figure out what you meant by that, but I didn't really like either. You should be careful what you post to webpages: 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]

April 2011

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Trellick Tower with this edit, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. SeaphotoTalk 08:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Shining

[edit]

Believe it or not, about three cultural references to The Shining were rejected for every one that was included in the article, and great care was taken to source adequately what we had by WP rules! If there is a sourced statement by an artist that an ENTIRE music video is a commentary on the "meaning of the film", this absolutely passes WP's standards as established in WP:In popular culture, and is not as you put it a "passing reference", nor trivial. We also went to a lot of trouble to write in prose format, linking together similar or related examples with expository material, so the section would not seem disjointed, and not be a bulleted list. Some references there are less significant than others and may be subject to challenge, but your axing of virtually the entire section seems a huge case of overzealous overkill. One might surmise you have a negative view of music videos in general. The general idea was to give some sense of the enormous cultural impact this film has had.--WickerGuy (talk) 13:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

[edit]

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 Flushing Meadows – Corona Park, you may be blocked from editing. Please read Wikipedia:Blanking sections violates many policies for more information. Fayerman (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did in Rogers Centre, makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Balinese (cat), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. CliffC (talk) 03:31, 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 Talk:Balinese_(cat) page after you removed content from Balinese (cat). Fayerman (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly reminder to use an edit summary which mentions the term "prod" when proposing deletion for an article. Edit summary usage is always good, but it is especially important that edit summaries are used when proposing deletion. The reason for this is that articles proposed for deletion that later have the {{prod}} tag removed should not be proposed for deletion again, but rather sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The only easy way to check if an article was previously proposed for deletion is to look at the edit history and the edit summaries people have left before. Thanks! Maethordaer (talk) 12:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional diseases and other things

[edit]

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 WP:CIVILITY. Peridon (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 2013 NHL Winter Classic

[edit]

The article 2013 NHL Winter Classic has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

full of "likely" events without establishing anything as fact

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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]

Proposed deletion of Joyland (novel)

[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to (yet) meet the notability guideline for books. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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. – hysteria18 (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Joyland (novel) for deletion

[edit]

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. – hysteria18 (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing AfD template

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Joyland (novel). Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it. Snotbot  t • c »  03:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Nomination of No Gods, No Masters for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article No Gods, No Masters 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/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. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 23:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012

[edit]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to No Gods, No Masters. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 02:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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". Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 02:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I'm trying to be constructive but you can't just keep flooding the article with unsupported "uses" - readers have to be able to check that you didn't just make this stuff up. Try finding sources to back up what you're saying - if you know it then you probably read it somewhere. Look for the source and include it and you can improve the content. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 02:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TurtleMelody. You have new messages at Basalisk's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Also, I would recommend you read WP:V, several times, until you grasp its meaning. Sources are not optional on wikipedia; you have no leg to stand on when it comes to harassing other users for removing content that is completely unsourced and therefore could be entirely false. Referencing your claims is your responsibility. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 04:50, 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'sPonyobons mots 15:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012

[edit]

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]
Nope. We'll have to disagree on this. Pop culture is trivia and should be removed. A lot of users/admins have agreed with what I've done and thanked me for it.02:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
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'sPonyobons mots 16:20, 3 August 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. Per WP:NOBLANKING ViriiK (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:BRD for example) but in the end our behavior must follow the actual policies and guidelines, not the restatement of them is an essay. The main policy that is being violated here is 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]

ANI

[edit]

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]

SPI

[edit]

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

Not the first time, not even the second time. I have more sockpuppets than Mister Rogers. Funny, SmashTheState was not one of them. 21:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Fairlawn Centre

[edit]

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 deleted for any of several reasons.

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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TurtleMelody&oldid=1139329763"