Talk:Alexa Nikolas

Untitled

This article has been kept following this VFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Afterall

Is the place where she lives on Zoey101 really a spaceship? This specific show about sister Jamie Lynn and how they had come together to keep trying at the game if 'Life.' Zoey was room 101, and so how do you think fights start up. If Lexis had come about a different age, then she probably will make a theatrical comeback in the late future. That school is obviously some chantey knock off and give warm thoughts to the spectater that maybe she really does live in Spears' room. You decide.

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)

Podcasts

In several podcasts, she mentions that she grew up in Chicago and moved to Los Angeles as a child. Can we add this and source the podcasts here? 2600:100C:A218:92ED:3883:FBAE:32AC:286 (talk) 04:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Would these be considered reliable sources? 2600:100C:A211:7F18:C9B7:A8C5:FEE0:4AD6 (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Podcasts are a medium, so they're not automatically considered reliable or unreliable. It all depends on the individual podcast. On Wikipedia, we're looking for reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. When it comes to content about living persons, those sources should be of exceptional quality. TMZ, in particular, has a pretty poor reputation on Wikipedia (and elsewhere), so it really shouldn't be used for claims like these. There's also a concern about undue weight of the claims, especially if they're only made by unreliable sources. In short, if her former locations aren't widely covered by reliable, secondary sources, that's a good sign that we shouldn't be mentioning them on Wikipedia.

You can read more about reliable and unreliable sources Wikipedia:Reliable sources (for general information), Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (for details on specific sources), and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (a noticeboard to ask questions about sources). Woodroar (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The source is an interview hosted by TMZ so the ultimate source is Nikolas herself for any information derived from what she states directly. WP:ABOUTSELF applies here. Of the 5 points listed in ABOUTSELF, #1, self-serving, might be the only issue but that depends on the information she says about herself. Basic biological information shouldn't be an issue. We would not and should not be using anything TMZ stated, just the spoken words from her. See also WP:TMZ - its use is situational and not prohibited. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:41, 15 April 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)