Talk:Aida Nikolaychuk

Single-handed deletions without discussion

Assuming all are acting courteously and in good faith, additions are welcome. However, please refrain from overzealous "clean up" for a while until we build the article. The article is in its initial stage and we need more information before we start cleaning it up. One word can trigger a paragraph in the mind of a fan. Anyone who has time on their hands to clean up, I encourage him to donate money to Wikipedia first and then I can point him to over a million articles on Wikipedia that have needed clean up for many years.

I allowed some elaborate details that express the outrage of fans the world over of how the two judges ruined a once in a lifetime rendition of Lullaby that can never be repeated even by Aida herself (Please refer to the video of her audition) when Beavis and Butthead, as the two confused judges are now referred to, rudely interrupted her without basis. My intent was to get fans to participate at this early stage. If we make the article boring quickly. Few people, most with limited English, will have the courage to participate especially when it comes to someone notable in her small country and relatively unknown in the west.

I volunteer to lead this article, until a more knowledgeable Admin, even a user, preferably a Ukrainian fan of hers, is willing to do the "much needed" research and take the lead from me. Worldedixor (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles do not have 'leaders'. Unsourced material may be removed - and under some circumstances, WP:BLP policy requires that it be removed. As for 'fans' participating, they are of course as welcome as anyone else - but they too will need to comply with policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I prefer that you add useful content? Worldedixor (talk) 06:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Attribution

This article uses content translated from the corresponding Ukrainian Wikipedia article: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldenshimmer (talk • contribs) 03:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• I am not sure I understand the point above which I assume is made in good faith. The article referred to was started after I started this one. My content was based on research and I believe it to be a unique content. Other "welcome" participants added content that may have been translated from the other article which is not a violation of Wikipedia public domain policy. Worldedixor (talk) 06:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Firstly, the guy used content taken from the Ukrainian Wikipedia, and as such, we need to comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license (which this Wikipedia version also uses). Secondly, please stop restoring deleted content which makes no sense at all in English, you are overriding the WP:3RR. Thirdly, I suppose (per comment above: "preferably a fan of hers") you are a fan of this person; it does not make your point more valid if you are a fan of hers; as I said, the content you are restoring makes no sense in English language. Let alone if this gets to survive AFD. Regards, Küñall (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Yo mama, let me get this straight, dude!... Before you attack my English, is this a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black? whatdamattayou? do you really think your English makes any sense? It is extremely hard to remain civil with puny instigating schmucks unnecessarily instigating me, but I am still trying! Worldedixor (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Aida's official facebook page

Not sure who removed the link to Aida's official facebook page. Is it not allowed to link to facebook? If not, please justify your removal. Thanks. Worldedixor (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Worldedixor, I removed it with this diff [2] per WP:FACEBOOK. Goldenshimmer (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Goldenshimmer I believe you erred in good faith, and it appears that you did not fully fathom the spirit of WP:FACEBOOK that clearly asserts that "exceptions are made for official links when the subject of the article has no other Web presence." Aida's website Official website is coming soon and cannot be considered web presence and has no content. Unless you disagree with me, I will re-insert her Facebook official page as per WP:FACEBOOK to make the article more useful to readers. Worldedixor (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Her official website links to Facebook, VK, Twitter, and YouTube. In my opinion it's probably most useful to link to the official website, and then let readers choose which link or links to view from there. It also makes it less likely to need updating, because once her official website is completed, the Facebook link would become irrelevant. However it might be good to get a third opinion, since I'm no expert at policy either. :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Worldedixor, feel free to re-add it as far as I'm concerned though :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Goldenshimmer As much as I prefer to have a link to her Facebook page for the convenience of readers, your argument is 100% valid. I did not notice the links to her social media presence to the right, and I applaud that you did. So I am siding with your good argument against my preference until a third opinion weighs in and influences either one of us to re-add the link to Facebook. Thank you for your civil debate. Worldedixor (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Worldedixor, Thank you too! It's a pleasure working on the article :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)~

You're welcome... and I reiterate my appreciation of your involvement. But I am hitting a brick wall in getting much needed content. At this point in time, I am interested in building content and later trim everything down. My intention now is to "temporarily" add content that will "motivate" more English-speaking Ukraininan editors and fans to participate. Did I make my intention clear? Worldedixor (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Allowing unsupported content until more editors get involved

This article, sooner or later, will take off and I can completely retire from it. In the mean time, I will continue to volunteer to lead and, unless someone gives a better solution and builds sourced content fast, I will allow unsourced content made in good faith. As we saw before, someone, most likely Ukrainian fans, will come along and support any unsourced content. Any objections, please bring them forth and support with reason. What I don't want to happen is for the article to be boring without particpation and go stale. There is a method to my creativity. Please assume good faith. Thanks. Worldedixor (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

One more request to respond. ANY OBJECTIONS?... Thank you all for assuming and acting respectfully and in good faith. Worldedixor (talk) 01:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Goldenshimmer (talk)Thanks a lot for your continued useful contributions that have now exceeded mine even though I worked longer and harder... The link you provided [3] gives more than the an assertion of millions of views, it confirms her son's name among many other things... Your may not be needed at this "INTERIM" time, but they are a better option than removing "very hard to find content" I added in good faith (removed by another editor who has not added any useful content so far). Please take a moment to review my "INTERIM" method and give me more ideas. You, of all contributors, I cannot ask for more from you. You are already doing a lot. Worldedixor (talk) 02:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Worldedixor: I'm glad I've been able to help out with the article. :) I think the citation needed tag is exactly what an article under construction needs! It draws attention to how the article is still a "work in progress", and hopefully will encourage other editors to add more sources, and even expand the article further. (I'm actually planning to try to track down a source for that specific statement, since I think it's relevant, but I haven't yet.)

In response to the article's "interim" status, I certainly agree that it would be great to get some more content in. At the same time, it's important to make sure that we keep it within policy (WP:BLP, WP:N, and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, primarily) — which pretty much just means having lots of sources. :) Probably (in my opinion) the next major step would be to flesh out the details of the events mentioned (MUSICBOX promotion, concerts, critical response to singles, and so on). I hope this helps! :-) Goldenshimmer (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding unsourced content, it tends to be risky in BLPs, and is probably best avoided — but everything necessary should be able to be found somewhere! :-) Goldenshimmer (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I tracked down a couple more sources, so the citation needed is taken care of :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks as always. Your argument about the citation request is 100% valid and again I side with you, and I will implement it myself even on my own additions when I notice. I strongly believe that non-sourced additions by "well meaning" editors like me and you and the others that have shown their good faith and not just hindering progress MUST be allowed "IN THE INTERIM" to add any piece of information they see in TV or in printed media, etc... You seem to be the wizard of finding such reliable sources but again, as my method has facilitates, it all started with a non-sourced or poorly sourced statement made in good faith. I need your support in this. Any thoughts? Worldedixor (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Worldedixor, I'll help finding sources as best I can, although I can't promise I'm perfect :). It's good to keep in mind that if something's added without a source, it tends to run a risk of being deleted. If you need help tracking down reliable sources, or if something unsourced in the article gets cut that you think should be in it, just drop a note here and I'll see what I dig up. I'd love to help trying to dig up find sources as needed. :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 02:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You are a good and likable man. If I am not too intrusive, are you a fan of Aida's first audition yet? Worldedixor (talk) 05:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Worldedixor, I'm glad you think so. :D I do my best to avoid confrontations. Yes, I am a fan of her video (that's what brought me to the article in the first place, was I wanted to find out more about her after seeing it on YouTube). (At the same time, I'm trying to retain a neutral point of view in my contributions to the article as best I can.) :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 06:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

THANK YOU... THANK YOU... THANK YOU... You have made ALL my hard work worthwhile... It is MILLIONS of people like me and you who will do exactly the same thing and come to Wikipedia boosting its PageRank and thank Wikipedia for good editors like you and me and the other good "contributing" editors for taking the time, despite the unsolicited confrontations, to present information in good faith. I created this article for people like you. Worldedixor (talk) 06:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I need help retrieving content from Ukrainian references I added

I invite any editor who can read Ukrainian to help retrieve content form recent Ukrainian references I added or other sources. At this stage, quantity supersedes quality. Thank you. Worldedixor (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Doy you need the translation of the references in English? --ВікіПЕДист (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, my friend... If you are in doubt, copy it in Talk page here and I will select the useful content. Worldedixor (talk) 22:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi,ВікіПЕДист, when you have the time, would you please retrieve content from this source?... Thanks a lot... [4]

Good day. This source is notable from the point of view of the mention in mass media. But the link, you have added is the interview with Aida Nikolaychuk, which describes her own life=). So we shouldn't copy/paste this information) When I have time and desire I'll try to paraphrase some text from that site, in my own words. --ВікіПЕДист (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

YouTube links

Please note that per WP:YOUTUBE, links to this and similar video uploading websites are only permitted where it is absolutely clear that the material has been uploaded by the copyright owner. I have accordingly removed several such links, and ask that they not be replaced. I have also removed a statement regarding the number of YouTube views, per the Wikipedia:No original research policy, and because I have doubts that the figures given on YouTube pages would be accepted as reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, Andy. Noted and I agree with all except perhaps adding a "general" reference to the millions of views her audition videos are getting. Thoughts? Worldedixor (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You will need a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. But I am hitting a brick wall in getting much needed content. At this point in time, I am interested in building content and later trim everything down. My intention now is to "temporarily" add content that will "motivate" more English-speaking Ukraininan editors and fans to participate. Did I make my intention clear? Worldedixor (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If you don't have a source, where are you getting the information from? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

1. First, is it possible for you to always communicate respectfully, in a civil manner, and assume good faith and cooperate in good faith and give responsive, well thought out replies in god faith? If yes, can you commit to such effective communication between us? Otherwise you will be just be hindering my progress and making an "extremely difficult and time consuming task" even harder on me. 2. are you in agreement with my "interim" method to build content? 3. Do you have other helpful methods to build content or are you simply satisfied removing the very little "interim" (INTERM is keyword here) content I spend valuable time searching for? 4. Are you personally able to spend time looking for and adding content to the article or just remove content in a couple of seconds a day? 5. To give you a good faith responsive reply to your question, I get content from watching interviews on YOUTUBE with Aida (a non reliable source but Aida herself is speaking) that are transliterated and often poorly translated. Also from tidbits that I gather everywhere (that you hastily removed when I strongly believe that they are, IN THE INTERIM, useful to peek interest of curious fans and their participation. Once they participate in large numbers, they will have the incentive to add more content and I can completely retire from this article). Aida is understandably very busy, but she was kind enough to respond directly in broken but understandable English. If she agrees to respond to more questions, I will share whatever she shares with me until the content becomes substantial, and then we get to trim it, and this when I will sincerely need your help. 6. Finally, is my well-intended method clear to you? Worldedixor (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Material obtained by contributor's personal communication with an article subject is not acceptable, per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I know that!... I am spending valuable time that I should spend researching content for this article to "discuss" this matter with you like an adult and in good faith. You are willfully being evasive and non-responsive. Can you communicate with me respectfully and in good faith, and give me "responsive and COOPERATIVE replies" conducive to progress of this article? Otherwise, you would be acting in bad faith and using pretexts to hinder my progress. I have not done ANYTHING to offend you and I am still patient for now. Please show good faith. Worldedixor (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my behaviour, feel free to report it - but expect to have to account for your own bewildering behaviour - one minute you are posting barnstars on my talk page [5], and the next you are accusing me of being uncivil, simply for asking a perfectly reasonable question [6]. Meanwhile, I will carry on ensuring that this article complies with Wikipedia policy - policy which you seem not to understand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Any normal person would have appreciated my Barnstar placed in complete good faith and harmonious camaraderie towards you. I did not expect such anti-social castigation for it. Please forgive me, and I am sorry that you misinterpreted the appreciation gesture and removed it, making a good faith gesture non-enjoyable. Your problem is not with me, and I can help you. I already know that you have been blocked more times than most editors, and I would have enough backup to do what you are inviting me to do and much more, so please do not invite me again... My intention is not to get your permanently banned, my intention is to get more content for this article, and I am succeeding in spite of your holier than thou pretexts to hinder good faith progress of the article without having the decency to add ANY content whatsoever. For example, you removed the name of Aida's son, Maksim, but did NOTHING to remove the names of President Obama's two minor children, Sasha and Malia. Why? ANSER ME RESPONSIVELY for ONCE... You know you are abusing Wikipedia in bad faith as a pretext to antagonize editors and fill some void. If you really want to be CONSISTENT, go remove the names of President Obams's minor children and see what will happen to you. For the last time, please REPLY responsively, respectfully and cooperatively to my LEGITIMATE discussion questions, or back off your warring edits on my articles, assume good faith, take a few days "breather" not "selectively" apply Wikipedia's policies to suit you agenda... I have already given you enough patiance and you are simply instigating me. Please go get a breather or a hobby for a few days.Worldedixor (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not 'your article'. And read WP:BLPNAME there is no reason whatsoever why this article needs to include the name of a nine-year-old child. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Any reason why you are doing this? This is your opinion on including Maksim's name. I disagree. Does that give you license to do a 3RR instead of helping me understand your action? I placed the the name of Aida's "non-notable" minor child. You reverted it. I reverted it after thoroughly verifying that "non-notable" children of notable people are indeed allowed on Wikipedia. Examples: Adam Sandler's children , Jessica Alba's children and many more. You did a 3RR in bad faith. Explain to me the inconsistency between the articles I mentioned. You have more time on your hand than me, and you make my work on this article harder. Why don't you contribute instead? Worldedixor (talk) 04:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Please confine any discussions on this talk page to matters of direct relevance to article content. I have indicated the relevant policy - if you wish to include the child's name in the article, you will have to explain how "such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject". What difference does it make what the child's name is? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Since you know policy more than me, a better "informative" question would be: Why do you allow Adam Sandler's children , Jessica Alba's children, President Obama's children, Shakira's child in the pertinent articles and you are hell bent on removing the name of Aida's son in this article? Please take a moment to explain your INCOSISTENT editing. It would help if you can explain patiently how this article and all the other articles violate Wikipedia's policy.Worldedixor (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The content of other articles need not be discussed here - and I am not responsible for every article on Wikipedia. The relevant policy is WP:BLP, and as the WP:BLPNAME section makes clear, the onus is on you to explain why this child needs to be named in this article. Do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. You removed it alleging it violated Wikepdia policy, otherwise you would have been in the wrong removing it in the first place. The burden is obviously on you since you know policy more than me, and you based your action on policy. So, please take a moment to explain to me what exact provision of policy did this and the other articles violate in stating the names of minor non-notable children of notable persons. I am working very patiently and in good faith, and the record shows that other editors have explained policy to me and they made sense. Worldedixor (talk) 06:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

"The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons". If you want the name included, explain why it is of any significance. Or drop it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

First, thank you for FINALLY doing the decent thing and following Wikipedia's policy and giving a "valid argument" to your action. Treating other editors in a haughty and condescending manner is not acting in good faith. I invite you to deal with me like an intelligent human being. It will make you likable. Now, I question your motives in "selectively" singling out this article and only this article even after I pointed you in the direction of 4 other articles. It took you ONE minute to remove Maksim's name from this article. In support of your argument, policy also says "names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced". In this article, Maksim was properly sourced when you removed him, and his name is relevant as millions of Aida's fans WILL want to find out the name of her son when they know she has a son. If you tell me that Shakira or Madonna have a son, one of my first questions would be "what's his name?". Wikipedia needs to be informative and this is not trivia. So, since policy gives clear discretion to the "editor" n relevancy, and unless you object in good faith, it in my discretion as an editor to include his name.Worldedixor (talk) 07:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I linked the relevant section of WP:BLP policy in my post timestamped 04:35. If you have only now read it, that is your problem. And yes, I have given a good faith reason why we should not include the name - the presumption of privacy suggests that we should exclude it. And no, you don't have an 'editorial discretion' to include it - you need to provide a reason for inclusion, at which point we can try to come to agreement ourselves, or failing that, ask for input from others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I am trying but you don't have it in you to treat others like human beings. I see this as a clear and systematic violation of policy. OK, I will ask from other "contributing" editors. Worldedixor (talk) 07:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Worldedixor, User:AndyTheGrump: This apparently reliable source appears to make an assertion of millions of views ("видео с выступлением девушки на кастингах набрало миллионы просмотров"). [7] The source could be doubtful given that it's an interview, but since the relevant statement is in the lead-in I think it's probably good. Goldenshimmer (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It is a little vague, and possibly not the best source, but I'd say it would do at a pinch - I don't think anyone could question that Nikolaychuk has had a lot of attention because of the X-Factor video. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Goldenshimmer for taking the time to find it. It is a reliable source and a good source of useful content. Worldedixor (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Aida's "Thank You" and Sincere appreciation to useful contributors

• First, I am delighted to start seeing increased interest and participation in the article. I am also delighted that I was able to get in direct contact with Aida who sent us (since it is a collective effort by all of us) the following Thank You note: "Sorry, about my English 😳...And big thank you!!! Everything ok in the article."
• Second, a shout out goes to Northamerica1000^(talk), our unsung warrior behind the scenes who is awesome at "quietly" converting bare references added by "lazy" editors like me so we can focus on rapidly providing good content and references. Worldedixor (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Are Warring Edits Allowed Now on Wikipedia

• Is there a policy on warring edits? An editor has removed the name of Aida's "non-notable" minor child. I reverted it after thoroughly verifying that "non-notable" children of notable people are indeed allowed on Wikipedia. Examples: Adam Sandler's children , Jessica Alba's children and many more. He did a 3RR in bad faith. What is the best way to help such people learn to act in good faith? Thanks for your advice. Worldedixor (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:BRD. You added it. I reverted your edit, with an explanation in the edit summary. [8] At that point, the onus on you was to discuss the edit - not start an edit-war to get it back in. WP:3RR is intended to avert edit-warring, not instigate it, as anyone with an ounce of sense could see if they actually read it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You are acting in bad faith and being patronizing. OK, I will employ more patience. Discuss your removal and explain the INCONSISTENCY I brought up. Worldedixor (talk) 04:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

As per WP:BRD, care and diplomacy should be exercised. Some editors will see it as a challenge, so be considerate and patient. I invite you to exercise care, diplomacy, consistency, responsiveness and consideration. You are "selectively" applying partial policies. That is seen as a pretext to acting in bad faith. Remember, that I am still patient with you.Worldedixor (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Since you are apparently incapable of remaining on topic, and insist on personalising every post, I am now going to raise your behaviour elsewhere, and ask that you be sanctioned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, I DID remain on topic throughout, and on Admin Mark Arsten's advice, I initiated more than one discussion with you in an adult and civil manner patiently. I asked you specific questions and you were non-responsive. You deleted my discussion on your wall and called me names. You also have not acted with care, diplomacy, consistency, responsiveness and consideration. I am sorry but I reported you at the same time you were reporting me. Worldedixor (talk) 05:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

References

Aida's "Thank You" and Sincere appreciation to useful contributors

• First, I am delighted to start seeing increased interest and participation in the article. I am also delighted that I was able to get in direct contact with Aida who sent us (since it is a collective effort by all of us) the following Thank You note: "Sorry, about my English 😳...And big thank you!!! Everything ok in the article."
• Second, a shout out goes to Northamerica1000^(talk), our unsung warrior behind the scenes who is awesome at "quietly" converting bare references added by "lazy" editors like me so we can focus on rapidly providing good content and references. Worldedixor (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Voting on the inclusion of the name of Aida's son in the article

A. I respectfully ask for votes from "contributing" editors, primarily, on the inclusion or non-inclusion of the name of Aida's son in the article. The vote will be AGREE in support of my opinion or DISAGREE with my opinion.

B. I created this article and I am working very hard on adding content to this article. "Contributing" editors are doing more than their share too.

C. I initially included the name or Aida's son. It is well sourced. AndyTheGrump came and remove it. AndyTheGrump does not add any content to the article. This is a verifiable fact.

D. In all fairness, AndyTheGrump who has forced his "opinion" on the article by removing the name, referred me to the following provision of Wikipedia WP:BLP policy:

"Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons.

The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced."

E. It is my "opinion" that WP:BLP supports the inclusion of the name, and I will explain. WP:BLP leaves the "discretion" to the editor when it comes to relevance of inserting or not inserting the name. I will give the reasons why I strongly believe this insertion is relevant to the article:

1. Wikipedia's policy clearly allows including non notable minor children of notable persons. Please look at the pertinent Wikipedia pages where you can find Adam Sandler's children, Jessica Alba's children, President Obama's children and Shakira's child listed in the their articles among thousands of other children in Wikipedia, and clearly not one editor has removed them.

2. A policy that is not uniformly and equitably applied to ALL articles is not a policy. It is Unjust to single out ONE article. An UNJUST policy is no policy at all.

3. If someone tells me Shakira or Madonna has a son, one of the first questions I will ask is "what's his name?"

4. Millions of people who come to Wikipedia for information on Aida would want to know the name of her son when they know she has a son.

So, I am inviting everyone to vote with AGREE or DISAGREE. Thank you all in advance.Worldedixor (talk) 08:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• I AGREE to include name. Worldedixor (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NOTVOTE. Content issues are decided in reference to policy, and after discussion. And no, Wikipedia is not governed by "case law" or precedent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

(Note: evidently Worldedixor is unfamiliar with talk page policy - s/he has removed a reference to "case law" and "quoting precedence" from the post above mine, after I had replied [9] AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC))

With all due respect, this is not a vote on policy. As I explained, it is my strong opinion that WP:BLP already allows this article to include Aida's child. You and I have a dispute. Unless your "opinion" is all that counts in Wikipedia, this is a vote on whether the editors agree with my "opinion" or not. Please stop hindering everything I try to do. It is UNJUST that I have to come to speed on policy just to be able to debate you. WP:NOTVOTE does NOT "prohibit" poling. Participants on article talk pages do sometimes start polls for gauging opinion. There is no absolute prohibition on polling. Worldedixor (talk) 08:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You have been contributing to Wikipedia since 2006. There is nothing remotely 'unjust' in expecting you to understand the elementary principles by which consensus is arrived at in relation to article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Facts show that I HAVE been seeking consensus and discussing content and agreed with "contributing" editors who disputed, IN A CIVIL MANNER, my edits. Man, you have NOT added ANY content to the Article. You only discussed your 3RR violation AFTER I pointed it out to you. Since you know so much more than me in policy, TREAT ME LIKE AN INTELLIGENT HUMAN BEING and explain to me "the elementary principles of consensus". Again, that will make you more likable, and I will be able to appreciate your knowledge more. Worldedixor (talk) 09:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

Thank you. You are very civilized and kind to say this to me on Wikipedia. May God bless you. As hard as it is to remain civil when treated as such, I will not break policy. I hope Wikipedia admins will be kinder than you. Worldedixor (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Agree (note: family members should be included anyway) Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 02:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
• Points 1 and 2 above are contradicted by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. WP:NOTVOTE at least strongly discourages a 'vote" in such cases, rather a discussion, hoping to attain consensus, and providing policy-based reasons should be held. I see no argument or reason above as to why the name would be of significant value in this article. Therefore WP:BLP would suggest leaving it out. DES ^(talk) 02:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • DES: With all due respect, Points 1 and 2 above are certainly NOT contradicted by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS clearly allows "comparisons when used correctly" and "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". I will no longer edit for reasons I stated on my Talk page, but I cannot allow inaccurate dissemination of information and you deserve the respect of responding to you since you heeded my call to vote. I initially wanted the guidance of "contributing" editors. I never had any doubt that WP:BLP allowed the inclusion of her son's name. I also refer you to what Epicgenius stated in his vote Agree (note: family members should be included anyway). Worldedixor (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment. If this is to be a formal discussion/vote on the issue, can I suggest that it should be conducted in the proper manner, as a neutrally-worded RfC? It would probably be for the best to start again anyway, without the distractions of the above largely off-topic 'discussion'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I will recuse myself

I will no longer contribute to this article. I left my opinion on my Talk page. Worldedixor (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Aida Nikolaychuk. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029190453/http://www.transcriptsearch.com.es/id/HkpX30ZxJdo to http://www.transcriptsearch.com.es/id/HkpX30ZxJdo
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022041559/http://xfactor.stb.ua/ru/participants/3-season/3705/ to http://xfactor.stb.ua/ru/participants/3-season/3705/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022041556/http://xfactor.stb.ua/news/2012/10/24/51637/ to http://xfactor.stb.ua/news/2012/10/24/51637/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022041515/http://xfactor.stb.ua/news/2012/12/26/53453/ to http://xfactor.stb.ua/news/2012/12/26/53453/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022041553/http://xfactor.stb.ua/news/2012/12/30/53649/ to http://xfactor.stb.ua/news/2012/12/30/53649/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022041603/http://xfactor.stb.ua/news/2013/1/6/53733/ to http://xfactor.stb.ua/news/2013/1/6/53733/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)