Talk:Joey Merlino
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Joey Merlino. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060114173032/http://www.state.nj.us:80/lps/ge/exclusion/merlino_j.htm to http://www.state.nj.us/lps/ge/exclusion/merlino_j.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929122158/http://www.philly.com/dailynews/features/20070405_National_Geographic_takes_on_the_Philly_mob.html to http://www.philly.com/dailynews/features/20070405_National_Geographic_takes_on_the_Philly_mob.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110527001549/http://www.myfoxphilly.com:80/dpp/news/local_news/who%27s-the-new-philadelphia-mob-boss-052311 to http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/news/local_news/who%27s-the-new-philadelphia-mob-boss-052311
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Joey Merlino. 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/20160122162446/http://citypaper.net/articles/2002-07-12/cb4.shtml to http://www.citypaper.net/articles/2002-07-12/cb4.shtml
- Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.state.nj.us/sci/pdf/ocreport.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070620220813/http://www.citypaper.net:80/articles/2004-03-11/cb6.shtml to http://www.citypaper.net/articles/2004-03-11/cb6.shtml
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) 01:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Joey Merlino. 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/20070928000435/http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/view.php?id=12330 to http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/view.php?id=12330
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151001143119/http://citypaper.net/articles/032201/cb.citybeat.mob.shtml to http://citypaper.net/articles/032201/cb.citybeat.mob.shtml
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.citypaper.net/articles/2004-03-11/cb6.shtml
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) 18:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Joey Merlino. 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/20090322140133/http://members.fortunecity.com/sosdie/mob/family/philly/philly.htm to http://members.fortunecity.com/sosdie/mob/family/philly/philly.htm
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) 16:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Parking
editSeattle Times article discussing an alleged conspiracy theory that Merlino was involved in fixing ballots in favor of Joe Biden in Philadelphia in the 2020 United States Presidential Election. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that while Seattle Times is a reliable source, this should be referenced in several RS's so as to not possibly violate the Biography of Living Person's policy. I also note that Merlino, through his attorney, denies the allegations. 47.137.178.203 (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- No doubt it is a reliable source, just a question of whether to include it as it may be WP:UNDUE. Let's see if we get any other input. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is a no brainer. Media coverage around this has been substantial and worldwide as a result of the wider attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. Has been directly referenced by 2 individuals on Trump's personal legal team - one being Rudy Giuliani - the man directing Trump's efforts to stay in office. There is simply no conceivable way this doesnt warrant a passing mention. Covered by BBC, Independent, Fox News, NY Daily News, Philly Voice, Washington Post, Daily Beast, Seattle Times, The Australian. Among others. VideoGamePlaya (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- No doubt it is a reliable source, just a question of whether to include it as it may be WP:UNDUE. Let's see if we get any other input. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Can you post some links to those news articles so we can look at them? --Ted87 (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sure.
- It doesn't matter how many sources you can find about the isolated issue, because Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and I still find this WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION WP:UNDUE to include. If you want to argue this further, you can open a WP:RfC. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Watch your attitude because I've done nothing wrong here, my friend. I'm sorry I had to badger you into even being bothered to make that reply, but I was only wanting the same respect I've shown you. To remove someone's work, ask them to go to the talk page and then ignore it is the epitome of arrogance and highlights to me your contempt for new editors here. Admittedly I don't know the rules here as well as you, but I know of one or two you might want to revisit. Wikipedia:Etiquette "being dogmatic or uncommunicative evokes the same behavior in others and gets you embroiled in an edit war." "Do not use jargon that others might not understand. Use acronyms carefully and clarify if there is the possibility of any doubt." Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers.
My counter-argument was going to rest on Wikipedia:Fringe theories which writes "For a fringe view to be discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, independent reliable sources must discuss the relationship of the two as a serious and substantial matter." " the topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." "Even demonstrably incorrect assertions and fringe theories [...] can merit inclusion in an encyclopedia—as notable ideas in the public eye" and "The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents." For example the BBC write "According to a BBC analysis, the censorship story was shared tens of thousands of times on Facebook [...] The article about Skinny Joey was shared more than 17,000 times on Facebook to a potential audience of more than three million people, according to figures from social media analysis tool CrowdTangle."
As it happens, I've read WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION which you kindly provided, and I agree with you, as the guideline stands there are problems that would justify inclusion of this allegation. Nonetheless, I still consider my argument to have merit, and worthy of a lot more thought than the snide you've shown. However, I won't be taking it any further as, frankly, that would involve having to deal more with your good self. And as you've radiated nothing but arrogance and contempt for me in your behaviour, probably putting me off this website forever, I think I can do without that. Enjoy your day. VideoGamePlaya (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- VideoGamePlaya, I don't think I've given you any attitude. The links you provided were to Ted87, not me. There was no additional discussion by other editors to reach a WP:CONSENSUS on this matter. I've given you another avenue to take the matter, if you so choose. I'm also not saying that all fringe theories don't belong, as you've stated some do. With the links you provided, there's no doubt this case was significantly covered, but all the coverage was within a very short period of time, which may be more on the NOTNEWS side of things. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 02:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Ted87 intervened here entirely of his own volition, and I was happy to provide the links he asked for. It was you, not Ted, however, who removed my initial edit - which of course is absolutely fine - provided you properly explain yourself and demonstrate the same respect that you yourself expect to recieve. Apart from leaving me with some shorthand wikipedia jargon (which is entirely gibberish to me) and then asking I go to the talk page (which I happily did), you've been entirely uncommunicative. There are guidelines against this. Guidelines created for the benefit of relatively new users like myself. I wasn't being aggressive asking you to respond here - on the contrary I believe I was being generous giving you a week to fully explain yourself.
And I'm sorry, I may be wrong, but I detected some hostility when I (finally) got your reply. "It doesn't matter how many sources you can find" isn't exactly a great opener. It stinks actually. However, I finally get some civility out of you "With the links you provided, there's no doubt this case was significantly covered, but all the coverage was within a very short period of time, which may be more on the NOTNEWS side of things." That is the sort of respectful response I've been hoping for. If you'd been this courteous from the start this could've been avoided. VideoGamePlaya (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry if it came off that way, and I just want to see I really appreciate your cooperation here because there are so many new users here who do not respect WP:BRD, and you have done that perfectly. The only reason I didn't respond to your first comment was because I had already made my stance clear from my comment from November, and wanted to wait to see if any other editor had a response. But again, there is currently no CONSENSUS to add the text after several weeks, so I don't think there will be any more attention here without going the other avenue I pointed to, but I seriously think you'll get more of the same if other experienced editors are brought here. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 03:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes you're right actually in fairness to you. Might take a while to wrap my head around the jargon, but I'm sure I'll get there one day. Appreciate your maturity in the face of my little rant as well. Have a good day. VideoGamePlaya (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)