User talk:Newblackwhite
Welcome![edit]
|
Copperfield[edit]
For an article on a living person to include something like this would need really good sourcing, and probably a talkpage consensus as well. Let me know if you need any help with this. --John (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
If you don't like the source I used, you can select a better one here, amongst the 103,000 web pages, or put a "citation needed" to let someone else do the job, but we cannot censor a well-known fact that people talks about since 2006. --Newblackwhite (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- On the contrary, the onus is on you to convince folks that this info is worth including. Sorry. --John (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, we are a collaborative project, so I think it's everyone's interest to have as much useful information as possible. I don't understand why don't you help me in finding a good source, or wait for somone else to do it. In many cases, I see sentences remain with a "citation needed" for years before being removed, but in this case, it had been removed in few minutes with a quick "source not good enough, and the onus is on you". Does Wikipedia becomes better after we remove informations?
- And, by the way, I don't understand your point. Are you claiming that the info ir false, or that the info is true but not relevant? --Newblackwhite (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- We are indeed a collaborative project and one of our joint principles is not to include dubious information about living people. This policy, which is one of our most important ones, is at WP:BLP and it means that in cases of doubt we default to not including the information. In this situation, to have the information included you would have to attract a consensus at Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist) that it should be included. The best way for you to do this would be to start a new section there and describe how having this would benefit the article. You should include several very good sources that you have personally reviewed. --John (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Sure, one of our principles is not to include dubious information. That's why I didn't say he found the Fountain of Youth, but only that he claimed to have found it, and I used a source to prove it. If you think the source is not good enough, shouldn't the burden of proof be on you? Shouldn't be you the one who has to explain in the talk page why the source is unreliable? We are the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, after all, and we should discuss before removing sourced information. And I still don't understand if you claim that the info is fake or true but irrilevant. --Newblackwhite (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello! Thank you for not taking my response/criticism harshly. I deleted my comment regarding the Vanishing Statue of Liberty illusion by Copperfield because, after some contemplation, I was honest with myself and my motives for dropping Poundstone's reveal in the article were less noble than I tried to make it sound. Being an illusionist is a hobby for me, but it is not my career. It's difficult to make money performing for most of us, and don't think for a minute that there isn't a substantial amount of jealousy involved when we criticize or eye roll at the mention of Copperfield. I mean, most of us barely afford to pay our rent and Copperfield owns a chain of islands! Nonetheless, Copperfield catches a lot of hell that he mostly does not deserve. He'll be remembered as one of the greats, and he has earned it. He isn't better than Ricky Jay (probably the greatest living illusionist), Lance Burton, and a few others, but he doesn't deserve anyone's jealous ire. Criticisms of Criss Angel, on the other hand, aren't jealousy, but I'll be nice and shut up now! :) Take care!RushRhees (talk) 04:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
BLP warning[edit]
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you.--John (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Ehi, I used TWO sources instead of one, what was the problem this time? I think they are good sources but you seem to think otherwise, can you please tell me what's wrong with these sources and why do you think the information was "poorly referenced"? And why do you call the information "controversial"? The page Fountain of Youth talks about Copperfield (it wasn't me) and none objected. I've read plenty of articles on the subject in the last 30 minutes, including notorious newspaper from my country (Italy), but I'm afraid even with a thousand sources you will delete the paragraph. Can you tell me what kind of source should we use? Thanks.--Newblackwhite (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
So, after I mentioned the Fountain of Youth article, you deleted Copperfield references even there saying "not here" (so, where?), but you didn't answer my question here. I just don't understand. As far as I know, we should put verified and interesting fact on Wikipedia. The fountain of youth thing is interesting, no doubt. And is even verified, since there are plenty of sources. For example, here the news is mentioned in la Repubblica, the second largest circulation newspaper in Italy. Is Repubblica a poor source? If you don't like Italian sources on a English Wiki, you can select another source in English here, but removing info doesn't help us IMHO. --Newblackwhite (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- One of our principles is not to include dubious information about living people. This policy, which is one of our most important ones, is at WP:BLP and it means that in cases of doubt we default to not including the information. In this situation, to have the information included you would have to attract a consensus at Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist) that it should be included. The best way for you to do this would be to start a new section there and describe how having this would benefit the article. You should include several very good sources that you have personally reviewed. English sources are better. Please now read some of the links I have sent you before making any other additions or asking any more questions. --John (talk) 06:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
You said "Please now read some of the links I have sent you before making any other additions or asking any more questions". Of course I've already read them tens of times, but just in case I decided to read the English version of these three pages now to see if they were different from the one I knew, and to "gain" the right to reply again. I still think the same: my source were reliable. How could they not be? I mean, one of them was a verbatim interview with Mr. Copperfield himself, another one was about the island, another one was La Repubblica, a published source "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (I know English sources are better here, but foreign ones are not forbidden; the important thing was to prove that the news deserved a mention in the article, we can change it with another English source later). You keep saying "doubious information", "in cases of doubt", but I haven't yet see a word as to WHY do you think the information is doubious. Who can decide alone that a fact with several sources is doubious? I'm going to put this on the talk page so that this won't go on forever, but I don't think Wikipedia will gain from disputes like this. --Newblackwhite (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio[edit]
The text you included here is a copy of copyrighted material from here. Please suggest a brief summary in talk and we can see if we can compromise. Please do not continue to edit war dubious or copyright material into the article pending such a compromise being reached. If you do choose to continue I will have to raise your conduct for review by an uninvolved admin. --John (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've read this after posting my last post on the talk page, so I will only talk about copyright here. And I doubt to have violated any copyright, since I rephrased everything except a small quote in quotation marks, which is fair use. I'm used to rephrase things to avoid copyright violation. --Newblackwhite (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Comparison[edit]
You wrote: He also aked astronauts what was the most beautiful spot, the most beautiful water, and they all agreed this specific spot in the Atlantic Ocean, and they all agreed it was Musha Cay.
The source has: Astronauts were asked from above what was the most beautiful spot, the most beautiful water, and they all agreed this specific spot in the Atlantic Ocean, the Bahamas.
Come on! --John (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the source I used, was this (the text is probably identical between those two sources). The words you used in the comparison were differents, which means I DID rephrased the source, but of course I had to keep what astronauts were asked exactly (since it was a very specific question) and the fact they all agreed it was Copperfield's island.
Compare this:
I wrote: According to Copperfield, he found it by connecting lines between "magical places" on the Earth, and noticing that those four lines intersect at Musha Cay.
The source wrote: I found it by connecting lines between magical places on the Earth, and those four lines intersect at a specific spot in the ocean. And it so happens that is where my islands are.
You can say it was a bad rephrasing, but you can't deny I did the effort of a good faith rephrasing, especially considering how hard is for me to write in English. --Newblackwhite (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- This degree of close paraphrasing is not acceptable in English Wikipedia. Please do not repeat it. Again, it is better if you post your suggestions to talk and wait for more experienced editors to implement your suggestions if they wish. As you have said you find it difficult to write in English, this is all the more important. --John (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I try to avoid close paraphrasing when I can, since I feel copying destroys my creativity, but in this case I don't see a possible way to report the news without copying the keywords ("connecting lines between magical places on the Earth" or the things astronauts were asked). I'm getting used to write in English thank to the internet and I'm becoming faster, the only problem is that sometimes I have to search a word in an online dictionary or a sentence seems strange to me. --Newblackwhite (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
The Three Caballeros[edit]
Hi. I noticed that you added Italian as one of the languages used in the 1944 Disney film The Three Caballeros. Since the film focuses exclusively on Latin America, it seems unlikely to me that Italian would have been used in the film and I certainly can't remember anyone in the film speaking Italian. Could you explain to me why you added this information? Thanks. --Jpcase (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Saludos Amigos[edit]
I saw those credits in the other language Wikipedias and thought I would get that down here. --Smartie2thaMaxXx (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- For Donald I was referring to the Brazilian and the European versions, since I saw that he voiced both. --Smartie2thaMaxXx (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]
Hello, Newblackwhite. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]
Hello, Newblackwhite. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Gary Leach[edit]
Hello Newblackwhite. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Gary Leach, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Seems a reasonable redirect considering the non-standard spelling. When Gary has an article, just puta hatnote on to Garry. Thank you. GedUK 16:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
[edit]
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.
Thank you!
[edit]
Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.
If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!
Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.
If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.
ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]
Hello, Newblackwhite. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]
| Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]
| Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]
| Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
The article Walking Through the Great Wall of China has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Fails WP:GNG
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Sea Cow (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
"Sergeant Garcia" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Sergeant Garcia and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 20#Sergeant Garcia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 10[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Donald Duck universe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bob Gregory. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)