User talk:CocaPopsRather/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:CocaPopsRather. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
talk page of 12.133.214.74
Hello, I wanted to let you know that you left a message on 12.133.214.74's talk page to let them know that you reverted their edits, but you didn't revert them. xRozuRozu (t • c) 19:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Oh thank you very much. (: CocaPopsRather (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
reversals on Nina Ansary bio
Hi CocaPopsRather. I would like to know the reasons for the reversals on the Nina Ansary page, as this seems like clear white-washing. All statements can be verified within the linked court documents. 2A02:A45B:F1AB:1:65BF:C826:49DE:E907 (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hey, some of the sources you added are not considered reliable. This is the reason for the revert. CocaPopsRather (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Which sources do you consider to be unreliable? If you understand Dutch this can easily be verified by reading the official verdict. 2A02:A45B:F1AB:1:65BF:C826:49DE:E907 (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Could you link the official verdict here? We would need to cite the official verdict, but in English. Is there any official English version you can provide? CocaPopsRather (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- The official verdict is linked, but it is in Dutch. There is no English version available at the moment. However, there are articles in English about the first verdict (non-appeal). This information was also removed, without valid reason. I find it odd that all this information would be considered unreliable, while a press statement by the accused party linked by Hanah is considered reliable. The second (appeal) verdict is not final, but pending further investigation (see the last page of the already linked verdict, which is in Dutch). 2A02:A45B:F1AB:1:65BF:C826:49DE:E907 (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- The information may be correct, but the sources are considered unreliable. Even if its true, it needs to be a source that is considered reliable. Since this is en wiki sadly we cannot cite Dutch sources. I think you should wait until an official English source is made. CocaPopsRather (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Does that mean that when people are convicted of crimes abroad, this cannot be stated on a wikipedia page, even when the central bank of said country refers to that fact in English, on their official website? Is the website of the Central Bank of Curacao and St Maarten considered to be unreliable? 2A02:A45B:F1AB:1:65BF:C826:49DE:E907 (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- a reliable source is one that has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and is independent of the subject it covers. A source that is associated or controlled by the subject, such as a central bank, may not be reliable for information about the subject, as it may have a conflict of interest or a bias. Therefore, the Central Bank of Curacao and St Maarten may be considered an unreliable source for information unless it is corroborated by other independent and reliable sources CocaPopsRather (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Once more, CBCS is stating that there is a verdict in place and that verdict is linked. There are also news articles about this verdict. In any case, don't you think that the mere existence of such a statement on the website of central bank deserves a mention on a wikipedia page, instead of completely pretending that this whole issue does not exist? 2A02:A45B:F1AB:1:65BF:C826:49DE:E907 (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- News sometime contain speculation, or bias. News articles may also contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations of the original sources. Therefore, news articles should be used with caution and checked for accuracy and reliability before citing them on Wikipedia. CocaPopsRather (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Once more, CBCS is stating that there is a verdict in place and that verdict is linked. There are also news articles about this verdict. In any case, don't you think that the mere existence of such a statement on the website of central bank deserves a mention on a wikipedia page, instead of completely pretending that this whole issue does not exist? 2A02:A45B:F1AB:1:65BF:C826:49DE:E907 (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- a reliable source is one that has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and is independent of the subject it covers. A source that is associated or controlled by the subject, such as a central bank, may not be reliable for information about the subject, as it may have a conflict of interest or a bias. Therefore, the Central Bank of Curacao and St Maarten may be considered an unreliable source for information unless it is corroborated by other independent and reliable sources CocaPopsRather (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Does that mean that when people are convicted of crimes abroad, this cannot be stated on a wikipedia page, even when the central bank of said country refers to that fact in English, on their official website? Is the website of the Central Bank of Curacao and St Maarten considered to be unreliable? 2A02:A45B:F1AB:1:65BF:C826:49DE:E907 (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- The information may be correct, but the sources are considered unreliable. Even if its true, it needs to be a source that is considered reliable. Since this is en wiki sadly we cannot cite Dutch sources. I think you should wait until an official English source is made. CocaPopsRather (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- The official verdict is linked, but it is in Dutch. There is no English version available at the moment. However, there are articles in English about the first verdict (non-appeal). This information was also removed, without valid reason. I find it odd that all this information would be considered unreliable, while a press statement by the accused party linked by Hanah is considered reliable. The second (appeal) verdict is not final, but pending further investigation (see the last page of the already linked verdict, which is in Dutch). 2A02:A45B:F1AB:1:65BF:C826:49DE:E907 (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- For example in your edit here you can see barely any of the information is sourced, bar a few pieces of text . CocaPopsRather (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific to which claim you are referring to? Most of that information is coming from the linked sources directly. Perhaps it is the wording that was used. 2A02:A45B:F1AB:1:65BF:C826:49DE:E907 (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- The thing is, some info was unsourced. The websites you provided are not considered reliable since to us they are just random articles, see WP:Reliable sources CocaPopsRather (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- I do not understand what the bar is. There are official verdicts in Dutch and there are news articles on the verdict in English. If you can indicate which one you prefer I will add it (again). 2A02:A45B:F1AB:1:65BF:C826:49DE:E907 (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- The verdicts are posted on the official Dutch government website, with the names redacted (standard government policy). The reason for linking the verdict as published by news websites is because these versions are unredacted. To me, it seems unreasonable to consider that all these websites are unreliable at the same time, while whatever Nina Ansary claims is not challenged in any way. The information on this page is clearly being manipulated in her favor.
- See here for the official document: https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/#!/details?id=ECLI:NL:OGHACMB:2023:158&showbutton=true&keyword=ennia&idx=8 2A02:A45B:F1AB:1:65BF:C826:49DE:E907 (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- The thing is, some info was unsourced. The websites you provided are not considered reliable since to us they are just random articles, see WP:Reliable sources CocaPopsRather (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific to which claim you are referring to? Most of that information is coming from the linked sources directly. Perhaps it is the wording that was used. 2A02:A45B:F1AB:1:65BF:C826:49DE:E907 (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Could you link the official verdict here? We would need to cite the official verdict, but in English. Is there any official English version you can provide? CocaPopsRather (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Which sources do you consider to be unreliable? If you understand Dutch this can easily be verified by reading the official verdict. 2A02:A45B:F1AB:1:65BF:C826:49DE:E907 (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
The sources you have used to write this paragraph are not all reliable, according to Wikipedia’s rules. A reliable source is one that has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and is independent of the subject it covers.[1] The first source you have used is a PDF document from a website called Knipselkrant Curacao, which seems to be a collection of news clippings from various sources. This source may not be reliable, as it is not clear who is behind the website, what their credentials are, and how they verify the information they publish. The PDF document itself does not provide any information about its author, date, or publisher. It may be a copy of a court ruling, but it is not clear if it is authentic or official. Therefore, this source may not meet Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability and reliability.[2] The second source you have used is a press release from the CBCS, which is the central bank of Curacao and Sint Maarten. This source may not be reliable, as it is associated with the subject it covers, namely the ENNIA case. The CBCS is a party in the legal dispute, and may have a conflict of interest or a bias in presenting the information. The press release may also contain opinions or claims that are not supported by evidence or independent sources. Therefore, this source may not meet Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality and no original research.[3] The third source you have used is a press statement from Nina Ansary, which is published on the website of her legal team, Vaneps. This source is also not reliable, as it is associated with the subject it covers, namely the ENNIA case. Nina Ansary is a party in the legal dispute, and may have a conflict of interest or a bias in presenting the information. The press statement may also contain opinions or claims that are not supported by evidence or independent sources. Therefore, this source may also not meet Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality and no original research.[4] The fourth source you have used is a PDF document from a website called 24ora, which seems to be a news website from Aruba. This source may be reliable, depending on its quality and reputation. However, the PDF document itself does not provide any information about its author, date, or publisher. It may be a copy of a court ruling, but it is not clear if it is authentic or official. Therefore, this source may also not meet Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability and reliability.[5]
Bradley Walsh
I think Walsh is best known for The Chase nowadays. None of his other quiz shows took off in the same way nor are they staple parts of daytime TV from Monday to Friday, and his acting career has somewhat stalled, with Walsh no longer in Law & Order, Coronation Street or any other shows he acted in. And whilst he does now do Blankety Blank, broadcast on Saturday nights in the autumn on BBC One, he only started doing this very recently. Since 2009, he has been arguably best known for The Chase. 77.98.210.44 (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, he is best known for the Chase, but you have to have a neutral point of view and can't say "He is best known for the chase", or what you said in the article. CocaPopsRather (talk) 08:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Also, this is unrelated, but I met Walsh in December 2014! :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.210.44 (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
September 2023
Hello, CocaPopsRather, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Jeraxmoira (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hello. I am not using multiple accounts to co-ordinate edits.? CocaPopsRather (talk) 08:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- And what is my 'editing pattern', all I have been doing is patrolling recent changes. So your saying anyone who is patrolling recent changes and reverting is a 'edit pattern'.?? CocaPopsRather (talk) 08:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Previous accounts
Can you please not archive your talk page before the other editor can comment?. Regarding the notice, it was sent assuming good faith.
Can you please explain how you are familiar with the Wikipedia polices, Recent changes patrolling, Usage of RedWarn and other scripts? considering your account is two days old. Do you have prior experience editing Wikipedia? Jeraxmoira (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hey, I did respond before I archived the page. Onto your second question I do have experience editing on Wikipedia, I created a user account 2 days ago. I used to edit with IP. CocaPopsRather (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- If you used to edit with an IP, then how were you able to install and use RW without any hassle?. I am curious to know how long you have been editing with an IP to have knowledge about user scripts and RW Jeraxmoira (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hey, I just read the page on Redwarn and its documentation, not that hard, Redwarn is simple, theres a vandalism rollback, content removal ect. I have been IP editing for about 5 months maybe 6. CocaPopsRather (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- If you used to edit with an IP, then how were you able to install and use RW without any hassle?. I am curious to know how long you have been editing with an IP to have knowledge about user scripts and RW Jeraxmoira (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)