User talk:Colin.r.neary

Welcome!

Hello, Colin.r.neary, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Paulina Alexis did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Introduction tutorial
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Introduction to referencing
Help pages
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome.

I haven't reverted your additions to the page, but am asking you to remove anything sourced to IMDb, which is not considered reliable, as anyone can edit it without sourcing their content. Please also check the other sources you used, to make sure they meet the WP:RS reliable sources criteria. If you don't adjust this, one of us will wind up having to revert your additions, due to Wikipedia's sourcing policies. Best wishes, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Paulina Alexis, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Some of this may be usable, but not the content only sourced to IMDb. Please rewrite the content you want to add, using only what can be sourced to reliable sources. We want our article on Paulina to be excellent and meet all the encyclopedic criteria. Also be aware that edits count per user, including IP edits.[1] I may try to help with this if I can, but the WP:ONUS is on the editor adding the content to make sure it's encyclopedic. Best wishes, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cited 18 sources besides IMDB and you deleted the whole post? That is extreme. These materials are all sourced if you took the time to check the material. I will go through and use [ibid.] for every reference I use. These are viable sources, based on quotations Alexis has said herself, and you are colonizing her page. Report the source as unreliable so I can fix it, don't delete the entire description that I've spent hours on. What is your problem this is supposed to be a forum for content and you are censoring me? I will cite every single fact that I state, but other than IMDB, what other source am I supposed to use for her filmography? You are being ridiculous, and I don't want you deleting my post again, because the information provided is absolutely basic. You are doing Paulina Alexis a disservice from providing the public from seeing insight to her life. Give me a break and stop deleting all of my stuff. Just report the source as unreliable if that's your problem, don't delete another user's work it's DISRESPECTFUL. Colin.r.neary (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the top of this page, there will be a link that says, "sandbox". That is a page you can use to paste in your proposed text and work on it. Cut any material that is only sourced to IMDb, blogs, or personal sites. See the links I've posted about what sources are usable. No one is colonizing. Feel free to come over to the Indigenous wikiproject if you want to meet and hang out with the Native editors and allies who work on these article on the 'pedia. Of course anyone, of any background, can edit Wikipedia. But we have wikiprojects so we can collaborate on areas of shared expertise and interest. If you do the initial work of cutting the unusable sources I will help you with this, but I wanted to give you the opportunity to do the first revision(s). Best wishes, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is: Your edits to Paulina Alexis in your sandbox. Have at it. Once it's in better shape, either add it back or ping me (or another experienced editor) if you're not sure if it's ready. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you removed all of the content without even reviewing the sources? Am I supposed to submit content for approval? I thought this website was supposed to be inclusive. These are direct quotes from her in interviews! I don't have a problem with you editing and saying needs to be sourced, but you deleted the entire thing! You're not being very "user-friendly" when you delete someone's work entirely. Like I said, I will cite ALL of the statements that I make, and quotations that I use, but if you refuse to allow me to use Youtube and Tiktok videos with interviews of Paulina Alexis, there will be no chance to quote her. Also I cited multiple publications. My problem is that you deleted ALL of the content. Do you think that I'm stupid and don't know how to cite my sources? I'm a college graduate in English literature and I probably have a better hold on citation than you do. Wikipedia is not clear at all about its citation guidelines, so you seized all of my content and threw it in your "sandbox"? Wow what a great community you have here on the 'pedia. I'm trying to do this woman justice when all you've written is that she's "a hockey player and horse relay rider". That's not an article, it's a farce, and you're doing Paulina Alexis a disservice by depriving her fans of learning more about her. My idea was to go through every interview and publication that she's been a part of, but what's the point, if you're going to delete everything? You are reminding me about why I don't use Wikipedia, because content is highly censored by people like you, and you make people like me waste my time trying to get through you gate keepers. I'm citing ALL of my sources, and using ibid, or do you have a problem with that too? Colin.r.neary (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is your sandbox, not mine. I put the content where you can work on it. I could have just cut it all and then ignored you. :) It's because I went through the citations and checked them that I had to revert. It's not just IMDb; other cites you used don't cite the content - they are about related issues, but don't mention the subject of the article. In other places there are big walls of text with no citations at all. Or you inserted new, uncited content in front of an older citation that does not include the content you added. Again, if you want to edit here you will need to read the links about how citations work, which ones are suitable for the encyclopedia, and how to use them in an article so your edits stand. I'm sorry if this is upsetting to you, but I didn't make these rules. And even if I never interact with you again, someone else will just come along and say the same thing. Best wishes, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 01:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well now I'm up to over 60 references and not quite done yet. There are references from every statement. Also I wouldn't call this a "major edit" because I'm the first one to write the article. Every source is vetted, there are no blogs, but there are a number of Youtube videos and one Tiktok featuring interviews with Alexis. I'm testy because I don't trust Wikipedia as a resource. You guys made up your own form of citation. Like I said you could've just said "requires citation" instead of deleting it all. Regardless now I'm waiting until it's finished. 98.187.197.175 (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the "major subject of an article"? They're interviews! You're really going to disqualify a source that I'm pulling direct quotes from? You're making me feel like I'm wasting my time writing this article. All of the sources I've provided are legitimate from TV and text interviews, peer-reviewed journals, and all sorts of other stuff. You really watched every interview and read every article? 98.187.197.175 (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finally Wikipedia is NOT an encyclopedia, as scholars discourage their students from consulting Wikipedia at all, even its sources because they're not reliable even with your apparently strict guidelines because there is no standard MLA or Chicago style formatting. Just so you know that's how it's viewed in the academic institution. Wikipedia is a shorthand "encyclopedia" that is considered gospel by lay persons but is really just a gateway to more research. 98.187.197.175 (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also the so-called "sandbox" is not even offering a full preview of the text like it's maxed out or something. 98.187.197.175 (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said I'm doing this as Alexis' biggest fan, not to be a regular Wikipedia editor, and the guidelines are confusing and do not follow scholarly format so that's why I'm confused. 98.187.197.175 (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Biographies of living persons noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding a BLP issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Paulina Alexis, excessive detail. Thank you. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin.r.neary: Your attention is promptly requested at Paulina Alexis, excessive detail. Thank you — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 20:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

what are you talking about "excessive"? This stuff is important enough to qualify for a national publication, and you're going to block me to defend the content, which I've so meticulously researched and referenced? You guys are extreme to threaten to block me for censorship. Go right ahead. I don't know what you think gives you the right or authority to do that, but if you want to censor the page of an Indigenous woman, then claim it's overly detailed. Who made you judge, jury, and executioner of this very important content that I've spent dozens of hours developing into readable material. Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. The links to youtube are quotations from interviews. Research the sources. However wikipedia is an inferior platform for the simple reason you give facile information. I guess if I have to take it to her wikifandom page, then I will, but to threaten me with blockage for opposing your censorship is part and parcel to the problem with Wikipedia. You guys are censors who delete content without any regard for the user who didn't get paid for the tens of hours invested. You're a trip. You're going to strip this article down until it's devoid of any useful information. I know you. You're a typical censor. You'll take away the details, the quotes, until it's down to one sentence again I bet. Get outta town. Wikipedia censors strike back, eh? Colin.r.neary (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, this is not about censoring or about Paulina being indigenous. It is about our policies and guidelines, especially Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which is one of the most important pages on the encyclopedia. It is about there being too much detail. It is also, as it turns out, about copyright violations. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie is right; information about Alexis' skin care and sock preferences are not in line with Wikipedia's encyclopedic goals. Neither is multiple paragraphs about Indian residential schools on an article only kind-of tangentially related to the issue. Using YouTube and social media posts as sources is generally discouraged where better sources are available, and the amount of (often poorly attributed) interview quotes in the article is excessive. Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

One of your recent edits has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you restore the copyright violation again you will be blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Paulina Alexis) for disruptive editing, and refusing to collaborate.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]