User talk:Lolorenabanana

Conflict of interest, removal of sourced information, copying content from external sites

Hello. Your edit to Criss Angel has been reverted for several reasons.

First, you are removing sourced information. Removing sourced information without a good explanation of why is not generally seen as constructive. If you want to remove sourced information, you should explain why in edit summary and at the article's talk page. Please be advised that it is common for articles on Wikipedia to cover all major viewpoints of subjects, which would include critical commentary.

Second, material you are adding is generally unsourced and appears to be promotional. If you are affiliated with Criss Angel, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to you, your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view and verifiability of information.

(For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations.)

Finally, you are including text that has been previously published in other sites, such as [1]. In accordance with our copyright policy, we cannot accept content from previously published sites unless it is compatibly licensed or public domain. See Wikipedia:Copy-paste. If you are the owner of the content or, as you seem to be, connected with Criss Angel, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, but please be aware that it is seldom suitable under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to copy extensively from a subject's website. Official websites naturally exist to promote their subjects, but Wikipedia articles do not. Our articles are intended to provide neutral overviews of notable subjects.

Please see Wikipedia:Introduction to learn more about Wikipedia and its mission. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Criss Angel. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm a bot created by another Wikipedia editor. I wanted to let you know that I removed a link that you recently added to the page Criss Angel here. I did this because http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=criss+angel+walks+on+water&oq=criss+angel+walk&aq=0&aqi=g10&aql=&gs_sm=c&gs_upl=535l4052l0l6134l16l9l0l0l0l0l1100l2141l1.3.1.1.7-1l7l0 is probably inappropriate for an encyclopedia. We generally try to avoid linking to external audio or video.

We appreciate your help in making Wikipedia better for everyone. If I made a mistake, feel free to undo my edit. If you have any questions, you can ask at the Help desk.

Thank you! --XLinkBot (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Criss Angel, you may be blocked from editing. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Criss Angel has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please stop adding promotional and copyrighted material from: http://official.crissangel.com/criss/biography Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to repeatedly violating our copyright policies, you are still removing sourced criticism without valid explanation. If you continue doing this after your block expires, your account is likely to be blocked indefinitely. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criss Angel

(Hello, I have been blocked from adding data on Criss Angel site. I'm now familiar with the policies of wikipedia and understand now that I need to maintain a neutral point of view while respecting the point of views of others and what I add must be sourced data. The last edit I did was just that and yet it was removed for being sited as promotional and copyrighted material but that is not the case. The Orville Redenbacher commercial was a success and sourced to the publication of the ratings for that. I would like to request to be unblocked. Lolorenabanana (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Lolorena, you're not currently blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are going to have the same problems. Saying The last edit I did was just that and yet it was removed for being sited as promotional and copyrighted material but that is not the case. means that this editor is going to repeat exactly the same behaviour which got them blocked in the first place. The material they added has been established as a copyvio from Criss Angel's official website and they still refuse or are simply unable to acknowledge it . Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some copyvio examples

From official.crissangel.com: More of an event than a show, BeLIEve is performed live 8 to 10 times a week and will continue its 10 year run at the Luxor Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas and has been the best- selling live magic show in the world since it opened. The Toronto Star raved "The show is easily the most exciting thing now on stage in Vegas!" The BBC touted "BeLIEve is A+, by far the most spectacular and amazing magic show in Vegas and I've seen them all", and Newsweek raves, "Criss Angel BeLIEve is a GREAT SHOW!"
15 December 2011 Lolo's edit: More of an event than a show, BeLIEve is performed live 8 to 10 times a week and will continue its 10 year run at the Luxor Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas and has been the best-selling live magic show in the world since it opened. The Toronto Star raved, “The show is easily the most exciting thing now on stage in Vegas!”

From the same website: Simultaneously, Criss has also partnered with Cirque Du Soleil and MGM Resorts International to serve as writer/director, illusion designer and star of his spectacular live show "Criss Angel BeLIEve." More of an event than a show, BeLIEve is performed live 8 to 10 times a week and will continue its 10 year run at the Luxor Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas and has been the best- selling live magic show in the world since it opened.
14:26, 27 December 2011 Lolo's edit: Criss partnered with Cirque Du Soleil and MGM Resorts International to serve as writer/director, illusions creator and designer, original concept creator and star of his spectacular live show "Criss Angel BeLIEve.” More of an event than a show, BeLIEve is performed live 8 to 10 times a week and will continue its 10 year run at the Luxor Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas and has been the best-selling live magic show since it opened. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Angel's website: In 2011 Criss' brand power continued to evolve when he was chosen to co-create and appear in a new commercial campaign for Orville Redenbacher's Pop Up Bowl. His casting proved to be a huge coup for the brand as the commercial has proved the best-recalled new spot in May, according to the latest research from Nielsen, beating out mainstream brands such as Ford, Volkswagen, Kraft and McDonalds just to name a few.
14:26, 27 December 2011 Lolo's edit: In 2011 Criss was featured in the Orville Redenbacher Pop-Up Bowl commercial. His casting proved to be a huge success for the brand as the commercial has proved the best-recalled new spot in May, according to the latest research from Nielsen, beating out mainstream brands such as Ford, Volkswagen, Kraft and McDonalds just to name a few.

And they still fail to acknowledge that they violated the copyright policy of Wikipedia. Not very encouraging. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More copyvio information from my report on MRG's talk. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finally a last comment: It is rather interesting that Lolo never cites directly to official.crissangel.com, even though they copy directly from the site. Rather they use other websites as inline citations, even though these websites are not carrying the copyvio text. I wonder why. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Issues to watch out for

Hi. I see that Dr.K. has explained above some of the problems that you are still having with using text from Criss Angel's website. Unless the source is verifiably public domain or compatibly licensed, you can only copy brief amounts from it and only in a direct quotation. Otherwise, you have to put everything in your own words. (And if it is compatibly licensed or public domain, you have to acknowledge that you are copying to avoid Wikipedia:Plagiarism.) The Criss Angel website is not compatibly licensed. It says, in its Terms of Use, "You may use this Site solely for your own personal use and not for republication, distribution, assignment, sale, preparation of derivative works or other use. No part of any content, form or document may be reproduced in any form or incorporated into any information retrieval system, electronic or mechanical, now known or hereafter devised, other than for your personal use but not for resale or redistribution." Please review Wikipedia:Copy-paste. If your edits violate our copyright policies, nothing else matters; we won't be able to keep them.

Even if the information were public domain or compatibly licensed, though, you have to consider whether it is appropriate for Wikipedia. We have a couple of core content policies that come into play here: verifiability and neutral point of view. Looking at your last series of edits to the article, here, you say, "Criss Angel has also created a successful and sought after magic kit line." Even if this were your own words, you would need to be able to tell us who says that the magic kit line is successful and sought after. Because it's generally understood that sellers have a vested interest in their products doing well, Wikipedia requires a source that does not benefit from sales of the kit to confirm this. You could source the existence of the magic kit to Criss Angel's own website, but you cannot source any statements about the success of the kit to that. You'd need a newspaper article, a magazine profile, something that independently confirms this.

In terms of neutrality, you did source your comments about the Orville Redenbacher Popcorn ad, but when you say "His casting proved to be a huge success for the brand as the commercial has proved the best-recalled new spot in May, according to the latest research from Nielsen, beating out mainstream brands such as Ford, Volkswagen, Kraft and McDonalds just to name a few" I'm afraid that you may be overstating your source. Your sentence suggests that the commercial is successful because of Criss Angel. The source actually says, "Watch the Orville Redenbacher spot below and after 15 seconds you'll have forgotten it stars Criss Angel."[2] It is a fact, and sourceable as such, that Criss Angel appeared in this successful commercial. We do not currently have any source that suggests that it was successful because of his casting. We have to avoid original research - putting our own thoughts and conclusions into content that is not directly supported by our sources.

The first sentence you placed under "Criss Angel Believe" almost meets policy: "Criss partnered with Cirque Du Soleil and MGM Resorts International to serve as writer/director, illusions creator and designer, original concept creator and star of his spectacular live show "Criss Angel BeLIEve.”" It comes off as a little boastful until you hit the "spectacular", where it completely crosses the line. :) If you eliminated "spectacular" and added a source, the sentence might stand. The first section of the next sentence ("more of an event than a show") is far beyond what we are allowed to say. That it "has been the best-selling live magic show since it opened" is neutral enough, but it needs a source not connected with Criss Angel, MGM Resorts International or Cirque Du Soleil to confirm it.

More subtle neutral point of view issues apply to your addition of critical praise. You're introducing them with words like "raved" and "touted." By doing this, you are drawing judgment on the tone of their reviews. You can introduce personal opinion with statements like "John Smith wrote in The Newspaper that...." or "In his review of the show, John Smith of The Newspaper said...." or even "According to The Newspaper's John Smith,..." This is neutral.

You need to think about how critical evaluation fits into the text naturally. Why place reviews of the show, for instance, above the passage about its opening? I'm afraid it comes across as though you are attempting to soften some of the negative reviews by putting positive reviews first. You should consider a chronological arrangement. For example, the section might begin something like this:

After further development, later reviewers voiced different perspective. Dayna Roselli of LasVegas Now wrote in October 2010 that "the OLD BELIEVE is no longer there. It’s a completely different show. It’s all about magic now", featuring tricks she described as "definitely amazing and high energy."source John Katsimoletes of The Las Vegas Sun wrote in early 2011 that "The changes [Angel] has made in “Believe” are pronounced and effective.... Angel has essentially taken over and made “Believe” a show about magic, and as such it is far better than it was when it opened."source. Richard Ouzounian of the Toronto Star said, "The show itself is easily the most exciting thing now on stage in Vegas . . . and Angel promises to keep adding killer illusions in the months ahead."source.

A few notes: using the title of the article rather than any actual content is probably not your best approach. For one thing, authors of articles do not always write those titles; for another, it is certainly not a very nuanced view of what the author has to say.

As you'll note from the off-the-cuff approach I came up with above, the positive criticism should be introduced in a text-based context, not by itself. We don't run snippets of reviews, but instead try to present a balanced overview of what critics have written about an artwork. We are not here to promote or denigrate artists; we're only here to offer a balanced overview of what has been published about them.

The final thing I would suggest is that you consider carefully your intention in editing the article. If you can't edit it with that intention - offering a balanced overview, you really should not edit it. The Wikipedia community takes a strong stance against "conflict of interest" editing. So many people try to use Wikipedia to promote something or alterantively to speak out against something that we work hard to guard against it. If you wish to contribute to the article, you need to do it from that perspective: that you are helping to build a fair and balanced view, not to push the article to portray Angel or his work in a positive (or negative! :)) light.

I'm not very familiar with Angel's work myself, but just from looking at the article and the sources you've presented, it looks as though Angel's BeLIEve wasn't very successful or perhaps that good when it first opened, but that he has successfully taken into account criticism to make it more of a show featuring him and his magic, and that this is being well-received. If this is the case, our article should reflect that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MRG. Thank you very much for your attention to this. I noticed that in your analysis above you use some examples which unfortunately also fall in the copyvio category. I covered them in my reply above your section but they got missed, which is understandable due to the volume of the data. The string Criss partnered with Cirque Du Soleil and MGM Resorts International to serve as writer/director, illusions creator and designer, original concept creator and star of his spectacular live show "Criss Angel BeLIEve is a direct copyvio from official.crissangel.com. Same goes for the Redenbacher string: In 2011 Criss' brand power continued to evolve when he was chosen to co-create and appear in a new commercial campaign for Orville Redenbacher's Pop Up Bowl. His casting proved to be a huge coup for the brand as the commercial has proved the best-recalled new spot in May, according to the latest research from Nielsen, beating out mainstream brands such as Ford, Volkswagen, Kraft and McDonalds just to name a few.. Also "raved and "touted" are verbatim copyvios from the same website: The Toronto Star raved "The show is easily the most exciting thing now on stage in Vegas!" The BBC touted "BeLIEve is A+, by far the most spectacular and amazing magic show in Vegas and I've seen them all", and Newsweek raves, "Criss Angel BeLIEve is a GREAT SHOW!" This user pulls copyvio text from official.crissangel.com but never attributes the Angel website and instead uses inline citations from other sources to support the copyvio text. This can be confusing. Please see my last comment above: diff. It covers this very issue. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you've covered the copyright angle, which I also addressed in my first paragraph. :) My purpose in the bulk of this is to explain other issues: "Even if the information were public domain or compatibly licensed, though, you have to consider whether it is appropriate for Wikipedia." It is quite possible that the Criss Angel website might be compatibly licensed at some point, but the content will not be appropriate even so for the reasons I've set out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you are fast. :) I just finished leaving you a message on your talk. Sorry for missing your clarification. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hi Lolorena. I added the info of your edits but modified them for copyright compliance and encyclopaedic tone. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]