User talk:Emma white20

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

IMDb reliability?

This is an expanded version of a response I posted to my talk page in response to your query. Please note my recent change of username. --Jenny (recently changed username)

I'm puzzled. In your comment on the entry for the movie "Aftershock: Earthquake in New York", you state that IMDb is an unreliable source. If that's so, why does just about every film or TV-related Wikipedia entry have a link to IMDb on it? Surely, if it's that unreliable a source, then shouldn't all of those links be removed? And shouldn't the same apply to the use of all sites which rely on user contributions, such as TV.com, and even Wikipedia itself? I know of a lot of other user-supported sites where they refuse to accept Wikipedia as a valid source because they say the information is unreliable and not subject to proper fact-checking!

Also, what's the current general POV regarding offline sources, such as books or magazines, where there's no web link available? In any academic publication, they would be accepted as valid, because anyone wanting to check the information could go and look it up in the same publication, but what about on Wikipedia? Are people accepting them as valid sources? I'm asking because I've got quite a bit of information for various entries which is contained in hard-copy publications and which I can't find anywhere online to allow me to insert a clickable link as a reference. As a result, all I can do is give a conventional "old style" reference to the publication and hope people accept it as academics have done so for decades.

Sorry, probably rambled a bit there - it's late and I'm tired!!! Emma white20 (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that there is an inconsistency. It only really emerges as a problem when there is seriously problematic content on imdb, which is rare.

Wikipedia obviously isn't a reliable source. Links to Wikipedia articles aren't to be used as sources to verify statements of fact in other Wikipedia articles. Any site that relies substantially on poorly checked or unchecked user contributions is an unreliable source for almost every conceivable purpose.

On sourcing, a reliable source which also happens to be a printed book is generally more reliable because we can say with confidence that the book is unlikely to crumble to dust in the near future whereas the lifetime of some links to web-based sources, which may be otherwise reliable, can be measured in weeks. For instance I'd have no hesitation in recommending that anyone interested in serious research get a library card for a good university or national library. There are some older books that haven't been transcribed to electronic form; some of them may never be. This doesn't mean they're not reliable.

A publication that is out of print may still be acceptable if it had a wide enough circulation, and is considered important enough, to be available in traditional sources such as libraries. --Jenny (recently changed username) 16:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 07:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest, or coincidence?

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Rae White, 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 from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, 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 your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you accuse me of a conflict of interest! FYI, I do NOT have any connection, official or otherwise, with Sydney Rae White. I seriously resent your accusations, and would like to know the grounds on which you base them - or do you simply accuse everyone who has a differing view to yours of having a conflict of interest? Emma white20 (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The grounds are pretty obvious, if you stop to think about them, putting yourself in the other editor's shoes. You're "Emma White" and the article is about "Sydney Rae White". Yes, those grounds are not wholly solid, once one thinks about how many Whites there must be in the world. But the above is a boilerplate warning ({{subst:uw-coi}} to be precise). It takes very few keystrokes to write, and is all-too-easily applied as a substitute for a real human-written message, especially by people in a hurry. ☺ A real, human-written, message would probably have asked whether you are a relation to the subject, who thus would have had a conflict of interest, or whether the surnames were simply a coincidence. Uncle G (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's exactly why I put the subject heading on this item that I did. "White" is not all that common a name, and the question was raised in good faith. The first word in the template is If for a reason. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - While you may not think it a common name, there's plenty of "Whites"'s around where I live - which is nowhere near London (where she's from...). And you're assuming that "White" is my actual last name - Logic which, if turned around, would lead me to conclude that your last name is "Mike", and your first name is "Orange", which I'm sure it isn't... Let's face it, there's no rule on Wikipedia which says that your user name has to be the same as you're real name, is there?? Who knows who anyone really is behind their user name? For all you know, I could actually be a very intelligent and dexterous woodlouse called Leonardo!!!!! Emma white20 (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No flagged revisions category up for deletion

The category associated with the no flagged revisions userbox you have placed on your user page is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009 April 23#Category:Wikipedia users who oppose Flagged Revisions and you are invited to share your opinions on the issue. Alansohn (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

talkback

Hello, Emma white20. You have new messages at Fritzpoll's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sydney Rae White

Following the result of the deletion review, the article has been moved to User:Emma white20/Sydney Rae White to allow you and other interested editors to add reliable sources to prove that she meets our criteria for notability. Good luck,--Aervanath (talk) 04:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: TBL

First, News of the World is considered a tabloid. As such, tabloids of any variety are not considered reliable sources for any article here because they are not considered "reliable...published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". You may also want to read through the archives of the reliable sources noticeboard as this subject has been brought up before on various articles. See this posting regarding The Sun and News of the World and this link pertaining to Twitter. If you want further feedback regarding those sources, you're free to inquire about them on that noticeboard once again but as it stands right now, the sources are not considered reliable and should not be listed on any article here. Pinkadelica ^♣ 05:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of those comments against the Sun seem to be by people who are not in the UK, and therefore have no direct knowledge of the paper in question! I'm in the UK, and can tell you just how wrong those comments are. The News of the World is NOT the UK equivalent of the National Enquirer - If the UK has such an equivalent it's the Daily and Sunday Sport! The News of the World is a proper newspaper, not a trash tabloid as you have in the US. And I don't see any actual judgement on the reliability of the sources in question - just people's opinions. Don't judge UK tabloid newspapers on a simple comparison to US tabloids - There's a HUGE difference between them! Emma white20 (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And just to add a bit more, the page you pointed me too basically just has ONE very active editor (who has no direct experience of the source) asking if the source is reliable, with replies from what appears to be a German editor (who again seems to have no direct knowledge of the source), a banned sockpuppet, and another editor who INCORRECTLY states that tabloids are not allowed as BLP sources - I've carefully checked WP:BLP and can find no such reference! So please stop saying that tabloids are not allowed as sources - There is NOTHING in Wikipedia guidelines which say that... According to all of the Wikipedia guidelines, such as WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:V, tabloids are allowed as sources, and any comments to the contrary are simply statements of your own personal opinion! Emma white20 (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I'm allowed to remove any message from my talk page at any time (per WP:TALK and WP:BLANK). The message is hardly "removed" anyway, it's in the history and in my talk page archive as the discussion moved to the article talk page. If anyone is desperate to read your days old message to me, it can be found in two places. I'm also allowed to archive my talk page as frequently as I like which I do quite often because I can. If you have an issue with that, talk to an administrator. I also suggest you read up on WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL before dealing with other editors you disagree with again. You appear to be making an issue over an article into a personal one and we don't do that around here. Any further communication with me should be done via Talk:The Beautiful Life. Pinkadelica ^♣ 02:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jennifer Garner

Hello, Emma white20. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic talk:Jennifer Garner. Thank you. --Gidz (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Adrian Brown (historian)

The article Adrian Brown (historian) has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Helen Quine (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me that this article needed some work! I've given the article a comprehensive rewrite, including adding IMDb and TV.com entries. As for your comment in the proposed-deletion notice about failing to find any mention via Google Scholar, maybe you are unaware of the guideline stating that the absence of references in Google Scholar should not be used as proof of non-notability? If you look about half-way down that page, there's a paragraph warning about how unreliable it can be as a source, which states "the absence of references in Google Scholar should not be used as proof of non-notability." Looking at WP:BIO, it appears that notability exists there through the newspaper and other references. Emma white20 (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the rewrite. I still find the claims to be less than notable though - he seems to have had some success at local presentation work and failed at attempts at national coverage (barring a few photos in Astronomy Now - not related to the main claim of importance in the lede). I'll check out the references when I can next make it to Derby library.

I'm aware that that Google Scholar is hardly comprehensive - which was why it was only one of several searches I made and mentioned. But it's an author's job to demonstrate notability, and no references had been provided. I was merely documenting the checks I had been able to make before I took the step of prodding it. --Helen Quine (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Adrian Brown (historian)

I have nominated Adrian Brown (historian), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Brown (historian). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Bazonka (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]