User talk:NilaLaniera

Please cite[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Monica Bellucci, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Please find and add a reliable citation to your recent edit so we can verify your work. Uncited information may be removed at any time. Thanks for your efforts, and happy editing! --Yamla 20:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Bellucci information[edit]

-- I cannot re-add the information with "reliable sources" as I have no other sources to give you. --NilaLaniera 00:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore just because something is a lowly fansite doesn't make it wrong. Does it automaticly make something right if it appears on a corporate website where you can barely read the info for the deluge of pop-up adds, but some big shot paid to put the information up ? What makes that an automatic assurance of accuracy and at the same time what makes a fansite an inevitable source of innacuracy ? --NilaLaniera 00:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Once again, please read Wikipedia's official position on verifiability. A fansite is not considered a reliable source. The particular fansite in question may only contain accurate information but if so, it would be literally the first such fansite I have seen to do so. Additionally, unless the information is verifiable, it should not be added. --Yamla 23:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And probably the 2347th fansite I've seen that is completely accurate. --NilaLaniera 00:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If all fansites are innacurate and unreliable then why do some celebrities select fan-run sites to sanction as their official site Amanda Tapping's Official Site ? --NilaLaniera 00:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to do with Amanda Tapping and cannot speak for that article. However, just because one article is substandard and does not adhere to official Wikipedia policies does not mean that all articles should. --Yamla 23:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Amanda Tapping's selection of a fansite as her official site to give an example of a fansites ability to be accurate and a labor of love to that can often be better than what a celeb themself can put up. I made no reference to her Wikipedia listing and I don't even know if she has one. --NilaLaniera 00:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, you'd have to talk to Ms. Tapping. She probably considered that fansite to be exceptional. Certainly, many fansites are very good and some are truly exceptional. --Yamla 01:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I insist that all contributors to Wikipedia follow official Wikipedia policies. Some may slip through as I monitor more than 1,000 pages, but I assure you I have nothing against religion or nudity. For the record, I have stated that I want you to add this information back. I just want it to be cited appropriately. I specifically have nothing against Ms. Bellucci's religious beliefs or nudity. --Yamla 23:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And yet I cannot verify the Agnostic quote... the most important piece of my information... I only know that I received it in an e-mail from my friend, who runs that site, as a way of convincing me she was Agnostic and not a Christian. I cannot verify the Quote- the lynchpin of my additions- because the information is not published on line... there is no on line varifycation beyond that one website, and therefore it is unvarifyable and therefore unusuable by Wikipedia. Therefore my purpose for posting the information here is moot. --NilaLaniera 00:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I have pointed out, the information does not have to be published online. It does have to be verifiable, however. This quote does not appear to be. --Yamla 01:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the iMDB is so unrelible, why do you site it as a source in such celebrities as Roxann Dawson's listings on Wikipedia ? Appearently the iMDB is more reliable as a source for information on Ms Dawson than her own website, and yet it is a source of lies when it comes to the information I want to post ?? --NilaLaniera 00:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. I think you are confused. --Yamla 23:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not confused, you just enjoy putting me down. On iMDB Roxann Dawson's birthyear is listed as 1958. Her official site, and her publicist and Paramount Pictures all give her birthyear as 1964. What does her Wikipedia listing say ? --NilaLaniera 00:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are confused because I have nothing to do with Roxann Dawson's article. I have no idea what her Wikipedia listing says. You claimed that I cited IMDB as a source for her birth year but I did no such thing. Someone else may have done but I have nothing to do with that page. It certainly isn't on my watchlist. --Yamla 01:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not demanding a website. It would be quite reasonable to provide a magazine's name and issue to cite this information. Once again, I ask you to read WP:CITE. --Yamla 23:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is information that I do not have nor have access to... The man who sent me the quote, and posted it on his site is very busy and very hard to contact. It would take me two or three months to get any information from him regarding where he got the quote. I have just finished an agonizing search for a varifycation of that quote. No luck. --NilaLaniera 00:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia requests that you do not add information unless it is verifiable. There are many examples of bad information already on Wikipedia and we try to catch these and remove them. Otherwise, what would be to stop me from adding a quote where she claimed to be a Christian? You and I both know this would be wrong, but there'd be no way for a third party to determine who is correct. That's why information must be verifiable. --Yamla 01:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to know that I only joined the Wikipedia to post this particular information, because the information is censored off of other sites featuring information about Monica Bellucci in an effort to hide from the public that she is an Agnostic, as it clashes with the image of her film, The Passion of the Christ. As an Atheist, I do not believe this information should be withheld from the public. --NilaLaniera 00:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You will find even before your edits, Ms. Bellucci was clearly labelled as an agnostic in her article. Given that this information was already included in her article, I think you are perhaps jumping the gun by implying that I am trying to withhold this information from the public. --Yamla 23:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This statement of yours is absolutely untrue. There was no reference to her being Agnostic before I added this statement to her article:

After her performance in The Passion of the Christ, Monica was assumed by many fans to be a Christian. She has, however, stated she is an Agnostic in at least one interview

You added that information on 2006-05-22 12:55:57 (though the time there could be MDT, it may not reflect your time zone). However, a reference to her being agnostic was added here on 2005-12-13 10:30:49, more than five months ago. Please don't accuse me of lying. --Yamla 01:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put in the quote that I cannot varify to your specifications as a form of varifycation for the above statement that I posted roughly 2 minutes after joining Wikipedia this morning.

I've been searching the net all day, after calling in sick to work, trying desperately to find proof of Ms Bellucci's agnosticism that you will accept. But there was no reference to Ms Bellucci's being an agnostic before I posted it this morning. There may have been at some point, but it was not there today. --NilaLaniera 00:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you called in sick as a result of the Wikipedia, I think you are taking matters much too seriously. If you are legitimately sick, I wish you well and hope you recover soon. --Yamla 01:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ask you to limit yourself to sources that exist online. Furthermore, I did point you at WP:CITE which shows how to add citations. There's no reason it should have to clutter up the article. --Yamla 23:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you think my sources are inaccurate just because they are websites of a fanbased nature. Perosnally I think that is insulting, prejudiced and downright snobbish as those fans work on those sites all on their own trying to varify information before they post it, while people here just jump on others who have done 7 years of research and call their information innaccurate just because it is only varifyable on line on a fansite. --NilaLaniera 00:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you don't agree, you are free to request an official policy change to the Wikipedia. --Yamla 01:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think they are unreliable (NOT inaccurate) because they are unverifiable. --Yamla 23:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could always invite you into my house and show you 7 years of collected research. That is why I find this situation so insulting. I have never before been questioned when it comes to information regarding Ms Bellucci, any more than I have on information involving Star Trek, or Star Wars because people who know me know my information is reliable. --NilaLaniera 00:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have 7 years of collected research, you should find it relatively easy to cite your sources. Of course, that probably assumes you have indexed your sources and I know full well this may not have happened. --Yamla 01:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's notes are inappropriate on articles. I am sorry you feel you will have no further use for the Wikipedia. --Yamla 23:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no use for any source of information that removes, blocks, or in any way censors factual information just because it cannot be varified by a particular type of source, or via a system of rules designed to make it virtually impossible for anyone to be taken at their word. --NilaLaniera 00:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps you would be happy somewhere else. Wikipedia policy requires that information is verifiable. Otherwise, as I noted above, you could claim she is Agnostic, I could (but of course would not) claim that she is Buddhist, and someone else could claim she belongs to the Church of Scientology. You may think this is unrealistic but I assure you this sort of uncited information is added all the time, much of it contradicting other information already on the Wikipedia, much of it later shown to be in error. --Yamla 01:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the only reason I'm maintaining my Wiki account at this point is to post this response, and then edit Ms Bellucci's page to attempt to adhere to your demands. Otherwise I find the idea of having my name associated with this site offensive.

--NilaLaniera 22:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish, I can help you change your user name so it no longer reflects your real name. --Yamla 23:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My user name has never reflected my real name. And I will be blissfully happy to end this association as soon as possible. Your treatment of me has shown me that this is a narrow minded site that is not concerned with providing information edited in freeform, but with providing a very small and narrow ammount of information that is varified to death rather than posted freely. What if there is no varifycation of something, beyond my own word, and yet it is true. But because it is not varifyable it must be treated as untrue for the sake of your rules and regulations ? And I am to smile at this despite the personal hurt and insult ?

It's nothing personal. If it was a personal insult, this would mean that I was holding you to a different standard than I hold other people. In truth, verifiability is official Wikipedia policy, as WP:Verifiability shows. --Yamla 01:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not worth my time to post here. Because your varifycation system causes your articles to be so devoid of any useful information that what you have on most people's pages could easily fit on the back of a playing card.

Loosen your leash.

If something is found out to be untrue or innacurate it can always be edited or removed later.

This, though, would require negative proof rather than positive proof. This is not always possible (for example, I could add information that Ms. Bellucci told me that she is secretly Anglican... how would you ever prove that to be incorrect? That's not a great example, but hopefully shows you the problem). --Yamla 01:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not harass your users into varifying something your way... expect me to never visit this site again, and to also advise most people I know that your site is rife with omissions and should not be relied upon as a source of information.

Wikipedia definitely should not be relied upon as a source of information. That would mean that Wikipedia could serve as a primary reference. Instead, Wikipedia strives to act as a secondary source and to provide you with primary sources. So, for example, we'd never have Ms. Bellucci claim here on Wikipedia that she is agnostic but would quote her on this and provide you a source for this quote. --Yamla 01:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will also inform the webmaster of the site you believe to be so innacurate of your opinion of his site, and the accuracy of his information. This will result in nothing more than someone else out there knowing how insulting and callous you are able to be. But it will give me great joy in knowing there will be one more person out there who will not respect Wikipedia, as I now do not.

Well, that's uncalled for. I have only stated that the website cannot serve as a citation on Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's established policies, and that fansites in general should not be relied upon. But if it pleases you to put words in my mouth, go ahead. --Yamla 01:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, I have such a low opinion of this site at this point that I am going to block it off my browser. And if I receive any mail from your site I will block it as SPAM.

Well, that wouldn't be accurate now, would it? --Yamla 01:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for giving me one of the worst days of my life.. insulting a dear friend of mine... and proving to me that the internet is filled with unfeeling Rules-Nazis who are not above callng someone a liar just to abide by their rules.

--NilaLaniera 00:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you feel this way. I think you will find that I have not called you a lier, however. You did say that a statement of mine was "absolutely untrue", though I have since provided absolute proof that my statement was correct. --Yamla 01:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. The links you added to the page Monica Bellucci have been removed. Please do not add commercial links—or links to your own private websites—to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --Yamla 20:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]