User talk:72.189.4.182/References 1

Archive/Reference

This is an archive of the personal attacks/letters/disputes that were on Royce Mathew's talk page, involving harassment of myself and other editors. It is not to be edited and/or tampered with. It will be used in future references should the problem arise again. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean} 21:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Un-titled Question

Why was this page taken down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.4.182 (talk • contribs) 28 August 2008

I had to rephrase what I wanted to say; it seemed to be going in circles. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean} 22:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

Mr. Mathew, we have repeatedly asked you not to enter this information until the lawsuit is complete, because the text you entered is one-sided. We will enter it in on our own once the lawsuit is finished and there are results. You are writing a highly-biased section on your own experience as the plaintiff in this lawsuit. We do not question the legality of the lawsuit, rather, the single-handed POV.

Your previous account, User: Disneysuit, was already blocked due to personally attacking me (and others who had tried to enforce Wikipedia Policies), in addition to constantly going against Wikipedia rules. I am politely asking you to stop and am not asking for more personal attacks, if that is how you wish to respond. Administrators have been contacted on the Administrator Notice-board (this is a public noticeboard where complaints are brought up). I don't mean to be in your "bad books", rather, I want to be a source of help. We're trying to make Wikipedia a neutral viewpoint, and what you wrote wasn't quite...neutral.

I do hope you understand. Thank you. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean} 22:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Wikinews, Wikipedia since “conflict of interest” “neutral” is an important subject since “conflict of interest” is being herald by wikinews / wikipedia staff and volunteers, including being used by wikipedia/wikinews administrators and editors with which to have an article /story be deleted, and is grounds for action against a contributor, then please immediately provide documentation that editors, administrators and people providing articles and information to wikipedia and wikinews have no conflict of interest to the articles and stories they create, edit, supervise and/or contribute. For example, did any editor have sexual relationship with a porn star or purchase movies or magazines of a porn star whose bio is listed on wikipedia? This is a conflict of interest. Another example, does any administrator, editor or volunteer of Wikinews and Wikipedia including “BlackPearl14", “SVTCobra”, “Chris Mann” and “Whoville” own Disney stock, have gone to any Disney theme park, watch Disney movies and/or buy Disney products? Then “BlackPearl14", “SVTCobra” and “Whoville” and all of these editors and administrators are in conflict of interest. Does the people involved with the wikinews articles about fossilized fish found in Canada, or with scientific discoveries or with lawsuits, have any connection to these products, places or businesses? Then this is a conflict of interest. What kind of verification did Wikinews and Wikipedia use to determine that volunteers including “BlackPearl14", “SVTCobra” and “Whoville” don’t sell Disney products and have no business with the Walt Disney Company and their affiliates? As documented volunteers including “BlackPearl14", “SVTCobra” and “Whoville” together claim “conflict of interest” and delete any contribution in regards to Pirates of the Caribbean for either wikinews or wikipedia, and control it by upholding double standards. Thus first we must verify wikinews / wikipedia enforcement of their policy of “conflict of interest” and “neutral”.

Wikipedia and Wikinews editors don't follow Wikinews' own written polices... “Do you know of an issue that has been forgotten?”. Then you generate and justify reason after reason to state that the above article is not newsworthy, and that wiki does not write old news. You even say one thing, and then later change that to be different claims to justify deletion. You keep throwing different claims at an article you have targeted because someone had shown the charges to be untrue. Wikinews and Wikipedia continues to uphold double standards, and then make statements with which to justify it. Incredible, you ignore any details provided to your counter your claims, and then accuse the person of not acknowledging your control and your new set of claims. Are you aware that Wikinews editors and wikipedia are in conflict of interest as well? They proven that they have a network of supporting friends, using double standards, without following Wikinews and wikipedia's own written polices, and such.

Wikinews and wikipedia allows editors “fans” to be bias, controlling whatever they choose to write even placing things like porn stars penis size, (copies of that have been documented as well) and to write articles that are one sided, promotional and links to various sites that further promote their cause, yet the editors delete anything that is added that they don’t approve from other people, and then justify reason after reason, such as claiming other people as being a conflict of interest, not being neutral and such if they write or contribute. It's against wikinews and wikipedia policies to simple delete "when in doubt don't delete" and not to show respect when communicating. Yet you simply deleted the entire talk and all related pages and justify various statements calling it whatever you want to get your friends to sign off on your control. If you don’t abide by wikinews and wikipedia’s own written policies, then remove all of the polices and stop tell the public to follow standards which are double standards and more.. Does the owner of the company know you are doing stuff like this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.4.182 (talk • contribs) 30 August 2008

PS: “Blackpearl14" Do you, your friends and family or any contributors, editors, administrators or Mr. Wales or their friends and family own stock within the Walt Disney Company? The Walt Disney Company page is not neutral, it is a series of promotional pages including links to products and causes of the Walt Disney Company. Many of the other statements on the Walt Disney Company page don’t follow your so-called neutral definition. Following your own claim of “neutral”, the entire page would have to be deleted per your own standards. Furthermore, the lawsuit sentence that was placed on it, was exactly as the other statements of “criticism” within the Walt Disney Company page, yet you claim it’s not neutral. Clearly you enforce double standards and don’t adhere to wikipedia’s own written polices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.4.182 (talk • contribs) 30 August 2008

Criticism

• Disney has on several occasions prompted action from religious groups such as the Catholic League, due to purported insensitive broadcasting, and the release of films, which the league and others found offensive. Disney has faced boycotts from Baptist groups, "Assemblies of God", and Catholic groups in the past. (boycott 1;boycott 2;boycott 3)
• The worldwide commercial success of the Disney brand is viewed by some as detrimental to cultural diversity (see Disneyfication).
• Disney is one among several American companies lobbying for more stringent enforcement of intellectual property around the world and continued copyright term extensions, posing a perceived threat to the existence of the public domain; see Copyright Term Extension Act.
• Disney has been accused of human rights violations regarding the working conditions in factories that produce their merchandise.
• Disney has been criticized by animal welfare groups for its import, use and frequent deaths of wild animals at its Animal Kingdom theme park as well as for using purebred dogs in movies such as 101 Dalmatians, which these groups claim leads to creating an artificial demand for these purebred dogs many of whom are later abandoned or surrendered to shelters or rescue groups.
• Disney has been criticized in the Abaco Islands for their role in a dredging operation on Great Guana Cay that is said to be responsible for a wide array of environmental problems, including widespread death of coral communities. [1]
• Disney films are also notable for their ongoing lack of cultural understanding when portraying non-white ethnic groups on screen. They have been criticised for their liberal use of stereotyping, in both appearance and dialogue.
• Independent film maker Royce Mathew sued [2] www.disneylawsuit.com the Walt Disney Company, Jerry Bruckheimer Inc./films, Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio in Federal Court claiming they plagiarized his supernatural pirate move for the Pirates of the Caribbean movie.

Blackpearll4 - calls herself evidently Mrs. Johnny Depp and Pirate lord-ess and such. She celebrates on her official wikipedia bio pages that she did many pages and articles on the Walt Disney Company and Pirates of the Caribbean for wikipedia. Why would someone devote so much time to 24/7 check the site and on these pages? Has her judgement become impaired? Her goal to fuse her love and fantasies with the Walt Disney Company and Pirates of the Caribbean is very clear. That is a conflict of interest and that is not being neutral. Sorry if your feelings are hurt, but if one purchases products, such as Pirates of the Caribbean posters, toys and Walt Disney merchandise and also using emotional love and fantasies for wikipedia / wikinews articles, doesn’t make the articles neutral and it causes a conflict of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.4.182 (talk • contribs) 30 August 2008

Where did I once call myself "Mrs. Johnny Depp?" The reason my name is "BlackPearl14, Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean" is because once I used to work primarily on Pirates articles. No, I do not sit "24/7" on wikipedia, and no, my judgement is not impaired. You are being beyond rude. I don't have Pirates posters, toys, and Walt Disney merchandise, I only worked on the articles because of my love for Piratical History, which is commonly used in this particular story-line. Nor do I work with Disney: I have yet to graduate from college. Why do you insist on hurting my feelings when evidently you have no regard whatsoever for following the rules? It seems to me that your view of editors who try to reach out and help you to follow the rules is more than impaired and biased. Please stop this, as it not only hurts my feelings, but that of others as well. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean} 20:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please sign your Talk page comments

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. —Whoville (talk) 12:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You are being discussed

Hello, Mr. Mathew;

I apologize if we haven't gotten along in the past, but to answer your question: no, I don't share stock. My username is "BlackPearl14" because I once used to work primarily on Pirates of the Caribbean articles. I am not biased; I will incorporate lawsuits that have acquired enough prestige: yours was dismissed and therefore I shall not put it up. However, if another experienced editor feels that it is important to put your case in, then by all means I am fine with it, as I am sure will be others. I do not appreciate your rude comments, as I have done nothing but point out Wiki Policy to you. I have done nothing but enforce those rules, and although you do get angry for my trying to remain an editor that abides by the rules and my supposed false neutrality, it seems you are adamant in putting yourself on this particular encyclopedia.

For breaking several rules and policies, you are being discussed on the Administrator noticeboard here: [3]. I would advise that you do not personally attack editors as you have on these notice-boards in the past. Please note that these are public notice-boards and that I am not, as you say, conferring with peers who do my every bidding, as I never have.

Thank you. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean} 20:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)