Talk:Casar Jacobson

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Casar Jacobson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/beevancity/fancy-hats-and-fashion-ladies-who-lunch?page=0%2C1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://bellissimafashions.blogspot.ca/2012/03/bellissima-spotlight-casar.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120524221418/http://www.criticalbeauty.com/2012/05/miss-universe-canada-2012-crowned.html to http://www.criticalbeauty.com/2012/05/miss-universe-canada-2012-crowned.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Casar Jacobson Miss Canada.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

pictures

I suggest we don't need all five images in the article, especially when a few are very similar to each other. It might be good to show pics from different periods of time, or contexts. So, more than 1, and less than 5. --Rob (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

There are 5 total. 1 photo is produced by you; dated in 2008. I have one updated headshot in blue, while having eliminated the other similar photos myself so as to not make you feel that your 2008 photo and thus purpose for editing said page is not drown in other material. The group photo is regarding the persons endeavors and is neither a Salsa Pageant in public space or a headshot and thus has been kept. Please feel free to discuss before reverting so that we can communicate back and forth to maintain understanding and respect for the public persons that are being edited. Updating is an important part of editing, Wikipedia - as i've learned - also finds that its important not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Below is a link and copied passages from Wikipedia regarding reverts and communicating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Restoring_part_of_a_reverted_edit If 50% of an edit is bad, but the other half is good, please do not revert 100%. It's better to mine the old version for good stuff and selectively keep it. Just throw out the bad stuff. Often when an article version contains more than one disagreeable passage, it is easy to revert to a previous version. This gets rid of all the "mistakes" in a few seconds, but it also can eliminate "good stuff", discourage other editors, and spark an edit war.

So let us communicate, you can maintain your photo on the public persons page or other pages and we can discuss if you wish. Thank you for your time. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlterĒvolvere (talk • contribs) 02:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I posted a comment about the photos. Another editor did a large reversion of your changes. So, there's no connection to the issues. It doesn't matter if "my" picture stays in the article, or goes. I think the images you added are actually really good. I just wanted to limit the total number of images (remember, readers can click link to commons to see more images, if they wish, this isn't a photo gallery).

Next, as far as content, I didn't do the revert, but I understand why it was done. There was some really badly written prose, and problematic sourcing. For example, saying "Cäsar is the first known public Canadian Deaf Person and first Bilaterally Profound/Complete Deaf Actress" is an utter absurdity. IMDB is definitely not a valid source for BLP claims (especially for exceptional claims). There are numerous citations given to sources, that say nothing whatsoever about Jacobson, but rather talk about generic issues (deafness, disability, rights, etc...). It's important to understand that the editing process is not about barter. Nobody is going to let you write what you want in exchange for the same. Rather, everybody has to follow Wikipedia policies, especially when it comes to verify-ability and neutrality.  I'm not defending the original article that I started, which has flaws, (and won't personally do a major revert at this time), but please expect major pruning of the article by other editors, unless same major improvements are made, especially when it comes to writing content that matches reliable sources. --Rob (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

IMBD was the link that connected to show actress, it was not absurd regarding the line of thought. The bilateral deafness comment is not directly associated with IMBD but of other connections or personal description. No need to call something an absurdity. IMBD, if its not neutral - the link regarding associating something to acting can be removed but the bilateral deafness is not absurd. If something has a badly written prose it can be communicated but it can still be done with kindness. As for the photo, you mentioned wanted different time periods and from different arenas. This was shown as with a group photo (a different time period from yours as well as the headshots - thank you for complimenting the photography work. Your work, also good, I think is great as well.) The headshots, yours, and the group photo are all different time periods (headshots being the same time period) so now there's one of each. I expect that reverts or edits will be made as i go through the events at the beginning, as many editors do during the beginning. It is a learning curve for anyone as they begin and learn how to best contribute; contributing often has trial and error and learning the do's and don'ts and learning to start small and communicate with the community is a recent lesson. Pruning can be done constructively, when it's done in a manner which helps the editor learn. Wikipedia can be daunting in the beginning and not everyone is on the same level of understanding. The Wiki community can help support neutrality of topics/people and all things of interest when it is done from a perspective that considers the learning curve of another editor and thus their contributions. Not everyone knows, though i'm aware myself, that one can expand a photo for additional photos into Wikimedia Commons. This is why i added there, then its easier to upload. This, too, has been a learning curve. I added photos in commons for this reason but it is not always clicked on by a person viewing unless they themselves understand Wikipedia. If you have any other tips on how you learned the curve and how best to submit photography (as I take many photos of historic places) i.e. is it better to upload on Flickr or does this go against the Commons? These are new concepts for me, but i'm involved in photography myself.

The newest editor of a topic/person or an editor who is new to Wikipedia (as everyone at some point were new themselves) may be pruned as all things are open to pruning which is to be expected of neutrality. I do not wish to be eliminated from pruning, i wish to learn the reason behind what is reasonable, the reasons for reverts adn how to go about implementing edits in various categories (i.e. a historic building) and while he information is available - it's a learning curve in the process nonetheless.

Newbies are likely pruned more vigorously (and understandably) and hopefully are considered valuable as well during the learning curve. Many things are learning lessons but kindness and communication are hopefully part of this community as contributions are said to be valuable despite being new to the contribution process. I learned to start small on another DeafMute topic, as well. This will be an interesting learning curve and I commend you on your photography work. Keep up the great work.

I feel i'm also hyperlinking things improperly but i'm learning these curves as well. I like the 2008 photo, while it is outdated, I think it's still a valuable work of art that should be maintained, especially if you are proud of your work and feel it is relevant and neutral. It shows life changes over the year of said public person.

Thank you for your time.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlterĒvolvere (talk • contribs)

Sorry, if I came across as rude. Wikipedia has great patience with new users, but not necessarily content, particularly biographical content, which has to meet certain standards promptly, and sometimes, immediately. If something is reverted, it doesn't mean "get lost", it means "try again". And, I'm sorry, but there is no way, that Jacobson, or any living person, could be the "the first known public Canadian Deaf Person". Extraordinary claims need strong sourcing. There have always been deaf people, so how could she possibly be the "first"? --Rob (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

major revisions

Here's why I removed a lot and made big changes. There is still room for a lot of improvement.:

• There were lots of unsourced claims
• We need good sources in a biography, and imdb is a very poor source, especially for anything other then screen credits.
• There were far to many sources that don't mention Jacosbson at all, and don't support content of the article. This is highly misleading
• This article is not about deafness, it is about a person who happens to be deaf. Therefore sources related to deafness, that don't mention Jacobson are generally useless
• There wasn't space for all the pics after I removed text. I'm happy to return images as good content is added, and am fine with changing which pictures we use.
• We must protect people's privacy. So extensive details of medical treatments aren't appropriate.
• Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. It is patently absurd to say any living person is the "first known public Canadian Deaf Person". Seriously, how could this possibly be true? There have been deaf people for as long as there have been people. --Rob (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I welcome others to help improve this article, by adding sourced content, and improving the writing quality. Please note, I didn't just revert back to the version I originally made. What I started with, and what I just did, isn't that great. In hindsight, I should have waited for better sources before starting this article. There's still need for great improvement. I don't want to discourage anybody by altering their work. So, please don't take any offense. Your contributions are welcome. --Rob (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you, Rob, for your extensive improvements. Your work has enabled me to remove the cleanup tag, add citation tags, and work a little more on the language, but I have not changed the content or looked at the existing citations. That job still needs to be done. Storye book (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)