This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
viva-verdi is using wikipedia to self promote Simultex, A FIGARO SYSTEMS TRADEMARK PRODUCT using wikipedia. It is time to stop this arrogant user to continue with its SELF PROMOTION NOT ALLOWED !!!
In the article Electronic libretto one anonymous editor has persistantly removed text even though several other editors have supported the return of the text and a consensus has been reached. User talk:62.85.192.81 (Talk) has been blocked for doing this on several occasions.
NOW 62.85.192.81 (Talk) repeats his/her deletions here with no justification beyond a posting on his/her talk page assuming that I'm "self promoting" Figaro Systems, the company which produces this system BUT WHICH IS NOT EVEN NAMED IN THE ARTICLE.
Again, I'm asking for consensus that this text (which I DID NOT write) be retained. Viva-Verdi 12:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
::Once again this clown, User talk:62.85.192.81, continues to revert text WHICH IS MORE OR LESS THE SAME AS ON THE Electronic libretto article where a clear consensus was established that it was valuable.
::He/she was BLOCKED SEVERAL TIMES (look at the page) for this and other vandalism.
:: Viva-Verdi 20:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
This has been posted on User talk:83.225.119.202's page:
"== 29 Dec 2007: STOP YOUR NONSENSE on Ellie Caulkins Opera House == First: READ the TALK PAGE and you will see that there is consensus from more than 1 editor to leave the name of Figaro Systems in the article.
Second: STOP making these anonymous changes. Register, name yourself, and stand up to peer review, instead of snidely making changes and ignoring the comments of other editors.
Viva-Verdi ( talk) 18:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)"
There are sections of this article that read like promotional copy for the Opera House. I was asked to explain my changes, here are some examples of the material that needs to be cleaned up to meet wikipedia's standards.
To begin with, there are almost no proper references. Statements like "Denver was outgrowing its Municipal Auditorium and, while some wanted to tear it down and build a new one..." need to be backed up, otherwise they are only original research. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a promotional tool.
The section on Ellie Caulkins is unnecessary, unencyclopedic, and is lifted directly from a press release [1]. If Mrs. Caulkins is a major figure in opera, as she seems to be, she should have her own article. There's no need to run down her resume here.
The section on the Opera House also reads like promotional copy. "All building elements, from lobby space, concessions and restroom areas to leg room in the seating areas, dressing rooms for performers, and the fly tower for sets and equipment, were designed to provide the best possible audience and artist experiences." That's unreferenced, and seems to have been taken from ad copy. In any case, it's unencyclopedic material.
The entire section on the seat-back tilting is written like ad copy for the company that made the seats. If the company is so notable, they should have their own article, which can be linked here. It's unreferenced and unencyclopedic to have this many details about the seats on this article, and makes it sound like an advertisement for the seat company.
The Kevin Taylor section is clearly advertising, as evidenced by the fact the man has his reservations number listed in the article. That's advertising to the point of spamming, and clearly not encyclopedic. The same goes for the Salon section, details like "the preferred gathering place" and what kind of get-togethers it can accomodate are unsourced, and read like advertising.
There's plenty of good information available about the Opera House, but what we use in this article should be encyclopedic. The article had become a promotional vehicle for the Opera House.
I removed a photo that didn't seem like it belonged on the page. It was of a person with a very inflammatory political sign outside of the Denver Convention Center (not the theater) during the 2008 Democratic Convention. The Opera House was in the background of the picture, but this was very obviously not the focus. I don't know the reasons for putting the picture up, but I don't believe that it is appropriate for the page in question. Does anyone have thoughts? TrippCeyssens ( talk) 00:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
viva-verdi is using wikipedia to self promote Simultex, A FIGARO SYSTEMS TRADEMARK PRODUCT using wikipedia. It is time to stop this arrogant user to continue with its SELF PROMOTION NOT ALLOWED !!!
In the article Electronic libretto one anonymous editor has persistantly removed text even though several other editors have supported the return of the text and a consensus has been reached. User talk:62.85.192.81 (Talk) has been blocked for doing this on several occasions.
NOW 62.85.192.81 (Talk) repeats his/her deletions here with no justification beyond a posting on his/her talk page assuming that I'm "self promoting" Figaro Systems, the company which produces this system BUT WHICH IS NOT EVEN NAMED IN THE ARTICLE.
Again, I'm asking for consensus that this text (which I DID NOT write) be retained. Viva-Verdi 12:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
::Once again this clown, User talk:62.85.192.81, continues to revert text WHICH IS MORE OR LESS THE SAME AS ON THE Electronic libretto article where a clear consensus was established that it was valuable.
::He/she was BLOCKED SEVERAL TIMES (look at the page) for this and other vandalism.
:: Viva-Verdi 20:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
This has been posted on User talk:83.225.119.202's page:
"== 29 Dec 2007: STOP YOUR NONSENSE on Ellie Caulkins Opera House == First: READ the TALK PAGE and you will see that there is consensus from more than 1 editor to leave the name of Figaro Systems in the article.
Second: STOP making these anonymous changes. Register, name yourself, and stand up to peer review, instead of snidely making changes and ignoring the comments of other editors.
Viva-Verdi ( talk) 18:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)"
There are sections of this article that read like promotional copy for the Opera House. I was asked to explain my changes, here are some examples of the material that needs to be cleaned up to meet wikipedia's standards.
To begin with, there are almost no proper references. Statements like "Denver was outgrowing its Municipal Auditorium and, while some wanted to tear it down and build a new one..." need to be backed up, otherwise they are only original research. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a promotional tool.
The section on Ellie Caulkins is unnecessary, unencyclopedic, and is lifted directly from a press release [1]. If Mrs. Caulkins is a major figure in opera, as she seems to be, she should have her own article. There's no need to run down her resume here.
The section on the Opera House also reads like promotional copy. "All building elements, from lobby space, concessions and restroom areas to leg room in the seating areas, dressing rooms for performers, and the fly tower for sets and equipment, were designed to provide the best possible audience and artist experiences." That's unreferenced, and seems to have been taken from ad copy. In any case, it's unencyclopedic material.
The entire section on the seat-back tilting is written like ad copy for the company that made the seats. If the company is so notable, they should have their own article, which can be linked here. It's unreferenced and unencyclopedic to have this many details about the seats on this article, and makes it sound like an advertisement for the seat company.
The Kevin Taylor section is clearly advertising, as evidenced by the fact the man has his reservations number listed in the article. That's advertising to the point of spamming, and clearly not encyclopedic. The same goes for the Salon section, details like "the preferred gathering place" and what kind of get-togethers it can accomodate are unsourced, and read like advertising.
There's plenty of good information available about the Opera House, but what we use in this article should be encyclopedic. The article had become a promotional vehicle for the Opera House.
I removed a photo that didn't seem like it belonged on the page. It was of a person with a very inflammatory political sign outside of the Denver Convention Center (not the theater) during the 2008 Democratic Convention. The Opera House was in the background of the picture, but this was very obviously not the focus. I don't know the reasons for putting the picture up, but I don't believe that it is appropriate for the page in question. Does anyone have thoughts? TrippCeyssens ( talk) 00:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)