![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Do not remove that tag. It is appropriate to have been placed. Your inability to understand guidlines and policy is not my responsibilty. This is not a personal grudge against Stephen Moorer. This is a discovery that the article is insuffienciently refereced and may have been done so by the subject. Once all problems are addressed the tag can be removed. Consensus has not been gained about the effect Moorer has had on the article. I don't think consensus can determine that. Consensus is for direction and editing but canot determine if someone has done something wrong. Wrong or right is not something that can be determined in that manner, just whether or not to accept it.
Article references are being ignored and more innappropriate references are being added. This is proof that the subject is not notable if the main source of references are trumped up. The theatre website cannot be used. It is an affiliation of the subject. This seems to not be understood by editors as well as many other guidelines and policies. That is why there are further steps that are available to editors that still have concerns about the way an article is being edited even after an AFD. I am within my rights and have not acted incorrectly. READ GUIDELINES AND POLICY before quoting incorrectly. It just proves my point that editors are making judgements based on anger and reaction and not really looking into what happened.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 01:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
No. you are incorrect, and I love the way you made a point of telling me what "We'll" accept. No, we will all do as we are doing and if that means the situation goes the next step to assure that the guidelines to Biographies of Living Persons is upheld here only becuase one, two or a hundred editors fail to accept the policy and guidlins as set.
Mr. Moorer is not under attack. He has simply been found to have created his own Wikipedia page that he edits a great deal. This is unusual, and is discouraged but it is up to Stephen Mooorer to decide where he will ultimately spend his editing time. But he will do it in the open. Editors will be watching this page even if you assume that All disagree with me. You are simply not very good at reading that discussion or telling the truth here for some reason. Be more honest about the discussion, the article, the references. It makes you look just as bad as I assume you percieve my actions. Again, I am sorry that you fail to understand policy and guidelines in regards to this article. The theatre wbsite cannot be used becuase he is affiliated with it and has no editorial oversight. Sorry it has to go.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 04:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
"so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by other published sources." Well you are promoting yourself her as an actor, director and producer. The websites are not your personal websites, for one. Also use of the offical websites of theatres may not be used either....because you founded them and run Pac Rep. A clear conflict of interst and goes directly against guidelines.
If you want to be known as an actor, director and producer who had to creat his own article on wikipedia with these references from your own theatre websites that you founded and run with no editorial oversight that's up to you. This article must be maintained correctly. I have stated my piece and will begin making edits as normal. Be aware that if information is not a reliable source it goes.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 05:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Let me get right to your accusations of my making personal attacks. No. I made a reply about what Ssilvers had stated in direct reference to me. He stated that all were in disagreement with me. They are not. Not by, delete or or keep and not by all opinion either. I defended my self and asked why he wouldn't be honest about it. This is an area that is best discussed off the article talk page but I was replying to his words to me sir. I have no problem with either user, even if perceptions of that by others are voiced. Smrtpat made a comment "Assumming good faith has become quite difficult under the present circumstances" I don't disagree. And I am working through the assumption by him and yourself at the moment. You post guidelines that I percieve as nearly all being violated, but most important I am discussing it on the talk page. It would be unwise for me to edit more than the single small edit I made so far. That was just the "Award Winning" statement. There is no doubt there is an awrd but if the source doesn't tell you that, it's unecyclopedic to use without further information. It can't be that hard to understand where I am coming from?
As for my comments to Smrtpat, they were merely paraphazing guidelines at BOLP. I am sorry if you mistook that for me making a blanket statement about the persons overall outside reputation. I was refering to him as a user here on Wikipedia. I have no intention of speaking of any this off site. As editors we should not take advantage of any situation that could cause harm, or more.
Let me continue to at least clarify that as I see it and understand things, there is consensus from the AFD discussion. First that it appears that, while the AFD has not yet ended (I think) consensus is either keep or at the minimum no consensus (depending) so the article stays by what I see as consensus anyway. Also I see consensus for Smrtprt as a contributor to the article as uncontroversial in itself and editors are willing to work with him. I see another consensus that I don't think consensus controls, that the references are fine. I disagree with that and am not appointing myself as anything more than a very diligent editor, that feels strongly that many guidelines are being misinterpreted. Seems pretty easy to do with all the conflicting policies and interpretations I have been getting. But I do know one thing. Smrtpat knows that if I am told something that is true I will relent. That is how we met on Wiki. He informed me an image I replaced on an article was not Carmel. We both assumed good faith and I quickly checked to make sure I hadn't made a mistake, but I had. I reverted the image back. I am not an aggressive editor. I am a bold editor, learning to adhere to guidelines as stricklty as needed on individual basis to the situation. This situation is just a little bit wide spread, but those are different articles. I am only concerned with this one because articles about living people must be written with great sensitivity and that includes both liable or slanderous statements as well as anything that is boosting or promotional.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 08:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Ma'am, do you have to tell me some of you have actually taken articles to GA or FA status? So what are you saying? I have never taken an article to GA. FA, no, but have participated in expanding and referencing subjects beyond actors and biographies and have a good understanding of reliable sources myself. My main area of interest is Ancient History and I am familiar with cutting through misinterpretations and use of unreliable citations.
I have no idea what your talking about with the newspapers unless you are talking about the AFD discussion. That was about notability of subject, not sources. Newspapers are acceptable use, however wikipedia is not a news source so that does not allows mean you can add information just because its in the paper, but I digress.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 22:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Somehow I did miss quote you and fully apologise for the missing words. You actualy said "Assuming good faith, which I admit has become quite difficult under the present circumstances". While it doesn't change the meaning of what was said it was not accurate.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 22:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I am going to take a different route and see how this works. In that post where you bring up the personal webpage, that is actualy a perfectly good way to handle this situation. If you have an actual personal webpage (Like http://www.barbrastreisand.com/ ) all the information you want could go there for reference here. It would be exactly as that guideline states and would allow editors to add by consensus what they feel is approppriate. I don't object to the information sir, just the way they are rferenced to guidelines regardless of what you may think. I have stated this several times. This is not an agenda just a lot of propblems to handle. This has not pleased you or other deitors but that does not put me in the wrong. I am not chasing after you, reverting your edits, or hounding everypage you work on. I have specific concerns and they are legitimate and while human and make the occassional mistake, that doesn't make me a bad guy.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 22:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Fist, there is no fair use rational for the Non free image being used. Source may be Pac Rep, but the photographer owns the copyright and it's use is inappropriate becuase it is not properly attributed or explained in anyway why this image is being used. What, you can't locate a free image of yourself? Please. That is Self agrandising, but more important it is an automatic delete. The argument is, if you CAN'T find a free image. Since the uploader is the subject using someone elses work that can easily contribute a free image it must go. Not to mention the reason given under "Replaceable" is bogus as well "Illustrates Moorer at a specific point in time" is not a reason the image canot be replaced.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 05:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The first reference is used 7 times and is not even properly formated. The actual site is the Monterey County Theatre Alliance. The site takes in dues and sells tickets. Therefore, along with being a promotional website specificaly for the theatres it also sells a product. Unreliable as it has no editorial oversight and is promotional.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 05:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
This deserves an apology to the organization MCTA for my misunderstanding the Two-fer ticket link which only describes the benifit given to each member.
But the website does collect dues on site, by allowing membership to be paid through the website. This is membership organization of theatre supporters and a great one I will add, but you are mistaken about the board of director being editorial oversight in the definition applicable for this purpose. The site is a Promotional Theatre Allaince.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 21:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
When researching Moorer's various roles in Scapino over the years I happened to check the citation for this: "Moorer's first professional acting experience was in 1979 at Hartnell Summer Theatre, playing Ottavio in Scapino and the delivery boy in A Streetcar Named Desire. ( Pac Rep Official website archives,. Retrieved July 20, 2009.)
but the link doesn't seem to back it up. I'm not doubting the veracity, because the Scapino role is listed in Moorer's credit list on another link, but I don't see anything there about ASND, and neither play is on the PacRep archives, which only go back to 1983 and do not list cast. Accidental wrong link? What should be the correct link or citation? Softlavender ( talk) 15:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Question: You linked Passion to Passion (musical). Are we sure it wasn't Passion (play)? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. All the best, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 20:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, he wasn't in the film. This was the 1981 play? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 13:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it's a problem, because you are linking to a film article, and unfortunately the article is named (film). It really should be split into a play article. You can't expect readers to see edit summaries (I'm following this closely, and I didn't see your edit summary), and when they click on the link, it will take them to an article that, at first glance, seems to be a film article. It appeared to me, when I first saw the link, that you had linked to the wrong article, because I assumed that Nuts was some obscure play that was completely unrelated to the Streisand film. I was only convinced that you were right when I looked at the list of characters in the film and saw that Moorer's role was indeed a character in the film. So, I disagree that it doesn't need clarification, but I do agree that linking to the film article is helpful. I'll leave the matter in your hands and will not object if you change it, but I would ask you to consider the above. All the best. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, you're probably right! I must have seen your edit summary when I said "OK", but then I forgot. Alzheimer's is a bummer! Well, that's the best solution of all. :-) Best regards! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, this is a pretty good article now. If it had more information about Moorer's activities as a producer, it could be B-class, I think. Also, one could kill two birds with one stone by improving the PacRep article at the same time. Not me, though: I'm off on vacation from Aug. 1 to Aug. 16. Happy summer, everyone (if you're in the Northern Hemisphere). -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Do not remove that tag. It is appropriate to have been placed. Your inability to understand guidlines and policy is not my responsibilty. This is not a personal grudge against Stephen Moorer. This is a discovery that the article is insuffienciently refereced and may have been done so by the subject. Once all problems are addressed the tag can be removed. Consensus has not been gained about the effect Moorer has had on the article. I don't think consensus can determine that. Consensus is for direction and editing but canot determine if someone has done something wrong. Wrong or right is not something that can be determined in that manner, just whether or not to accept it.
Article references are being ignored and more innappropriate references are being added. This is proof that the subject is not notable if the main source of references are trumped up. The theatre website cannot be used. It is an affiliation of the subject. This seems to not be understood by editors as well as many other guidelines and policies. That is why there are further steps that are available to editors that still have concerns about the way an article is being edited even after an AFD. I am within my rights and have not acted incorrectly. READ GUIDELINES AND POLICY before quoting incorrectly. It just proves my point that editors are making judgements based on anger and reaction and not really looking into what happened.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 01:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
No. you are incorrect, and I love the way you made a point of telling me what "We'll" accept. No, we will all do as we are doing and if that means the situation goes the next step to assure that the guidelines to Biographies of Living Persons is upheld here only becuase one, two or a hundred editors fail to accept the policy and guidlins as set.
Mr. Moorer is not under attack. He has simply been found to have created his own Wikipedia page that he edits a great deal. This is unusual, and is discouraged but it is up to Stephen Mooorer to decide where he will ultimately spend his editing time. But he will do it in the open. Editors will be watching this page even if you assume that All disagree with me. You are simply not very good at reading that discussion or telling the truth here for some reason. Be more honest about the discussion, the article, the references. It makes you look just as bad as I assume you percieve my actions. Again, I am sorry that you fail to understand policy and guidelines in regards to this article. The theatre wbsite cannot be used becuase he is affiliated with it and has no editorial oversight. Sorry it has to go.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 04:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
"so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by other published sources." Well you are promoting yourself her as an actor, director and producer. The websites are not your personal websites, for one. Also use of the offical websites of theatres may not be used either....because you founded them and run Pac Rep. A clear conflict of interst and goes directly against guidelines.
If you want to be known as an actor, director and producer who had to creat his own article on wikipedia with these references from your own theatre websites that you founded and run with no editorial oversight that's up to you. This article must be maintained correctly. I have stated my piece and will begin making edits as normal. Be aware that if information is not a reliable source it goes.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 05:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Let me get right to your accusations of my making personal attacks. No. I made a reply about what Ssilvers had stated in direct reference to me. He stated that all were in disagreement with me. They are not. Not by, delete or or keep and not by all opinion either. I defended my self and asked why he wouldn't be honest about it. This is an area that is best discussed off the article talk page but I was replying to his words to me sir. I have no problem with either user, even if perceptions of that by others are voiced. Smrtpat made a comment "Assumming good faith has become quite difficult under the present circumstances" I don't disagree. And I am working through the assumption by him and yourself at the moment. You post guidelines that I percieve as nearly all being violated, but most important I am discussing it on the talk page. It would be unwise for me to edit more than the single small edit I made so far. That was just the "Award Winning" statement. There is no doubt there is an awrd but if the source doesn't tell you that, it's unecyclopedic to use without further information. It can't be that hard to understand where I am coming from?
As for my comments to Smrtpat, they were merely paraphazing guidelines at BOLP. I am sorry if you mistook that for me making a blanket statement about the persons overall outside reputation. I was refering to him as a user here on Wikipedia. I have no intention of speaking of any this off site. As editors we should not take advantage of any situation that could cause harm, or more.
Let me continue to at least clarify that as I see it and understand things, there is consensus from the AFD discussion. First that it appears that, while the AFD has not yet ended (I think) consensus is either keep or at the minimum no consensus (depending) so the article stays by what I see as consensus anyway. Also I see consensus for Smrtprt as a contributor to the article as uncontroversial in itself and editors are willing to work with him. I see another consensus that I don't think consensus controls, that the references are fine. I disagree with that and am not appointing myself as anything more than a very diligent editor, that feels strongly that many guidelines are being misinterpreted. Seems pretty easy to do with all the conflicting policies and interpretations I have been getting. But I do know one thing. Smrtpat knows that if I am told something that is true I will relent. That is how we met on Wiki. He informed me an image I replaced on an article was not Carmel. We both assumed good faith and I quickly checked to make sure I hadn't made a mistake, but I had. I reverted the image back. I am not an aggressive editor. I am a bold editor, learning to adhere to guidelines as stricklty as needed on individual basis to the situation. This situation is just a little bit wide spread, but those are different articles. I am only concerned with this one because articles about living people must be written with great sensitivity and that includes both liable or slanderous statements as well as anything that is boosting or promotional.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 08:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Ma'am, do you have to tell me some of you have actually taken articles to GA or FA status? So what are you saying? I have never taken an article to GA. FA, no, but have participated in expanding and referencing subjects beyond actors and biographies and have a good understanding of reliable sources myself. My main area of interest is Ancient History and I am familiar with cutting through misinterpretations and use of unreliable citations.
I have no idea what your talking about with the newspapers unless you are talking about the AFD discussion. That was about notability of subject, not sources. Newspapers are acceptable use, however wikipedia is not a news source so that does not allows mean you can add information just because its in the paper, but I digress.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 22:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Somehow I did miss quote you and fully apologise for the missing words. You actualy said "Assuming good faith, which I admit has become quite difficult under the present circumstances". While it doesn't change the meaning of what was said it was not accurate.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 22:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I am going to take a different route and see how this works. In that post where you bring up the personal webpage, that is actualy a perfectly good way to handle this situation. If you have an actual personal webpage (Like http://www.barbrastreisand.com/ ) all the information you want could go there for reference here. It would be exactly as that guideline states and would allow editors to add by consensus what they feel is approppriate. I don't object to the information sir, just the way they are rferenced to guidelines regardless of what you may think. I have stated this several times. This is not an agenda just a lot of propblems to handle. This has not pleased you or other deitors but that does not put me in the wrong. I am not chasing after you, reverting your edits, or hounding everypage you work on. I have specific concerns and they are legitimate and while human and make the occassional mistake, that doesn't make me a bad guy.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 22:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Fist, there is no fair use rational for the Non free image being used. Source may be Pac Rep, but the photographer owns the copyright and it's use is inappropriate becuase it is not properly attributed or explained in anyway why this image is being used. What, you can't locate a free image of yourself? Please. That is Self agrandising, but more important it is an automatic delete. The argument is, if you CAN'T find a free image. Since the uploader is the subject using someone elses work that can easily contribute a free image it must go. Not to mention the reason given under "Replaceable" is bogus as well "Illustrates Moorer at a specific point in time" is not a reason the image canot be replaced.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 05:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
The first reference is used 7 times and is not even properly formated. The actual site is the Monterey County Theatre Alliance. The site takes in dues and sells tickets. Therefore, along with being a promotional website specificaly for the theatres it also sells a product. Unreliable as it has no editorial oversight and is promotional.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 05:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
This deserves an apology to the organization MCTA for my misunderstanding the Two-fer ticket link which only describes the benifit given to each member.
But the website does collect dues on site, by allowing membership to be paid through the website. This is membership organization of theatre supporters and a great one I will add, but you are mistaken about the board of director being editorial oversight in the definition applicable for this purpose. The site is a Promotional Theatre Allaince.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 21:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
When researching Moorer's various roles in Scapino over the years I happened to check the citation for this: "Moorer's first professional acting experience was in 1979 at Hartnell Summer Theatre, playing Ottavio in Scapino and the delivery boy in A Streetcar Named Desire. ( Pac Rep Official website archives,. Retrieved July 20, 2009.)
but the link doesn't seem to back it up. I'm not doubting the veracity, because the Scapino role is listed in Moorer's credit list on another link, but I don't see anything there about ASND, and neither play is on the PacRep archives, which only go back to 1983 and do not list cast. Accidental wrong link? What should be the correct link or citation? Softlavender ( talk) 15:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Question: You linked Passion to Passion (musical). Are we sure it wasn't Passion (play)? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. All the best, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 20:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, he wasn't in the film. This was the 1981 play? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 13:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it's a problem, because you are linking to a film article, and unfortunately the article is named (film). It really should be split into a play article. You can't expect readers to see edit summaries (I'm following this closely, and I didn't see your edit summary), and when they click on the link, it will take them to an article that, at first glance, seems to be a film article. It appeared to me, when I first saw the link, that you had linked to the wrong article, because I assumed that Nuts was some obscure play that was completely unrelated to the Streisand film. I was only convinced that you were right when I looked at the list of characters in the film and saw that Moorer's role was indeed a character in the film. So, I disagree that it doesn't need clarification, but I do agree that linking to the film article is helpful. I'll leave the matter in your hands and will not object if you change it, but I would ask you to consider the above. All the best. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, you're probably right! I must have seen your edit summary when I said "OK", but then I forgot. Alzheimer's is a bummer! Well, that's the best solution of all. :-) Best regards! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, this is a pretty good article now. If it had more information about Moorer's activities as a producer, it could be B-class, I think. Also, one could kill two birds with one stone by improving the PacRep article at the same time. Not me, though: I'm off on vacation from Aug. 1 to Aug. 16. Happy summer, everyone (if you're in the Northern Hemisphere). -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)