User talk:Cwands

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Cwands, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Tommy (msg) 19:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Tommy (msg) 19:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Marcia Milgram Dodge.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Marcia Milgram Dodge.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Haruth (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

June 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Susan Wands. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Doddy Wuid (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you please advise how I can resolve the issues cited in the Template? I've look at the welcome page and thought I had followed the protocol to resolve these issues:

{{Multiple issues | COI = June 2011 | notable = June 2011 | wikify = June 2011 }}

How can I resolve them? Thanks! cwands Cwands (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The main issue with the Susan Wands article is notability in wikipedia terms so read Wikipedia:Notability and particularly WP:GNG and WP:ENT. A list of gigs is not sufficient. Also, your user name appears sufficiently close to the name of the subject that it may indicate a conflict of interest. Are you the subject, or a relative, friend or representative of them? This does not preclude you from editing but you should read WP:COI very carefully. Lastly, do not keep removing the maintenance templates. They are there to draw in editors to rectify problems and are not a badge of shame. I am going to nominate for deletion the article but by all means continue editing it if you believe the issues can be addressed. The presence of the maintenance templates may bring you assistance from other editors so it's in your interest to leave them there. Doddy Wuid (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, note that to help establish notability, and to make the article more readable and encyclopedic, you should give quotes from the articles about the subject, like this: Clive Barnes, reviewing Olivier's performance in Hamlet in the 1959 Broadway revival, commented in The New York Times: "Olivier's work in last night's Hamlet brought a new dimension to the title role, demonstrating that the prince's feelings for his mother in Act II, scene iii are ..."<citation> Also, for balance, present the unfavorable reviews: The reviewer for Variety disagreed: "This was one of Olivier's weaker efforts, lacking energy and seeming, at times, to betray not only the character's indecision, but the actor's..."<citation> -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Susan Wands for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Susan Wands is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Wands until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Doddy Wuid (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

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 could 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. --SineBot (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia advice

Hello, CWands. Thanks for your contributions so far. It is best to edit some articles with which you have no relationship, so that you have a chance to learn about the editing policies here, such as WP:Neutrality, before trying to edit articles with which you have a connection. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Ssilvers: Thank you for your note, but I must tell you that I was completely unprepared for the uproar about the "notability" of stage actors for Wikipedia. I researched several stage actors Wiki pages before I created the page: Wikipedia listing for Sarah Marshall (American stage actress); Wikipedia listing for Misty Daniels; Wikipedia listing for Alana Arenas; Wikipedia listing for Melody Doyle; Wikipedia listing for Julia Heynen; Wikipedia listing for Lauren Marcus; Wikipedia listing for Lee Eddy; Wikipedia listing for Kelly Stables; Wikipedia listing for Anna Oxygen. (Please note: I am not including their examples to get their articles nominated for deletion!!!) Because I don't have any promotional, professional or financial association with Susan Wands's business as a stage actress I didn't and still don't see a conflict of interest in posting her article - I didn't post anything that wasn't true or was unverifiable. Some of the reviews included in her article aren't that flattering or positive, and I deleted a lot of her information that I thought might look too much like a theatre resume. I am just confounded that a stage actress, regardless of her accomplishments, peers, new script developments, and reviews in major publications just somehow doesn't rate the same "notability" as say, porn actress get with their Wiki listings for their "stage names". I thought this was more of an encyclopedia than a "celebrity" oriented source of material. I appreciate your comment to me, as I feel personally attacked over this matter, and frankly, I wish I had never started this article. But I also feel that there is an issue here of authentic artistic history to be respected - and stage actor deserve the same kind of notability that other performing professions get to have in this venue. Just because some Wiki editors don't know the difference between Shakespeare's Henry IV and Pirandello's Henry IV doesn't give them the authority to determine what is a major role or not; where it's with the NY Shakespeare Festival or in St. Louis. Anyway, thanks for your note. Cwands (talk) 05:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You really mustn't take this personally and you must not get confused as to WP:N being some judgement on the worth of a person. It isn't. I can only guess that you feel attacked because of the criticism of the failings of the article, which even the majority of those advocating its retention noted. Again, the criticisms regard the article, not you. You are not an experienced user and it's a tall order writing an entire article with this minimal level of experience, particularly regarding someone you are clearly very fond of. I think the other users in the debate were aware of your lack of experience and made some degree of allowance in their comments, otherwise they may have been even harsher. Nonetheless the same standards apply for any article. Incidentally, the list of articles above that you used as guiding examples are, on a quick inspection, rather a mixed bag. Some are quite good but many are either very poorly referenced or the references appear to be deficient. Better to seek out an article which has been rated as being good to get guidance. If you have any notion to stick around on Wikipedia, and I hope you do, don't be disheartened. Start off with less ambitious aims until you get some experience, maybe minor edits to articles you are interested in but don't have such a close personal investment. It really is best to steer clear of making more than minor edits to article of any friends or relatives. I've been asked before by friends but have refused because of the possible COI. It's a minefield. All the best, Doddy Wuid (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're blind to your COI when editing the article for a close blood relative you're hardly likely to grasp the COI for editing the article of that relative's husband. Nonetheless... Doddy Wuid (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Wikipedia. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Doddy Wuid (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Dealing with the re-write

I've been forced to reduce the page to a stub because virtually all of it was lifted word for word from the subject's site, including the image. Really, Robert wants everyone to read that stuff on his site; the Wikipedia page should be about him, not copied from him. I've cut and pasted the text and links to a sandbox: User:BusterD/sandbox4. Nothing is lost and we can still sift through the sources, move them over to the live page, then build the page from scratch. This should solve all the issues for which it is currently tagged. Are you willing to engage on this subject? BusterD (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

BusterD: I'm very willing to engage on this subject. Just to clarify that Robert Petkoff didn't ask/engage with me to put this page together, and I freely admit copying from his website. I copied the same template that other actors he has worked with use on Wikipedia (Christine Noll, Judi Dench, and Fred Molina are people he's worked with and they were the examples I used to build this article). Let me know what I can do - I'm grateful for your help. Thanks again.

Cwands (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I do hope this has now clarified to you the value of having maintenance templates on an article. They highlight to other editors the work that is required, facilitating the article's improvement. I'm as happy as you are that the process is under way with the Petkoff article. Doddy Wuid (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

See? No hard feelings by any party. Mistakes get made, and people who confess to them are people you can learn to trust. Plus: Daylight=disinfectant. The more eyes the better the chance a page can become great. BusterD (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, using elements and templates and categories from pages you like is a very acceptable practice. We all got started around here at some point, and most of us have a wikimentor or friend we can point to who helped us make and recognize our first mistakes. Just like real-life.

As to specific tasks, I'd suggest you start over at the linked sandbox and start copying out the individual links, and pasting them in to a links section I've just constructed there. Don't freak about how malformed the bottom of the page looks. If you click the edit link to the section you'll see how easy the templates are to figure out; it's like an interview, there's a blank, you fill it. Make sure to preview before you save any changes. If you need more of one specific template, just copy one or two including the bullet and paste them in the same sections, so help us keep the sources organized. BusterD (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to dive in on the sandbox and will attempt the edits. Thanks again. Cwands (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

One step at a time. I should be close to the keyboard but might be out for a while. If you need help, just say so. BusterD (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Whenever you have a minute, if you can just check and see that I am adding the links correctly - not sure if I am missing any coding that needs to identify the links? Thanks again. Cwands (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You're doing fine. Keep going. BusterD (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Almost there. Now I'm going to ask only one favor, after which I'll make no further demands other than those imposed upon us both as wikipedians. (it's not actually that big a deal) You've shown a willingness to do the work, so I'm going to ask you to help me to work on two other articles, small ones like this one. For how long and how much will be up to you. But show other wikipedians through your actions you care about more than the two articles you've created, okay? Might be fun. No time frame on any of this stuff. I've been putting improvement off on these articles for weeks, but I want to move them forward a bit. I happen to be around this morning, but the lawn needs mowing, so I may put you on your own task in a bit. Here are the articles I need help with: Jonathan Miles (novelist) and Bill Pennington. Both look like good subjects. I'm negotiable. But I'll trade assistance, okay? If you want to know why these two, I'll explain. You might figure it out on your own. BusterD (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I am more than glad to help with the other articles. Thank you for asking me. When I finish up with the revisions, I'll ask for a check from you and then I'll take a look at the other two when I can. Cwands (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Totally no rush on any of this. On Wikipedia, my thinking is: edit at your own pace. Nobody else can tell you when your blood is up; nobody else can tell when you're very tired; nobody else can tell you when you're raring to go. You have to trust yourself here. Your personal candor has demonstrated you do trust yourself, so we have a linked expression for that around here too: WP:BOLD. Appreciate your considering offering to help with these other subjects. BusterD (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

See the new section I added? Identify all the links you've pulled out which are links to video like YouTube, and move those bulletted links to the new section. Best to sort them inside the section by date of performance or by show in sequence of performance. BusterD (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

A couple questions: Is the new section that needs the You Tube links called "External Links" or is it the "List of links pulled from articles"? I'm not clear which categories gets the You Tubes. Also, do I need to move all the playbill/variety/theatremania links to the journal section? Or are they considered newspapers? Thansk. Cwands (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You've got stuff in the right places mostly. Let's start introducing the use of the citation templates. I'll do the first one in the newspaper section. Watch what I do. BusterD (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Look at the difference between your last version and my addition (we call this a "diff"). I pasted in a couple of copies of the template, then used the information you'd generated to fill in the blanks. The result is a formatted cite, and it's one mark of a truly well-considered article. BusterD (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Simple, right? BusterD (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm getting the hang of it...is this the same format to use for journal cits? Thanks again for your help with this... Cwands (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Watching a new user work as hard as you have done today is a real pleasure. Glad to get you up and running. Next part will get much harder, because you'll have to pretend you don't know anything about the subject. Tough for an involved party. BusterD (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There are a few sources left on the live stub. Copy those over to the sandbox and format them similarly. Notice that formatted links have nice convenient dates close to the beginning, so we can easily order the citations chronologically. This will help us understand the narrative of his biography. BusterD (talk) 23:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to go - will check in tomorrow to see what else I can do to shape this. I know the next part will require some objective eyes - so appreciate your help. Cwands (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You are an editing machine. Good work today. You'll probably dream about editing Wikipedia after a day like today. I did. Have a nice night. I'll do some work myself, but we can do this over the next whatever period of time. If anyone should put this page up for deletion in the meantime, we can just post the list of sources we've discovered so far. Such a nomination would likely be withdrawn in the face of so many reliable sources directly detailing the subject. So we're past notability, and we can start using sources like the subject's personal website to confirm specific facts. BusterD (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

So of course I couldn't get the Wiki-ness out of my head after I wrapped it up, I kept thinking about links I might have missed, or what about that four year gap in links, and that made me look some more and so I added some more and...anyway, you're right, I'll probably be dreaming about cites and references. I'll check in tomorrow. Cwands (talk) 06:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Now the hard part

I've completed formatting the web sources. At this point we need to clear our mind of all the detail. We have learned a lot about the subject just by checking and formatting sources. I didn't know anything about this hard-working actor, or his equally hard-working wife, until you decided to post these attempts. I did five summers of stock myself, so I know how tough it is to be at the level these actors are, how hard it is to maintain that intensity without suffering in some way. The people who succeed like these two are rare, gifted, trained, and disciplined people.

But we can't be sympathetic as Wikipedians. Now is not the time to get all misty. Now is the time to think hard about what people will say about these people one hundred years from now. Some basic things are easy. Then we really must use what we've learned (not what we know--we are required to leave this out, until we find a source) to to construct a framework. Then we need to figure out what's missing, because we've got some holes.

To know what's good, let's look at some really good actor articles. Let's go over to WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers and see what they say about actors. I'm seeing about 50-60 featured articles and several hundred good articles. Why don't you click through some featured material in your own time? Look at what they have and what you like. How do they cover them? What sorts of things seem important inside those pages? How do they organize them?

I like Cillian Murphy, about an Irish actor I have no clue about. The page is great, not puffy, not overlong and has lots of charts and tables which help to organize the data. And look at the bottom. All these neatly organized sources, used as citation. Look familiar? So we're lookin' good. Why don't you read some articles for a while, to see what you find? Look at Good articles too, they're featured articles in training, so-to-speak. BusterD (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow - the Cillian Murphy article looks very different than the ones I copied for this article. Glad I didn't see that before I started, or I wouldn't have begun. I did get a better idea of what can be done by reading through his (and now I feel like I know who he is - in the context of who is that actor that I found on Wikipedia) - but I'll spend some time going through the other articles. Frankly, I had no idea that the Wiki pages could look so much better than what I put together, even Judi Dench's page isn't as formatted and easy to read as Cillian's. I'll do some reading/comparing and get back to you: you're right ~ this will be the hard part. Cwands (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean about these articles. I feel like I know more about their individual history in reading them. But the best examples under WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers don't seem to have much stage experience, although I did get a kick out of seeing Forest Whittaker's article, as I went to school with him, and his "personal life" is very much edited as regards to previous marital status/particulars. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I guess the question I have for you is: this article isn't about a celebrity, he's just a working theater actor, so I'm not sure that a biography approach about Robert Petkoff's early years/personal life is necessary or of interest. (And truthfully, I don't know much about that so I would have to reach out to discover that)...your thoughts? Cwands (talk) 06:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

We start with what we have. We have tons of cites documenting a career, and that's what he's notable for. Did you see the new "recordings" table? I've stolen a little table from the Murphy article and populated it with his audio recordings. We can do the same with his imdb and ibdb listings, then fill in other theater experience. And because we have lots of reviews, we have a critical success section ready-made. So we can build lots of the article the same way as articles we see and like, hoping to find some interviews and profiles which will help us fill in personal blanks. Awards section needs formatting as well. BusterD (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow ~ thank you for putting together the recordings table - I'll populate the theater/film/television tables and put in the Awards section. Will check back in with you once I've migrated that data to the tables. (later today - maybe tomorrow)....There are some web links with interviews - do I need to make a separate section for those? Cwands (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Might be a good idea to sort out the profiles and interviews so we can get quotes or other specific things we're looking for. There's a really great quote from the subject in one of the books. We can pull this out into a quote box when we have enough material. Again, we're in no real hurry here. Do us both a favor and read some. The wikiproject linked above must have guidelines they suggest for content and model formatting. Read some articles, don't type quite so much. BusterD public (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Did some comparing of other Bway credits and found a table on the article for Kristin Chenoweth - copied as a possible table for the Broadway work, maybe do different Tables for the Touring and then the Regional theater credits? I'm seeing a wide disparity in what is listed for theater actors on Wiki... have been looking for content and model formatting but they seem to be notes mostly for film actors. Cwands (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Great job! You are right that the pedia doesn't cover working actors as respectfully as it should. After the Susan Wands deletion, there was some discussion about what constitutes notability for stage actors. BTW, we'll need some of her best references when we do the family stuff, because her career is part of his life story. Plus her references might include some interview or profile stuff related to the subject. Before we go too far, let's get the low hanging fruit, like these tables. Perhaps we could build our own table to include all remaining theater credits like on Cillian Murphy. We could add a field for venue type, like regional or touring company. (You can see it's not rocket science at all.) It's important we get some chronology in order to best tell the story. These tables which are chronological by nature, and help us see the patterns. Maybe we find a film actor who does a bunch of theater, or maybe we just do some groundbreaking of our own. No time to be shy now... Do we have any opera singer Featured articles? Maybe we can find some ideas there. BusterD (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Didn't see what I was looking for but I did see this. Look at the "points system" at the bottom of the page. Apparently they use that to help determine proportion of content amounts. I saw Kenneth Anger, an A-class article on a writer/director/actor. I like how his work is in text, grouped by "era", so to speak. Never thought about it, but even Broadway is under-represented on these lists. Audra McDonald and Nathan Lane are both start class articles. Ann Reinking, Gwen Verdon, Ben Vereen, these are all start-class articles. Robert's article will be better (a B-class) when we're done, before we get any help from anyone else. That's a Greek tragedy. I need to commit myself to doing something about that. Rising tide raises all boats, and so forth. I hadn't realized. BusterD (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Here are Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre and Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre. BusterD (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's a Featured class musical theater actor: Elaine Paige BusterD (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting to read the "points system" rating scale of the opera articles - (but isn't that just like some of the opera culture - they measure everything!) (Re: The rating of Notable arias, etc: (preferably embedded in the synopsis) - imagine if we gave a similar rating system to the size of the role/monologues for actors...)

Read the Kenneth Anger article - what a life~! - and thought the grouping by era was very effective for his work and the cultures that he lived in...

After reading your notes here on the start class articles, I went to go look for the Wiki pages of some folks I've known and I was more surprised at the disparity of the older generation Broadway actors listings. The Jessica Tandy article doesn't list any of her US touring or London stage experience (if you're a bway actor do all your other credits fall off? or does only bway count?) (I was not a close friend of hers); and Tommy Rall (am a close friend of his) doesn't have all his bway credits listed and Viveca Lindfors (didn't know her at all) her bway history is really underwritten. So I like to offer to continue to help clean up/add to the WikieProject: Musical Theatre project (after I contribute to the Jonathan Miles (novelist) and Bill Pennington articles). It's a bit of an archeology dig, proving the existence/contribution of performers in an art form that isn't necessarily of the moment, or recorded for prosperity. But as these performers and performances are part of our heritage and collective culture ~ I'd like to help; if I could be useful and manage it amongst my other tasks.

Anyway, will plink around with the table for the remaining Petkoff theater credits... and will send a heads up when I have something to share..more anon. Cwands (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

We're lucky we haven't typed on top of each other. Do you like the single table? I can undo it if you'd prefer. This is more concise and more likely to grab eyes and focus it to data, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

(I was pausing for a bit to see what you were doing....) And you're right, the single table unifies all the theatre credits - I think it looks better. Am going back and forth to links and pages to verify dates and directors: ho boy. Cwands (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Make sure to add citation as you do. Copy, don't cut. BusterD (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Come to a stopping place. I want to clearly show you what I mean by citation. BusterD (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Will try and follow what you're doing with the citation - I get confused with the differences between cites, embedded links and references. Will go look at the template to make sure I understand....

Cwands (talk) 03:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I made the change in live space (Robert Petkoff). Look at the recordings table I moved over from here and updated. Look at the inline citations. Look at them in the editing window. BusterD (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Beginning the narrative

Do you see how the table simplifies things for the reader (meaning us)? It's not even complete, but one can read some things into what one sees. Petkoff comes up honest. He's not getting leads, but significant parts in significant classical productions. Works with a younger Oskar Eustis, does something at the Old Globe where Michael Kahn sees him (or scouts him) then casts him himself, then sees two directors cast him at Kahn's old Shakespeare Theater. Petkoff does work at the Guthrie under the master, then Paul Mullins casts him in something really fun in New Jersey. A rapid trajectory, and Peter Hall gets to "discover" our subject in Tantalus, eleven years after Eustis first gave the young actor some stage cred. This is what I'm reading. I suspect there are about twenty other productions before these or during which we can't document just now (after college, I mean). We need some of his Chicago work in the table. BusterD (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Am worried that what I'm posting isn't reading accurately: Robert never worked at the Guthrie, he worked at the Washington DC Shakespeare theatre (with Kahn directing him there)...and the Shakespeare Rep credits are in Chicago (should I include the city in the venue to give a better idea where these theatres are?)...and you know, I have no idea of what he did in Chicago before he moved out to LA - so I'll need to do some research to find out his early Chicago credits (I know he went to school there...) thanks for your eyes on this...now off to my other job... Cwands (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The table we've constructed says what I read out loud. I'll check citations, then. BusterD (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ooops! I was reading wikilinks while I'm reading the table and I went one link too far. Have a nice night. This stuff will still need some doing tomorrow. BusterD (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Have been adding cites to the theatre section - do I assume that any links not used as cites would be used as external links? Also, just attempted my first try on the television/film table, could you take a quick look at it before I dive into that one? Thanks for your eyes! Cwands (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm seeing too many cites. Verification is good, but more than three links providing verification is too much, generally. Why did you not use the templated citations we'd constructed in the sandbox? Long-term, links aren't satisfactory by themselves. The reasons why are explained at WP:CITE. I'm not sure the concert table works that well either. It might be better to discuss his involvement using paragraph form. Let's put that off for now. Also, I'm not sure I've seen other actors put awards in a table. I liked what was working on Featured content, like Cillian Murphy. If we want to pass Good-class article review, best to stick to commonly accepted practice. BusterD (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I did wonder if the theater table was becoming a cite-pile: (but I did use most of the cites from the sandbox. I thought that every credit had to be cited so dug up cites for those credits that didn't have them and then I added more and then...) I'll wait for your feedback before I go any further: Should I edit down the cites to three or less? And take out those less notable cites? I thought the list of awards looked clunky, which is why I put it in a table like Kristin Chenoweth, but his awards are no where near hers in terms of recognition or prestige, so it looks...bad? (I know, the 2002 After Dark Award?) It seemed like a good idea. I tried to replicate Kritin's table for the concerts - again, maybe not the right choice for such these. So I hear you about reverting that information to a featured content paragraph style. I'm assuming I should go forward with the film and television work in the table? But again, I'll wait for your feedback before I proceed any further. Cwands (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop with the listing of events. It's boring and people won't read it. Look at what I wrote at the top of this section (however inaccurate). There's an actual narrative, and sometimes we can identify it. Sometimes it's well-founded, and sometimes it's not. This is why we have so many editors work on the same page over time. Each person brings a fresh set of eyes, and will see obvious things (obvious=a wart on your nose) the original writer can't possibly see (like in Plato's Allegory of the cave). BusterD (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, and I'm only guessing here, but I suspect Petkoff worked at two Shakespeare fests in flatland: Illinois Shakespeare Festival and Chicago Shakespeare Theater. We're sure about the second, but the first was ongoing when he was attending Illinois State as a college theater student. Seems unlikely a go-getter like our subject would ignore such a ready-made opportunity... BusterD (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't a hard guess to verify... BusterD (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay: will approach as a narrative. More anon... Cwands (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Miles

Did you figure out why I wanted you to help with this? BusterD public (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. I hear you about the COI. The blurbs that his publisher provided for his book were better written than what he (or someone like him?) put up on his wiki article. And he has some great quotes from interviews that he's given. So I'm more than willing to help here, he's an interesting character and seems to have an authentic body of work that I would think would be notable. (But I'm still nervous about what that word "notable" means...)

I'll need some guidance on how best to proceed with the links vs text on this.

Cwands (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Writers need readers, so it's no surprise when a writer finds him- or herself editing his or her own Wikipedia page in a puffy way. (I try very hard not to to use gender-related pronouns when talking to other editors. It's actually distracting to wonder whether the editor is female or male. If they self-identify, I might, but even then discussion should be about the content, not the editors.) Writing on one's own page or an acquaintance's page is not necessarily harmful, but it's pretty easy to read between such lines. I'm still not sure why experts haven't figured out Wikipedia is an important place to write. Wikipedia needs content experts, but also needs disinterested editors, with some expertise but not directly connected to the subject matter. The smarter the group of editors, the better the content can be. But as you see, there are processes which involve social norms established and hallowed (such as they are) by hard experience. We like to say Wikipedia guidelines and policies document established consensus, not create consensus.

What I mean when I say "I asserted notability" is "I added at least three citations on the page which demonstrate diversity of reliable independent sources." The appropriate link is WP:NOTE. First we have WP:GNG (general notability guideline) which is the bottom rung of the ladder. Then there are usually supplemental notability guidelines for each type of subject, for example WP:EVENT, WP:ARTIST, or WP:NSPORTS. The relevant one for individuals like Susan and Robert is WP:NACTOR. These guidelines are intended to help us when sources aren't found, or when sources aren't so hot. Take another example, WP:POLITICIAN. Last week in a deletion procedure I asserted this about a politician's notability: "...WP:POLITICIAN exists to help us to make presumption reasonable sources could be found...." In a similar process I changed my mind after originally committing to "rescue" a page from deletion: "After reading User:Cullen328's points above, I have to admit I couldn't find anything at all (outside of blogs) which pre-dates the subject's announcement."

The best way to understand notability is to swim in it, that is participate in WP:AFD processes. But for now you might have had quite enough experience there already. Don't be shy about searching around and clinking on links yourself. You're clearly an accomplished writer of some kind; smart people can figure out lots of things on their own (other things, not so much ;-). BusterD (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Other life obligations have taken my efforts elsewhere, hope to be able to get back on line and share the narrative on this in the next day or so. Sorry for the delay on this. Cwands (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't feel compelled, it will make the work less enjoyable and better not to do it. As I said, do this at your own pace. I tend to edit more and edit better when I'm relaxed and doing it because I'm interested. We've got a long way to go with the Petkoff project, which could turn out to be featured content one day. I expected several weeks of occasional editing, but you jump-started the process with diligent work on citation and tables. I was thinking the production of Tantalus deserves its own article at some point, being the subject of a documentary film and much discussion in sourcing. That subject might make a nice starter article for you when you're ready to learn more. I was noticing how the theater and musical theater projects had lots of articles I'd enjoy working on. There's no deadline here and no article is ever quite complete. Makes the process less stressful. BusterD (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Bill Pennington

Am trying to get back to my projects here and started my Sandbox page for Bill Pennington: [[1]]...am having some challenges getting by his PR write ups (they're great) to try to contribute a more personalized bio than the "award winning writer" variety. Will be doing some more looking. (he has great videos on line through his NY Times On Par features...used three of them as references, don't know if that's the best use of references?)

Have you ever had a subject where you couldn't find more personalized information online? I've spent several hours trying to personal my attempt on Bill Pennington: Bill Pennington sandbox page and I'm stumped. I can't find any information on his schooling, early career or wife, three children, just hundreds of links to his ongoing work with the New York Times. I've gone to his Facebook page (throughly golf) and links to his publisher (the same three sentences for his bio appear everywhere). Although Warwick New York lists him as a resident on their Wiki page, there's still nothing personal for him. Any advice?

Cwands (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find some offline sources for him. Just like the Petkoff article, the career is the largest part of the story, so that's where we would start. Thanks for helping. I'm glad you're getting acclimated. BusterD (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Have more Petkoff and Miles material coming. More anon Cwands (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice to see you back. I'll take a look at all your good work. BusterD (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Did just catch your comment on the Jonathan Miles article: (cur | prev) 14:15, 10 August 2011 BusterD public (talk | contribs) m (7,110 bytes) (→External links: don't need to sign sandbox space, just talkspace, there are a bunch of good cites here, and not as many accomplishments, so let's not make any tables, ok?) (undo)

{I promise not to make any tables for this article!} Have been trying to find something more current on this writer, the most I could find is that he signed with a new Agent in England in August, 2011 - and that he's giving interviews that he is still trying to write on another novel. But I haven't found anything that would make the article more personal/notable - any suggestions? Do I try and find a copyright free photo of him?

Living people are always ongoing projects. Don't hurry. Photos are nice but most BLPs don't have them. The internet is a terrible source for copyright free images of living folks, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Wondered what you thought next steps might be for the Robert Petkoff page? I'm more than willing to edit down/remove tables/ or shave off some of the references, but would like to move some of the revised material to his article from the sandbox platform? Also, I would like to move on to help edit/add to other theatre living person biographies/articles, thought I might do sandbox pages for Ben Vereen and Viveca Lindfors - is that the best way to approach editing existing articles? Thanks for your input! Cwands (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you're feeling more comfortable editing. Re: Petkoff, we need to format all those citations in the main page theater chart, then start moving the remaining material over to the main space, then we can do the rest of the work on the live page. Regarding sandboxes, they are a useful tool which can be used over and over, but many changes you could make on the live page. If you were to create a chart for Ben Vereen like the Petkoff theater chart, I'd recommend doing that in a sandbox, but I converted this article on Apple printers from this to this in just a few days, right on the page. So it depends on the situation and how fast you plan to do the work. BusterD (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of how the citations should look on the Petkoff theatre chart? By formatting - do you mean formatting the reference links on the bottom of the article? I just want to make sure I'm consistent with what we're looking at. And I'm going to start a sandbox for a Ben Vereen theatre chart, so I can take my time with verifying his credits and links. Cwands (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Current projects

Am going back to my Ben Vereen project, lot's of conflicting (early) history in some of the sources on line. Also, per your note, wanted move remaining material to the Petkoff page (okay if I do that? or would you prefer to do?) - and need verification of what the cite format should be for the theatre chart? Not sure if the Bill Pennington or Jonathan Miles text was useful - okay to add that to their pages in progress? Cwands (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Funny, I was thinking about you today; I formatted some cites on Petkoff this morning. Absolutely make improvement to those pages as you desire. I'm interested in moving them forward, but find myself editing elsewhere. Thanks for offering to help. The Vereen table looks like there's lots more works yet to document. BusterD (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The Vereen history is fascinating - (he studied dance with Martha Graham, George Balanchine, and Jerome Robbins!) and yes, lots to fill on the theatre chart, trying to get verification of all that he's done. Will add to pages: thanks! Cwands (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Cwands/sandbox1

I wanted to let you know that I have edited your article in progress User:Cwands/sandbox1, since it was showing up in main space categories. I added a : to the beginning of each category tag, so you can keep track of which categories you added, but the article will no longer show up in category directories. When you are ready to move the article to main space, you can just remove the : from each.

Thanks for editing Wikipedia! -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I've copied all the Petkoff stuff to User:Cwands/sandbox2

Hi! I'm retiring from editing Wikipedia. I've got so much going on in my life I just don't feel willing to participate anymore. Good luck and I hope you enjoy working here. BusterD (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're leaving Wiki... Thank you for all your help with my learning curve in Wikipedia! Like you, I'm going through some other life callings that have limited my participation - but I'll continue to contribute when I can. I really appreciate your mentoring me to become a better Wiki participant. Thanks again.

Cwands (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year Cwands!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Cwands: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, BusterD (talk) 06:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Happy New Years BusterD! Here's toasting that 2014 is better than 2013! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.162.254 (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Cwands. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Cwands. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)