Talk:Forest Theater/Archive 1

Older images

I expect that more readers will appreciate the old monochrome image with a performance in progress than the old monochrome image with construction workers on the partially-built stage. The image is what is: an old one printed in an old magazine. It gives that vintage flavor. The WPA image with workers is already featured at the Carmel page, so why insist that it be in two places? Give this quaint old performance image a chance! Binksternet (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The other image was used on the Carmel-by-the-sea article for it's historical context, but on this page the image of the performers is bettr on what limited pag there is.

Please expand on this article with a history section, including the works project and the then move on to the contemporary information. There have to be references avaible for this articles expansion.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That was suspiciously quick and I am outwardly worried that there may be copyright issues with what just got expanded.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the tenets of Wikipedia is to assume good faith. Accusations such as this fly in the face of that basic rule. As it happens, my associates and I have been working on a Forest Theater history. It was ready to go and had not been published or posted elsewhere, so no copyright issues are in play. Smatprt (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Concur. After reading Amadscientist's accusation, I searched online for various of Smatprt's text strings taken from the substantial new expansion and came up empty, verifying that this material was not previously published. With that behind us, we can stick to content issues. Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I stand by what I stated. There was no accusation. Read that again. I discussed a concern I have about the information that appeared very quickly on this page with full references and expanded so much in such a short amount of time, that I expressed concern. It happens all the time. I checked the text stream as well and came up with the same thing, but that doesn't mean there is nothing to be concerned with. CYA. That's all.

Having said that, yes we can stick to content issue. Thanks--Amadscientist (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Problem with some references

One I simply cannot find listed let alone whethr it was actualy published. That could make an unreliable source. Just because I can't find it doesn't make it so, but if it is not found eventualy it can be dropped as a refernce.

Also I don't think anything can be used as a source or referenc that isn't published so the letters in the collection of Heron are not reliable sources. A reference to a third party publication is required.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Personal letters and other primary sources should only be used for unsurprising, unchallenged statements such as the date of a performance, etc. Global claims such as being the first to do something, or being the biggest something, need secondary and tertiary sources. Binksternet (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Much of the article was written by a subject that is affiliated with this theatre and stands to gain either monetarily or promotional.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the need to go down this particular path; the bickering and infighting is so provincial. We can let editors be interested parties until their writing is compromised.

Confirming reliable sources is a better direction, as is a careful reading ofWikipedia:Primary_Secondary_and_Tertiary_Sources which puts unpublished letters very firmly into a category of primary sources that should be sparingly and carefully used, if at all. Because the theater has regularly submitted P.R. copy to newspapers its whole life, I don't see why we can't insist on secondary sources: newspaper articles and critical reviews.Binksternet (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that bickering is not good, howver I am willing to defend my actions regardless of perceptions of bickering. It is part and parcvel of editing on wikipedia to policy. Many do not understand the very basics. This situation is showing that very plainly to me ( not meaning you ) Subject's writing has been compromised, that is what started this. When changes were made to be more nuetral and replace images subject used dishonesty when point blank challenged. Had the information not be within the article, the the lie of ommission would have been justified, since he had already admited to the information, he was simply attempting to avoid being caught editing with a conflic of interest. I have been accused of innappropriate actions for follwing policy and guidelines when dealing with an extremly difficult situation when it is his action that has been innaproppriate and his refusal to work within guidline, threatening an editor with no reason, warning me of 3 RR and then violating it within minutes himself. Clearly this editor has been acting badly and I will not allow the finger to be pointed at me.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It's normal for parties in an edit war to throw 3rr warnings at each other. Don't sweat the petty stuff. Check outWikipedia:Etiquette where it says argue the facts, not the person. Also see Wikipedia:Personal information about naming another editor. This is the second time I've deleted your abuse of that guideline, the third will result in a report to admins. Bottom line: you're not drowning, this situation can be made beneficial to all, it will all work out.Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry I did not see this sooner. No, I did not post personal information about the user. He had posted his full name for credit in the uploaded image that was in dispute, along with several others. His name and user name link are on all articles that contain those images. Admission by user of personal information specificaly for identifcation. No violation exists. Subject is in conflict of interest and editors have the right to know that smatprt is making edits here. It's not against policy to point out conflict of interest based on information readily availbale in the article iteself--Amadscientist (talk) 02:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify - I did post a grand total of 2 wiki-warnings, pretty standard stuff, during my regretable edit war with MadScientist. However, these kind of template warnings have never, in the eyes of this community, been labled as "threats". To say I ever threatened MadScientist, is simply untrue. It's something I don't believe in and have never been accused of before. Also, in regards to some other missquoted policies being bandied about, please note this quote from WP:Auto:

"One thing which you can do to assist other Wikipedia editors is, if you already maintain a personal website, please ensure that any information that you want in your Wikipedia article is already on your own website. As long as it's not involving grandiose claims like, "I was the first to create this widget," or "My book was the biggest seller that year," a personal website can be used as a reference for general biographical information. As the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy states: Self-published sources and other published sources of dubious reliability may be used as sources in articles about themselves ... so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by other published sources."

In other words, posting factual information about oneself, or about an organization with which one is affiliated, and then referencing the person's (or organization's) website is completely within Wiki guidelines. Grandiose claims? Of course not. But nothing even approaching grandiose has ever been posted on this page, the PacRep page, or any other pages that have come under recent scrutiny. To restate: simple, uncontested facts about an organization (or individual) can be cited to that organization's (or individual's) website. Thanks.Smatprt (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting that guideline. A personal website would be your own personal website, likehttp://www.barbrastreisand.com/

You cannot claim the theatre websites in that manner but certainly can create or use a personal webpage as stated but that is for the other editors to then add not you as the subject and it doesn't mean it can be done anywhere else but on the Biography page.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)