Talk:Angelique Rockas/Archive 1

Archive 1

Heading

Talk:Angelique_Rockas {{to Lyzzy and Schisteand Pundit and Doc James When the Wikipedia entry for Angelique Rockas with Authority Files GND: 1142392406 ISNI: 0000 0004 6354 3280 LCCN: nb2017020404 ICCU: IT\ICCU\SBNV\053152 ULAN: 500433790 VIAF: 15150939887526600854 , and Archives on Wikipedia [[Archives The records of the work of Angelique Rockas as an actress and founder/artistic director of Internationalist Theatre and correspondence with Joan Littlewood, Athol Fugard, Michael Meyer, George Bizos are held at the British Library under Western Manuscripts [6] The digital records of the work of Angelique Rockas as an actress and theatre practitioner are held by the Scottish Theatre Archive supplemented by [7] Angelique Rockas File: Visual Archive of theatre work, film work, and projects Flickr The Angelique Rockas Archive of Correspondence with great film directors including: Elia Kazan, Derek Jarman, Lindsay Anderson, Costas Gavras, and with actress Julie Christie about Yugoslavia/Kosovo film project [8] is now held at the British Film Institute BFI and at [9] The National Archives (United Kingdom). Bertolt-Brecht-Archiv Akademie der Künste Informationen zu Angelique Rockas Gründerin der Theatercompagnie Internationalist Theatre]] has claims by Wikipedia editors that there are connected editors, or autobiography there is something seriouly below par about this editing . When a theatre artist like Angelique Rockas granted Ulan membership on account of her contribution to theatre and activism and has these authority files based on indisputable data , all claims to connected contributors are illogical .As for autobiography claims if that refers to the impulses that were responsible for the creation of multi-racial theatre and for activism in the early life, these claims are nonsense. Can you please remove this nonsense.]]}} Signed DatIntl01

---

The records of the work of Angelique Rockas as an actress and founder/artistic director of Internationalist Theatre and correspondence with Joan Littlewood, Athol Fugard, Michael Meyer, George Bizos are held at the British Library under Western Manuscripts [6] The digital records of the work of Angelique Rockas as an actress and theatre practitioner are held by the Scottish Theatre Archive supplemented by [7] Angelique Rockas File: Visual Archive of theatre work, film work, and projects Flickr The Angelique Rockas Archive of Correspondence with great film directors including: Elia Kazan, Derek Jarman, Lindsay Anderson, Costas Gavras, and with actress Julie Christie about Yugoslavia/Kosovo film project [8] is now held at the British Film Institute BFI and at [9] The National Archives (United Kingdom). Bertolt-Brecht-Archiv Akademie der Künste Informationen zu Angelique Rockas Gründerin der Theatercompagnie Internationalist Theatre GND: 1142392406 ISNI: 0000 0004 6354 3280 LCCN: nb2017020404 ICCU: IT\ICCU\SBNV\053152 ULAN: 500433790 VIAF: 15150939887526600854

Orphaned references in Angelique Rockas

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Angelique Rockas's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Independent":

• From Tennessee Williams: "Cover-up in Tennessee Williams's death". New York Post. 2010-02-15. Retrieved 2011-02-23.
• From Elizabeth Hill (linguist): Briggs, A D P (6 Jan 1997). "Obituary of Dame Professor Elizabeth Hill". The Independent. The Independent. Retrieved April 19, 2013.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

---

Being a computer explains why you have not realized that these Orphaned references are not on the current Angelique Rockas Wikipedia page? So you observations should be removed (Kyrilo36 (talk) 10:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC))

COI - and use of primary sources (original research)

Everybody can see that user's Johanprof contributions (not only in en-Wikipedia) are related to Angelique Rockas and her promotion to Wikipedia. When she/he doesn't make additions to the article on her, she/he add photos of her performances to articles of writers of theatrical plays (example), links, references etc. This is also true for her/his contributions to el-Wikipedia -and the other editions so far as I see. At the same time, another user named Amfithea has exactly the same behaviour, that is promoting Angelique Rockas in seneral WP editions. Maybe they are the same person, and since they are using references to personal meterials (like unpublished correspondance etc.) uploaded and archived to internet, it is obvious that they are either Angelique Rockas in person, or at least close to her. So, this is without question conflict of interest, and at the same time a case of original research. Among other things, the article has dozens of external links to every impossible site (an almost infinite number of web pages) mentioning or picturing Angelique Rockas, including LindedIn, Twitter, Pinterest, Youtube and photo shooting session uploaded in flickr! As far as the infamous "Archives" section, they fall to the same category, if they the case is not hosting of unpublished primary sources. At any rate they do not contribute to Angelique Rockas notability, since they are just registrations of records. There is no big deal that, say, an Angelique Rockas performance of Medea is recorded at APGRD. It it just a record in a database of performances, and its registration means nothing more that what? who? where? when? It is not evidence of critical acclaim, it is just the facts. ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

PS. Additional remarks. User Johanprof called "to our attention" (= to users who dare to edit against her/his views articulated in the Rockas article at Greek WP) by stating tha she/he is "no random editor" because she/he has received an "Invitaion from Wikipedia" to "vote in the 2017 elections for the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation" !!! So, for Johanprof there are 1st class WP editors like her/himself, and 2nd class cotributors like ourselves. She/he is implying of course that her/his contributions cannot be disputed, modified, much more deleted by the Wikipedia commoners like myself and user CubicStar who dared to do so. Johanprof had to "call for our attention", acting as if she/he were the owner of the article on Angelique Rockas -perhaps she/he thinks that she/he actually is. ——Chalk19 (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

PS2. (more) Additional remarks. The article was created by user John Mcarther, using scans of original material, like users Amfithea and her/his sock puppet Johanprof did later. User John Mcarther's contibutuions 9revolving exclusively around Rockas) follow the same pattern like Amfithea's & Co. It is worth mentioning that when John Mcarther was adding text to the Rockas article he was frequently summarizing by write "Its me John McArthur -the only editor on this article- no conflicts ..." or similar things. So, COI applies to him as well. ——Chalk19 (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

---

Refutation of Cahlk19 accusations:There is no conflict of interest or improper practice 1)The Scottish Theatre Digital Archive had scans of all the data contributed by Angelique Rockas since 2011- so they are not unpublished material, and the transference of this data onto the Internet Archive does not invalidate the contents-which is now physically available for viewing at the British Library .This would include all the letters that you find offensive, or call unverified research. Because the scans used on the Wikipedia entry are from the Internet Archive- means what? They were already on the Scottish Theatre Archive. Athol Fugard `s letters ( which are now physically archived at the British Library) of support to Angelique Rockas`s formation of (New) Internationalist Theatre , are proof that he agreed to become a member of the company`s advisory board - so they are not unpublished material but explain why this great dramatist`s name was used on the programmes of each of this theatre company`s productions,look through the Theatricalia.com site`s links or possibly on the Scottish Theatre Archive digital scans.

---

2) The attachment of photographs from Wikimedia commons to several sites was first exercised by Wikimedia staff RuthVen from Photosubmisions. Look at the initial dates and ascertain this for yourself. So it was no big deal that other editors followed suite. All the photos are taken from Wikimedia Commons. Ruthven as the main WikiMedia supervisor and any other Wikipedia editor had the right to remove these photographs.

---

3) Wikipedia encourages contributors to attach videos, that is youtube - were you aware of this? 4) I don`t think that adding Angelique Rockas Twitter or Pinterest page is incorrect practice. If you google they are easily available to copy and paste. And other artists external links do include Twitter- maybe not on EL . 5) Make a note that both Angelique Rockas and Internationlaist Theatre have Wikidata authority numbers .On the Angelique Rockas Wikidata page - Twitter and Pinterest use of a photograph which is also used under the Legend category is considered as a reference. You need to update your mentality. If flickr has been used to record material relevant to reveal visual data on the productions - what is the problem. John Stoddart is a very well known photographer of actors. Angelique Rockas`s notability does not rest on the ARPAD listing, so why make much ado about nothing . All of Theatro Technis productionsa are on ARPAD. Your particular tastes cannot dictate what is acceptable to other Wikipedia editors from other countries. (Kyrilo36 (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC))

Two users systematically promote Angelique Rockas on several WP language editions, and when this comflict of intereste is reported in both el- and en- WP, user Kyrilo36, with no contributions so far, appears out of the blue in both en- and el- WPs to remove COI and Original Research templates, and "refute" the accusations. No need for further evidence that she/he is also involved in the Angelique Rockas promotional business which is obviously very well organized. ——Chalk19 (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

---

I live in London, have followed Ms Rockas`s work. She does not need promotion - the huge list of press coverage says it all. Are you disputing this ? I follow her on Twitter and Linkedin- where her Wikipedia entries are publicly displayed- people are looking up her profiles all the time and I was told of what you are doing..Some computer bot is talking crap about orphaned links which are not the page. And you still don`t accept this and repost it.

---

You paid no attention to my initial refutation. What is the problem. Everything is verifiable .Promotion is based on fake claims. I had read Ms Rockas Wikis before this - so I know what I am talking about . I don`t even know the 2 contributors- but I was told by a Twitter follower of Ms Rockas about the vandalism on her English page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyrilo36 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kyrilo36: You have not "refute" anything. You have not answered:
A) Why users Johanprof and Amfithea have no conflict of interest -all evidence is there, and not only confined to en-WP?
B) Why using unpublished meterial like personal correspondance etc. is not original research, and
C) How come you appeared out of the blue, right after I made these statements here and at the talk page of the Greek article, a fresh user whithout any other contributions, and you started right away removing with great zeal the tags from the article of both WPs? Yeah, sure "You were told by a Twitter follower of Ms Rockas about the vandalism on her English page" ... There was no vandalism on Ms Rockas "Enlgish page" (it is not her page you know, but a page on her); putting the tags is no vandalism; on the other hand, who told you about her "Greek page"? another "Twitter follower of Ms Rockas"? And why user Johanprof, who was removing the COI and Original Research tags from the Greek article just disappeared after I reverted him/her last time by stating "don't remove the tags anymore time because you have a conflict of interest", and then you came to do the job! Why Johanprof, who was very active in Greek Wikipedia on reverting other users contributions didn't "refute the accusations" her/himself? Finaly, what you have been describing is called canvassing.
——Chalk19 (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

PS. The pattern of your writing, using seperation lines between paragraphes/sections by typing consecutive hyphensis is identical to user's Johanprof in Greek WP. Any ideas? ——Chalk19 (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Puppets or users who edit in company

Judging from this comment to User Kyrilo36 Greek talk page, it is beyond doubt that IP 82.1.219.198 belongs to Kyrilo36 who just forgot to sign in. 82.1.219.198's global contributions are similar to those of userJohanprof. At the same time, this lead us to the conlusion that Johanprof, user Amfithea (who have been named by myself as having confict of interest with their subject), and Kyrilo36 of course, either they are the same person, or they act together, in company. ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• update. All three accounts, e.g. Amfithea, Johanprof, and Kyrilo36 have been indefinitely blocked for sock puppetry. ——Chalk19 (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• update2. New user Sliverug globaly locked for cross-wiki abuse after I filed a case against her/him. ——Chalk19 (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• update3. A third new user (Chlorissima), after Kyrilo36 and Sliverug, who edits only artcles related to Rockas just appeared. The pattern and aim are the same: finally, like the abovementioned users/puppets, she/he removed the Original Research and COI tags, although obviously the user has conflict of insterest with her/his subject. ——Chalk19 (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

PS on update3. Account Chlorissima was created @ Commons on January 5, 2017 but was "sleeping" in all projects till lately. Her/his initial two edits at Commons was the uploading of two photos, right afterwards edited by user Angeliquerock, sockmaster Amfithea, and its master puppet Johanprof: [1], [2]. User Angeliquerock claims that she is Angelique Rockas in person. ——Chalk19 (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• update4. It seems that we have a new user Kotlenci :contributions. Jmax (talk) 03:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jmax: No doubt a new puppet of Amfithea. I have filed the case against Kotlenci, after the mistake she/he did below, by using the well known IP 82.1.219.198 to change her/his signature. ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• comment Chalk19 (talk) CubicStar Jmax (talk) User:KJones (talk)

Maybe the fact that you are not resident in the United Kingdom or London explains your ignorance that this IP 82.1.219.198 address is the IP 82.1.219.198 for all the libraries of the whole of the London boroughs of a Westminster, Chelsea and Kensington a) http://committees.westminster.gov.uk/Data/Cabinet/20110627/Agenda/$17%20-%20Item%207%20-%20Tri%20Borough%20Appendix%203%20- %20Libraries%20Business%20Case.doc.pdf b) Map of public libraries in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/idoc.ashx?docid=bb2a04f8-8035-4864-a5b8.. c) maps of the libraries in Westminster https://www.google.co.uk/maps/search/map+of+the+libraries+of+Westminster/@51.5284748,-0.101599,11z/data=!3m1!4b1?dcr=0. These libraries provide free-wifi to all card holding members , as does the British library. So it is totally ridiculous to file a complaints against contributors who have as volunteers used this IP 82.1.219.198 to add data , or make corrections , or enter Wikipedia entries on the freely available information of the work of Angelique Rockas . All accusations made against the contributors as sock puppets or whatever are based on ignorance. I suspect that this is the reason why none of the above accused contributors even bothered to appeal against their blocks ‎ Kotlenci {Kotlenci (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Kotlenci (talk • contribs) 11:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• comment Chalk19 (talk) CubicStar Jmax (talk) User:KJones (talk) I thought that Wikipedia does not restrict User membership and does not stipulate what any user can contribute to? Chalk19 (talk) You appoint yourself as an judge as to who can join Wikipedia as a user or not? On what grounds? Unfinished what ? Ignoring the real issues by resorting to trivia likeunsigned etc ‎ Kotlenci (talk) {Kotlenci (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)}

So all librarians of London and UK or "card holding members" of libraries of London and UK when contributing to several language editions of WP they write only about Angelique Rockas, or come back the very next minute to finish the job that the puppet users left unfinished !!! ——Chalk19 (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC) ttA

• comment Chalk19 (talk) CubicStar Jmax (talk) User:KJones (talk)

Unfinished what ? If someone wants to submit a non- English Wikipedia entry who are you to forbid it? You speak a load of piffles ‎ Kotlenci (talk) {Kotlenci (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)}.

Pretty interesting that you keep notifying the Greek language WP sysop CubicStar, who has never intervened in English language WP; a few months ago, he made an argument in Greek language WP against user Johanprof, the master puppet of sockmaster Amfithea, so what is your special interest in that? Are you friends with master puppet Johanprof? At least you share with her/him the same interest in promoting Rockas in several language editions of WP, attacking those users who critisise this actions and point the COI with the subject. You also share the same habbits with master puppet Johanprof, and other puppets/SPAs of Amfithea, of using seperation lines between paragraphes/sections by typing consecutive hyphensis, when commenting in talk pages, and of manual/multiple signing (without using the 4 "~"). ——Chalk19 (talk) 07:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• comment Chalk19 (talk) CubicStar Jmax (talk) User:KJones (talk)

I don`t notify anyone, I just scrolled down the complainants and added them to the list. I did not even know that Cubic star is Greek. Have you asked yourself why the British Libraryy has archived Angelique Rockas under Western Manuscripts ? Or why the Brecht Archive in Germany was interested in achiving 'Mother Courage' ? Is it strange that a person who has produced great European plays should not have Wikipedia entries in the language of those plays, and furthermore when actors from various European countries were involved in some of the productions? Or do you think that the work does not merit foreign Wikipedia entries? By concentrating on your mantra `promoting ` you are questioning Angelique Rockas`s value as an artist and theatre-practitioner? Do you seriously think that she needs promoting ? Don`t the facts speak for themselves? If someone is born in South Africa should they not have an entry in Afrikaans , when this actress was cast in an Afrikaans play at drama school? Have you bothered to look at the flickr website angelique rockas ? It is all there. You have`nt began to acknowledge that references from Internet Archive are not unreliable, that there is no primary material. I have gone to the bother of getting responses from the News archive at the British Library , the BBC archive and yet you carry on with your negations. The physical papers are in world class archives ? Why are you trying to villify this artist ? Are the contributors lying? Many actreses have foreign language entries? Are you disputing that Angelique Rockas should have any? This is really getting tiresome. What do you want ? Delete all the Authority Controls? Delete all the Archives? Delete all the historiography of the work ? What ? Explain yourself? The only explanation that is so far apparent is 'bad karma'! Kotlenci (talk) {Kotlenci (talk)}

• comment I am legitimate Kotlenci .(talk) 8 November 2017

a) A point about data that contributors have taken from the Internet Archive on account of undigitalized references being available to use in contributions, I suggest that you look at this: " The Internet Archive “Liberates” Books Published Between 1923 and 1941, and Will Put 10,000 Digitized Books Online " http://www.openculture.com/2017/11/the-internet-archive-liberates-books-published-between-1923-and-1941-and-will-put-10000-digitized-books-online.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OpenCulture+%28Open+Culture%29. To Jmax talk the Internet Archive is a worthy and valuable source of information, and not spam. To Chalk19talk the Internet Archive is not primary source material. b)I have now contacted the British Library news archives about whether digital versions of the UK newspapers and magazines,The Stage, The Morning Star, Time Out, Where to go, City Limits were availble for the years 198-1985 and referred to in the Angelique Rockas and Internationalist Theatre Wikipedias . This is what they sent: " Thank you for your email. We are unable to supply you with links to the articles because the newspapers and journals are not available in electronic format for the years you require" Regards Jane McGuinness Operations and Services The British Library Bld 6 Boston Spa WETHERBY West Yorkshire LS23 7BQ ______________________________________________________________________________________________ From BBC Dan Hartswell Archives about the digital links to the BBC broadcasts by Latin American Service, French Service and Russian Service, not available.

"sorry it has taken me a while to get back to you. I’ve been liaising with various people in World Service, including Latin American and Russian services – everyone I can think of.

The bad news is that we can’t locate any of the documents you’re looking for I’m afraid.

Thanks,

Dan"

Dan Hatswell _______________________ Music Archivist BBC Archives

BBC Engineering B070, Old Broadcasting House, Portland Place, London, W1A 1AA (0207 76) 52120 _______________________________________________________________________________________ Wikipedia editors Chalk19

and others are free to contact Jane McGuinnes and Dan Hartswell themselves, but there will come a point where your negations will be lifted .

I suppose the Authority Controls mean very little to you. (82.1.219.198 (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC))

• update5. Account Kotlenci has been blocked indefinitely. ——Chalk19 (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
• update6. Account Obornat has been globally locked. ——Chalk19 (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• update7. User Lyon246 has been globally locked as a Spam-only account. ——Chalk19 (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• update8. New socks/SPAs around; accounts Datintl01 and Gort189. ——Chalk19 (talk) 08:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

PS. User Datintl01 has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet, and finally locked globally for long-term cross-wiki abuse. ——Chalk19 (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• update9. New sock/SPA, Nescu23. ——Chalk19 (talk) 07:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

PS. User Nescu23 has been blocked indefinitely for making legal threats, and finally locked globally for long-term cross-wiki abuse. ——Chalk19 (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• update10. User Ronaldstick blocked as a sockpuppet. ——Chalk19 (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

PS. … and globally locked. ——Chalk19 (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• update11. User Zerotemperature locked globally. ——Chalk19 (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• update12. User Botvelli blocked indefinitely as the new sock of Amfithea's Army of Puppets (= Rockas Army of Puppets) after CU. ——Chalk19 (talk) 09:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

As already noted this is an autobiography

Autobiography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.163.188 (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC) to This is not autobiography: when an artist of the theatre who has been granted Ulan status precisely because of being a pioneer of multi-racial theatre and her anti-apartheid actiivism, and continues that activism at a later stage , then her formative years as it is titled are important in explaining those impulses and the people like Barbara Hogan and George Bizos in Rockas`s early life. So no it is not autobiography.Signed DatIntl01

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 October 2018

The page is using Template:NOINDEX generating <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow"/> preventing indexing in Bing, Google... so suggesting removing this template. FabriceCanel (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

No it isn't. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 07:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The article is indeed in Category:Noindexed articles; see here. I think this is because of Template:Undisclosed paid (or {{UDP}} as it's used here). I suggest to remove that template, because a lot of clean-up edits have been made since it was placed here in July 2017. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Of course, I bow to greater knowledge, but the word 'NOINDEX' doesn't appear on the page itself. Also the template page says -" This template will normally noindex any main namespace pages that are less than 30 days old. It has no effect on older pages. " make of that what you will. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 12:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Given the massive difference between the article when the {{UDP}} template was added and now - see here I've removed the template. However, if there is still an issue with undisclosed paid editing on this article, by all means anyone may explain why, and restore it. Fish+Karate 12:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I've restored this because the article has remained a target for socks and the edits since July by regular editors are to remove sock edits. In one case, edits were proxied unintentionally. This is still a going concern. Compare the above with a sock's edit here.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Copy editing, etc.

Just wanted to let others know that I’m here for CE, sourcing and whatever other clean-up needs to be performed, and hope to put everyone’s mind at ease about COI editing. I invite others to join me in a productive collaboration to get the article right. Shout out to Berean Hunter and a big thank you to you & other admins for your efforts here. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 16:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, the article is not up for deletion despite what the sock said. They have a habit of lying to others and trying to manipulate them. See this case for some of the background.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

D'oh! I see now that someone has put it up...sorry for the confusion.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, wow - ok - thank you, BH. I hope it’s ok that I continue working on this article and the theater article. Based on my glancing research, both need ce and other gnome-like fixes. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 16:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)