Talk:Stephen Moorer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Appropriate autobio Tag per AFD Nomination

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)

Mad Scientist, you're just so totally wrong. See WP:SPS. Since it's non-controversial info, we can use it. If you can find a reliable source to contradict the facts asserted, by all means we'll accept your reference as the more authoritative. All the people who have come by this article and the AfD disagree with you. What happens when an editor attacks an obviously notable article is that it grows longer and longer and becomes a much better and more prominent article than it would have, so I guess Mr. Moorer has you to thank. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:12, 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)

Here is a quote from WP:Auto. Assuming good faith, which I admit has become quite difficult under the present circumstances, I can only guess that MadScientist has simply missed this one. "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."

So referencing the PacRep website is, of course, completely within guidelines, on this page, the PacRep page, the Forest Theater page, and so on.Smatprt (talk) 03:55, 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)

If you have questions about a given source and its reliability, then take it to WP:RS/N and stop designating yourself as the arbiter of what is or is not a reliable source. Regardless of how many times you post the same argument about how this article violates policy, you cannot appoint yourself as the one who decides what sources are appropriate or reliable. There is nothing at the MCTA website that indicates in any way that it is a self-promotional site nor that Mr. Moorer is "affiliated" with it in a way that would imply influence over what it would print in an interview conducted for the newsletter it publishes. A member of an organization is a member, that does not imply some type of affiliation beyond that, or any sort of editorial control or influence. The website is used for biographical information that was included in an interview. It is a site for a non-profit organization in which members of the theatrical community of that area and interested others may join, it publishes aggregate information about the theatrical community on the site and interviews with members of the theatrical community. It does not sell tickets, it is not a ticket dispensing site. Membership brings an opportunity to purchase two tickets for one by showing a membership card at the box office for various productions as outlined here. It's quite explicit that the tickets aren't for sale on the site. That is all clearly outlined on the FAQ page. Your concerns about this site are unfounded.

Regarding the 3 separate references to the PacRep website, WP:SELFPUB makes 4 points about such sites:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;

2. it does not involve claims about third parties;

3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

The references are being used to source statements about the subject's roles and credits. It does not make further claims than that. It does not make claims not related to him or about others and the article does not rely primarily on those sources. You're construing "self-serving" when that in fact refers to puffing up something that is extraordinarily unreasonable or unbelievable.

The majority of this article is referenced to articles from newspapers, such as the Monterey County Weekly, the Monterey County Herald, Movie Magazine International, the Monterery Herald, the San Jose Mercury News, and the San Francisco Chronicle. I suppose you are asserting that they aren't reliable either?

If you persist in making disparaging statements about others, I am going to take it directly to WP:AN/I. Statements like ones above in which you accuse Ssilvers of not telling the truth or the disparaging comments about Smatprt's being known as someone who had to write his own article and claim it is only sourced by content he drummed up from somewhere is outrageously bad faith and doesn't even border on personal attacks, it steps right into it. Whether you intend for it to or not, it has all the appearances of a mission to keep attacking this article, as you've already attacked a person who stepped up to worked quite hard to better reference and fill it out. This is not in the best interests of this encyclopedia. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:43, 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)

And let me start by clarifying that I am not a sir, I am decidedly female. Whatever your intentions are about all of this, it certainly gives the appearance of a mission, whether it is or it isn't. There are more than a couple editors who don't agree with your interpretation of guidelines and policies as they apply to the sources. Some of us have actually taken articles to GA or FA status and we've worked a lot with sources and know how they can be used and how they cannot. It is rare that even a policy is so black and white that interpretation does not become an issue, especially the ones that cover exceptions to the rules, such as ones covered in WP:SELFPUB. That is why I suggested if you question a source, take it to WP:RS/N and pose the question, but present it fairly and neutrally, such as "is this source considered reliable to support facts it publishes about the credits of the article subject if the subject is an employee of the organization?" Note that Moorer doesn't own PacRep, it isn't his. The people who run the organization have to answer to a board of directors. Don't ask if it is wholly considered a reliable source for all things everywhere. The few sources that are used from PacRep and the MCTA website are used only to source biographical content about the subject, they aren't used for any other purpose in the article. I sincerely hope you aren't questioning the reliability of regularly published newspapers. It isn't productive to ask WP:RS/N if the San Jose Mercury News or the San Francisco Chronicle are reliable. Since July 20, the referencing for this article has increased over 500% and number of different sources has about doubled. The majority are not even remotely questionable. I have found no content in the article that is exaggerated or puffery beyond credibility. And the award winning statement was the introductory sentence of a paragraph that talks about what awards were won, which were specified and sourced two sentences down. It wasn't hyperbole. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:28, 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)

MadScientist, please don't tell the Wiki community what "I know". In regards to your statement here (that I know if you are "told something that is true" you will relent), let me say for the record that I know no such thing. Unfortunately, I have found the contrary to be true.

Also - I need to correct your misquote of me: You quoted me saying "Assumming good faith has become quite difficult under the present circumstances". I didn't say that. You are incorrect. Smatprt (talk) 19:32, 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 guess I may have assummed to much good faith on your part, so I will just direct to your user page[1] under the section "Carmel Photo" as to our first civil and good faith encounter.

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)

By the way guys....my username is Amadscientist. It becomes incivil to continue to refer to me by dropping a letter. Thanks--Amadscientist (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What may be problematic

Lede image

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)

Oh dear, you are really going here, now? See here for the dispute challenge on the photo: [[2]] Smatprt (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

References

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)

You seem to be making unresearched (and incorrect) claims. The MCTA does not sell tickets and does not sell a product. The newsletter content is overseen by an independent board of directors and the editor is not affiliated with any particular group. Smatprt (talk) 14:54, 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)

Question about first acting credits

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)

Try this link: http://www.pacrep.org/Contact%20Us%20Old

Sign your posts, mystery guest! :) Yes, that was the credits list I was referring to, but it does not mention ASND. I suppose we can just delete the delivery boy role -- it doesn't sound very large, if you know what I mean. Softlavender (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I went ahead and sourced the Scapino role to the credits resume, and I deleted ASND. If you feel it best to restore, feel free. Softlavender (talk) 16:50, 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)

Yes - it's Passion the musical by Sondheim.Smatprt (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Nuts

Well, he wasn't in the film. This was the 1981 play? -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

As already mentioned in an edit summary, the article linked to is about both the play and the film. I don't personally think there's any reason to break the narrative flow of the listing to emphasize that it's the play that's referred to, since the screenplay wasn't written till two years later, and we are talking about a stage actor who has no screen credits. Softlavender (talk) 16:30, 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)

Not an issue with me. I'm fine either way. I had assumed you read my edit summary because your next edit summary said "OK." I personally feel that since the Nuts article starts with the sentence "Nuts is a 1981 play," that it's self-explanatory what is meant, but perhaps I assume too much intelligence on the part of the general reader (not talking about you); at the same time the sentence here reads more felicitously without the aside of "the play." It is unfortunate that the play and film are in the same article and that the parenthetical on the title reads "(film)"; yet as I said in my edit summary, unlikely that the play will get an article of its own since the current article is so small already. However, as I'm typing this I'm wondering if I should just go ahead and start an article on the play -- being as I just wrote an entire article on the playwright, I learned a few things about the play. It would be a tiny article, but ... hmmm, what do you think? Back to the original question about this article, I'm not going to change the way it is now as I'm fine with it either way. Softlavender (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: I just created an article about the play, and linked to that. Problem solved! :) Softlavender (talk) 19:00, 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)

Assessment

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)

Have a great vacation! Softlavender (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)