Talk:Thrill Me: The Leopold & Loeb Story

Structure of article

This article is a good start. I have made some edits to conform this article more closely to the article structure guidelines for Wikipedia musical theatre articles. All information in the article needs adequate references. Please see WP:RS. -- Ssilvers 18:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

External links. I see that an editor has attempted to add many references to the "External links section." If the references are useful, put them next to the text in the article that they support. See WP:CITE. Also, instead of listing ALL possible links, just use the most important references. At Wikipedia, we try to separate the important information from the jumble of information that exists on the web. Thanks! Best regards, -- Ssilvers 18:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There were two sections listing numerous productions, none of which was notable. I removed them and simply noted that "Thrill Me has been staged in a variety of US and international cities." I also added categories. I agree with the assessment that this article sounded like a vanity project before it was edited! ConoscoTutto 22:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete production history wholesale. Some of these productions may be considered as significant as an off-broadway production. If the show goes to Broadway, I would agree that many of them could then be deleted. Also, you should not have information in the intro that is not described in the body of the article. See WP:LEAD. Finally, the WP:MUSICALS article structure guidelines reflect our consensus that the critical reception info goes after the Synopsis section. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 22:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how any of these productions can be considered notable by any stretch of the imagination (Suncoast Theatre in Tampa? the Know Theatre in Buffalo?? the Lamb Theatre in Sioux City???). They clearly were listed by the show's creator (who I'm sure started the article) to boost his ego. Please explain how any of them are significant.

I do not understand your comment "you should not have information in the intro that is not described in the body of the article." I did not add ANYTHING to the intro, let alone anything that is not described in the body of the article. What do you mean?

I'm sorry, but your advice isn't consistent. Somewhere earlier you mentioned putting Production History first, but here you've shoved it down near the bottom after the plot synopsis and song list, even though most articles (including Milk and Honey, for example, which you edited today) have it first. I don't understand the discrepancy. Thank you. ConoscoTutto 22:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hold on thar. I didn't put the production history there, someone else did. You are right that it should go higher up. I am cannot give you perfect advice, and you should not rely exclusively on me. I am just one editor, and I am not perfect. For WP advice generally, see WP:MOS and the five pillars of Wikipedia. As for musicals, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Assessment. If you have a question, you can discuss it at the WP:MUSICALS talk page. The article structure that the musicals project has developed over the past year and a half is there to assist you in deciding in what order to put thinks. -- Ssilvers 23:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the revision documented at [1] it appears you moved the production history. Am I reading it wrong?

I asked if you could please explain how any of the many productions listed are significant. I'd appreciate a response. Thank you. ConoscoTutto 23:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I don't know the answer. I don't know these theatres, some of which are in foreign countries. My guess is that the Korean productions were quite significant, at least. If you look at the history of the article, you will see that there used to be simply a blocky paragraph listing all the productions that was probably copied out of a table or something. Then, there were a series of External links that MusicMaker deleted. These links each contained articles or reviews about these productions. So, if you really want to analyze it, you could go through all those links. I just don't have the time, but maybe someone can help us here. But I don't think the right thing to do is simply to delete the entire thing blindly. OK? -- Ssilvers 23:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, let's be practical. Just because external links to reviews of a production in Podunk, Iowa exist doesn't mean the production was notable/relevant/significant. Common sense says these productions weren't. If you can show me other musical theatre article that list as many straw hat productions as this one does, I will happily concede they should remain. (I'll even eat a straw hat!) But as it stands now it looks and feels like unnecessary padding to lengthen the article and make Thrill Me more important than it probably is. ConoscoTutto 23:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The way it currently exists, I have to say, the productions are overkill. I don't think that, necessarily, any one professional production is inherently more notable than another (aside from those in major theatre cities). I would suggest specifically mentioning those that starred the creator, mention those that took place in Korea or wherever, and alluding to the others: "...and other productions in intimate theatres across the United States," or some such language. —  MusicMaker5376 15:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I made an edit per your suggestion and hope it will be satisfactory for all concerned (of course, Thrillmecd probably will change it before long!). ConoscoTutto 15:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

INFOBOX: Someone keeps changing the Correct info box listing which says Based on the Leopold & Loeb True Crime Story. To the INCORRECT, based on the Leopold & Loeb Murders (plural). Leopold & Loeb didn't commit murderS. They killed ONE young boy (horribly.) THRILL ME is about the relationship and how it led to a SINGLE MURDER. Why does it keep being changed and made incorrect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.172.80 (talk • contribs)

If, instead of reverting to whatever version you think is the "right" version, you took a moment to notice that the infobox was changed to "Leopold and Loeb murder", we wouldn't have this issue. —  MusicMaker5376 18:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Sorry I didn't catch that it was FINALLY corrected. But I will continue to ensure that the information on this page is correct and complete, regardless of how many times I must correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.172.80 (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Your perceived ownership of this article is causing a lot of trouble, and I suggest you take a step back and think why so many people are disagreeing with the content you keep replacing. You complain that various things are wrong with the article that you keep replacing with your own version, but you have declined to specify any particular problem, let alone fix those problems yourself. Instead you revert the article 7 times in one 24-hour period (in violation of the 3 reverts rule) to a revision that contains, variously, a huge number of unnecessary external links, promotional material in violation of WP:COI and some material that you cannot account for the copyright for in violation of WP:COPY. You have been reported for a 3RR violation, so please don't be surprised if a ban comes your way. Either way, I strongly suggest you try to work with us as opposed to against the concensus that has been established by (by my count) at least 4 editors. Docta247 19:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "Leopold and Loeb murder" sounds like they were the victims, not the perpetrators. Why not just leave it at based on "Leopold and Loeb," period? ConoscoTutto 13:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

A new start

So now the page is protected, which I think is a good thing. Thrillmecd, having been blocked and then had the article locked for editing, I hope you'll now consider discussing the changes you want to make with us as opposed to making huge and wholesale revisions to the article. You refer to various mistakes and incompleteness, and this downtime is the perfect opportunity to let us all know what they are so that we can all work together to make the article the best it can be. I assure you, everyone who has reverted your changes has been working in good faith and they want the same as you do: a high quality article. Docta247 12:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC) +

Thrillmecd needs to understand Wikipedia is not a forum that exists to promote his work. As it stands now, I think this article gives ample coverage (in an acceptable format) to the project. ConoscoTutto 13:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

thrillmecd is the copyright holder of everything related to THRILL ME, including the complete synopsis which he has provided (and ANY deletions or changes to his copyrighted synopsis consitutes a COPYRIGHT VILOATION), also thrillmecd is the owner and copyright holder of the photographs he has provided to wikipedia to illustrate the page. This THRILL ME page has remained fairly consistent for nearly a year, with contributions of several editors. NOW, for some reason, people unfamiliar with THRILL ME are constantly changing the COPYRIGHTED SYNOPSIS (by deleteing a portion of it) and rendering the page incomplete and full of inccorect information. thrillmecd's sole buisness and source of income IS "thrill me" in it's various sudsidaries such as foreign rights, touring productions, stock productions, publication (book sales), CD sales, etc, and thus he knows exactly what is correct, what is not correct, what is incomplete, etc. He will ALWAYS be sure that the wikipedia page is correct and complete as part of his daily routine. The alternative would be for THRILL ME to be DELETED completely from wikipedia--which would make thrillmecd happy, rather than having to constantly police facts about his business, and consider legal action if his Copyrighted Synopsis is continually tampered with. So if someone out there would like to propose delation of the page---PLEASE DO!!!!!!!!!!!!

You should know that it's incredibly rude to remove the contributions of others from the talk page. Please refrain from doing that in the future. Docta247 15:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Now, to address the concerns you've raised about this article:

• By putting the synopsis on Wikipedia, you've licensed it under the GFDL, which makes it available for anybody on Wikipedia to change. Other users have warned you (see here) about this and you have ignored their warnings. If you do not want your summary on this page to be altered by any Wikipedian acting in good faith, then do not put it on Wikipedia. I suggest reading the GFDL or at least its Wikipedia page.
• People have already explained the concerns about the photographs you uploaded. You are in the photographs, thus you did not take the photograph and therefore the copyright does not belong to you and you cannot upload here without the holder's permission or a fair-use rationale, which you were offered help with.
• You have repeatedly referred to the page not being correct and complete, yet you refuse to specify which parts are incorrect and incomplete. The reason your changes have been reverted by a number of editors is because you have made no effort to integrate them with the work of other editors. If you correct individual facts and can provide a source to prove them, they would remain in the article.
• I appreciate that Thrill Me is your business, but this does not make Wikipedia the appropriate place to advertise it. In fact, you making such changes to Wikipedia is a classic example of a conflict of interests. One of the major objections you've heard from the people reverting your version of the article is the number of external links. There are far too many in your version of the article, and you haven't attempted to justify having them.

So in summary, if you want to ensure that the information on here is "complete and correct", please work with us. Please raise your concerns on this talk page. Please accept that regardless of who you are and your relationship to the work in question, you do not own this article and your word does not carry the final say, especially when it's against the concensus established by several other editors. We really would like to make this article better, so please please please list any specific concerns you have with it. I look forward to your response. Docta247 15:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The concerns are FAR too numerous. Coming from the only person with a vested interest, as the person who wrote the musical, I can attest that the page was fine for nearly a year, Docta. Yet you seem to insist on making it incorrect and imcomplete and misleading. Therefore, Can you please assist and direct me as to how to go about removing the THRILL ME page from wikipedia? It is just impossible as the author of THRILL ME to see it misrepresented and disgraced (not to mention fought over)....so, please point me in the direction....where on wikipeida do I go to start this process. Otherwise, I have no choice but to continue on a daily basis to correct the misinformation and restore the page to the correct version.

As for the synopsis, regardless of what you say wiki's "policies" are, I am the copyright holder of it, and if it is changed or edited in anyway, I will persue the matter under copyright law. In no way does posting that copywritten material on this site allow it to be "stolen" and changed. So, again, please help me delete this page from Wikipedia. That way, anyone ever searching for complete information about THRILL ME can find it on the acutal thrill me website. Thank you. Let's get this page deleted and you can go on making sure wikipedia is just perfect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.44.253.183 (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I was not responsible for the changes that you have taken such exception to, so accusing me personally of making it incorrect and incomplete and misleading is simply false. The fact that you don't seem to be interested in working towards an article that satisfies everybody is very disappointing as I have no doubt that you, as the author, have a lot to offer an article about the piece. Given its relative notability, I think you'll have some trouble getting the article deleted but if you choose to investigate the route, I recommend reading WP:AFD.

You seem to misunderstand what I was saying about policies and copyright. The next time you post, read just above the edit summary to see the words "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL". You have been made aware of this before, but apparently chose to ignore it. When you put the synopsis up on Wikipedia, you - as the copyright holder - agreed to license it under the GFDL, which gives any editor of Wikipedia absolute right to change it. Perhaps you should have read the license before you put it up on the site. Either way, I'm sure that if the article is not deleted, a compromise could be found where an entirely different synopsis is created/provided. Docta247 16:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering how stubborn and unreasonable he is (not to mention "misrepresented and disgraced"), I say let him delete the article (I'll be happy to support his request) and publish a book called The Making of Thrill Me, over which he can have complete control. ConoscoTutto 18:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I, too, have considered that deletion is the only logical step, but I don't think it would fail an AfD. The subject of the article is notable, the article is referenced, etc.

Thrillmecd, I would strongly suggest that you contact your lawyer to determine if and how you can get the copyright back for your contributions. You could also contact the Wikimedia Foundation. I believe (not entirely sure) that, if you explain to them the situation in a calm and lucid manner, your original contributions can be removed from the servers and you may be able to regain your copyright. As of right now, however, you need to understand that by posting it on Wikipedia, you've agreed to allow future editors (and anyone on the planet, really) to edit and redistribute your contributions as they see fit, so long as proper attribution is maintained. And it doesn't matter if you take it off the current page: it's in the history. Good luck to you. —  MusicMaker5376 18:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you should probably contact Jimbo Wales. He is the brains behind WP, and he is the designated agent for the Wikimedia Foundation's copyright claims. You can see his contact information here. —  MusicMaker5376 18:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are we pushing for deletion? This is a notable topic. Not liking an article is not a valid argument for deletion.

I think the problem here is that you're misunderstanding what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is not a press release database. It is an encyclopedia. Your contribution is, essentially, a press release; it is not in an encyclopedic tone and it serves primarily to promote the musical. If you think the encyclopedic version of the article has false statements, then correct them; don't just paste in your press release.

Furthermore, the information you have in your article, true or not, does not come with a secondary source citation. Wikipedia's guiding principle is verifiability - not truth. Example: There's a cup of English Breakfast tea on my desk right now. This is a true fact. However, (to my knowledge), no news outlet or other reliable print source has covered this fact. So it isn't verifiable. Even if something is true, you have to be able to verify it.

About copyright: you agreed to license your text under the GFDL when you submitted it. At the bottom of the edit page: "By submitting content, you agree to release your contributions under the GNU Free Documentation License. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." And right above the edit summary: "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." Crystallina 01:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A word from the producer of the musical

This version includes complete information, Cast Album Label AND publisher name. It includes the relatively small number of productions that have taken place---very important for an encyclopedia entry. To only list "New York" would be misleading--as it is not the only place in which theatre happens. Complete synopsis, including introductory paragraph, as provided by author is included. Complete awards and nominations list---again, there is a big world, and New York is not the only important place. To only list NYC awards and noms, would be misleading and incomplete for an encylopedia.