User:Timmy12/WP:V etc

Thank you for responding.

First I would like to state that I am not vandalizing, but am making good faith edits for the benefit of Wikipedia. You may say that I am vandalizing if you wish, but I believe it will not help your cause any. The same applies for your accusation of stalking.

Regarding your statement "If I am to claim these artists spoke or offered programming at these events, I must cite evidence or documentation of this to verify it,..." That is not quite correct. You may add material to Wikipedia which you believe to be true, and which you in good faith believe will advance the Wikipedia's goals of creating an online encyclopedia. If proper references are not provided, someone else may remove your material, if such a removal is made in good faith. However, that is not quite the same as "you must cite evidence".

Regarding the type of sources that may be used for references, I think WP:V is very clear.

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy..."

"...Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."

"...Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications."

www.rosencomet.com is not a third party publisher.

In the case of Biographies of Living Persons the requirements for sources are more stringent.

"Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives."

The recent request that was made to you by the subject of one of your articles underscores the need to use third party references. Had you used a newspaper or magazine article, the Wikiarticle on the individual in question would have been reporting that which had already been reported in the recognized media.

I will not go into issues of Notability, Vanity, Conflict of interest and Autobiography, which I think also apply, but will skip directly to the issue of spamming.

The fact is, that on the plea of needing to provide references to facts (which apparently are not notable enough to merit mention in newspapers, magazines, etc.) you are adding a links to your promotional website in numerous articles. Keep a link to your website in the A.C.E. page, and in the Starwood and Winterstar pages, but don't add your links everywhere.

You are of course free to ignore my advice. However, please be aware that the idea of blacklisting your site has already been raised by some. Blacklisting of your site would prevent any edits which include your website to be saved. This is a somewhat drastic solution, but is final resort to stop link spam when all else seems to fail. I personally do not favor blacklisting your site. I think it is appropriate in a few places. However, if you continue on your present course, please be aware of the possible consequences. I look forward to discussing this issue with you in further detail if you desire. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 14:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I totally disagree with your evaluation of these citations. If a speaker offers a seminar at a university, that is a legitimate credit. The catalog of that year's session or semester, even an online version of it, is a legitimate citation as to the fact that this person did, indeed, appear at that university. (I could refer to the printed program of the event, a copy of which I may have on my shelf, but what good would that do the reader? It's the same information as the web page, but they can't go to the library and find copies of decades of Starwood and WinterStar program booklets.) There need not be a newspaper article covering the fact for it to be notable, nor is it likely, and any media coverage would be a LESS reliable source than the published curriculum of the institution itself. For information to be notable it need not be "newsworthy". Wikipedia is not a newsgroup or a celebrity promotion. Professional lectures often have only the venues that they have appeared at to indicate their notability in their field, besides any books, recorded material or important articles they may have produced, and I have spent a great deal of time cataloging such material as well, both on articles I have created and as contributions to others' work.

Rosencomet.com IS a third-party source, in that it is neither run by me nor by the subject of the article. It is not a personal website, but the public record of the activities of an organization, and the content thereof. Most of what you have said would be valid if I had self-published a book claiming I did something, then used that as evidence that it was true. But these are the published records of the very events that the citations refer to, produced not by me but by the organization which created and runs the events in question, and has for over twenty-five years. The citation is used merely to establish the fact of the appearance at the time claimed. If the information is challenged because no citation has been provided, do YOU intend to defend the article? This has happened to me several times, and I am merely trying to address that.

And I'm sorry for the confusion, but rosencomet.com is NOT "my" website, promotional or otherwise. It is the public vehicle of the Association for Consciousness Exploration LLC, and I neither run it nor do I have the web skills to do so. I have permission to cut & paste material from it, and I have used plenty from other sources as well. Perhaps I should not have chosen the name I did, but I never forsaw this controversy. Both the original webmaster of that website and I got the name from the same inside joke among the volunteers who contribute their efforts towards the Starwood Festival. Rosencomet 15:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You wrote:

"rosencomet.com is NOT "my" website, promotional or otherwise. It is the public vehicle of the Association for Consciousness Exploration LLC...and I neither run it..."

"I have permission to cut & paste material from it,"

As executive director of ACE, I assume you have some oversight control over the ACE website, even if you lack the technical skills for day to day maintenance. --BostonMA ^talk 15:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well, you would think so, but it's not true. ACE is a totally volunteer organization, and it's different departments are run by the individuals involved. If you had been at the last meeting, you would know just HOW little control the Executive Director has over the website, but that's a WHOLE other story. The exec gets to sign things, pretty much, like rental agreements for a hall or something. I don't even run meetings; everyone takes turns, alphabetically. I could step in if someone defied the rules of the group and sabotaged or absconded with the website, but even then I'd have to bring any action I wished to take to a vote at a meeting, then ask someone with the skills needed to do something about it if I won the vote. Trust me: I do not run the website in any way, shape or form. Writing my own copy for my own articles and seeing them posted without having to ask someone else to accept my contribution and not re-write it has been a VERY refreshing change! Rosencomet 16:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)