Talk:Stephen Moorer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Notability?

Notabilty? Really? OK....I'll live with it, but the generic use of terms like "Historic" and "Award winnning" need further details. I do not see this living person a being as notable as other Califirnia residents, but perhaps the article hasn't gotten to that point yet.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Article reads like Playbill credit

Not encyclopedic enough. Appears to have a notable life to others but needs more detail and less weasel words.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Biography not autobiography

Mr. Moorer, please refrain from editing your own page. To do so violates wikipedias policy against autobiography. If article meets notability it may remain, but must be contributed by unbiased members and not by the subject of the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This article was created by the person who is the subject and may be eligible for deletion.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't carry out a dispute with an editor, who may or may not be this article's subject, across other article talk pages. Multiple posts on this page over a period of several hours while you're in a dispute with the editor doesn't automatically make a case against notability. There is no policy forbidding autobiographies, although there is a guideline discouraging it. There are references present in the article from reliable sources supporting claims in the article. You've nominated the article, now let it run its course. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

First, I am not carrying out a dispute with this person. I have discovered through his violation of the 3R rule that he is the uploader of a disputed image on another page that clearly states by the user that he is indeed Stephen Moorer.

I am a little disturbed by your quick assumption that this is a dispute being carried out over talk pages. You will excuse me for my being lead to this and several other promotional articles created by this editor as advertising for his projects, theatres and his personal career from the over use and link (three seperate times in one section of the Carmel-by-the-Sea article) of his own name. You are correct that Wikipedia does not have a Policy, but a guideline about this, several actualy ( Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:No original research ), so I will apologise for the mistake. However references alone do not denote notability. Several of those references are disputable and how they are used debatable.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

To let the deletion run it's course I am commenting on this talk page that I have nominated for AFD. It is my right to discuss the subject to show how the information came about and the situation that lead to it. I suppose this is litle more than assuming bad faith on you part. I did not assume bad faith with the Mr. Moorer and attempted to work with him on the articles until he began attempting to edit war over his images and information about his theatres and his festivals, a clear conflict of interest that the user was dishonest about when I asked him directly. I had guessed it was him but did not discover the fact until I realisd that the image he was defending in his reverts was also a brochure image used on several other promotional sites and simply looked at the upload page for the image. You can get my name the same exact way sir. It was not difficult.

No, I should be commenting here on this subject and you should not be discouraging me from doing so, as this is not an attack, but simply pointing out the conflict of interest, boosterism, advertising and....well, self serving edits and references. (that's by the book, by the way. I'm not making that up)

You have the right to your opinion, but if your an admin......I would have done a little checking first before accussing me of having the problem.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact, please assume a little good faith yourself here. I did doing a little checking when you posted your note to WT:BIOG, more than a little. I saw that you are in a dispute with an editor, violated the spirit of WP:3RR if not the letter of the policy, reported him for WP:3RR which resulted in his temporary block, then came here, nominated the article for deletion and posted your issues from the Carmel-by-the-Sea article here, on WT:BIOG, on WP:AfD and I haven't looked to see where else. That's carrying an issue across talk pages, it's also called WP:Forum shopping. And no, if you have issues with the editor, it does not go on these pages. It goes on WP:AN/I, or WP:COIN, or WP:RS, or a WP:RfCU, or a WP:RfC, or requesting dispute resolution or some place other than talk pages that you have been on Wikipedia long enough to know are for discussions about the article, not the contributor. Make your case in one place, be prepared to support that with specific diffs and examples and do so without being aggressive tone and accusations without foundation. Content and sourcing are the issues for this page. And for the record, when you asked him directly if he was the subject of this article, he was not dishonest. He didn't answer the question, but that doesn't equate to answering dishonestly. Please do not accuse me of not assuming good faith, I spent the better part of 90 minutes looking at sources, talk pages and posts. None of it detracts from the fact that it isn't appropriate to carry it out any and all places. There are pages for specifically that, not on an article talk page. Please

try to confine issues to the pages where they exist, not across the encyclopedia. I'm not interested in on-going discussion of this. The article has been nominated, the rest does not belong here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You are way off base. I did not violate the the spirit of the 3 R Rule. That was absolutely false. I was in the middle of edits when the user made 3 seperate changes only one of which I reverted. You have a lot of nerve stating that you did any checking if you don't know that the user himself issued me a warning about the three R rule then proceded to viloate the rule. Don't sit here and critisize me or accuse me of wrong doing just because this ditor has similar issues on numerouse articles that he has linked together.

Violating the spirit? This editor is violating the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia. You defend his breaking of several major guidelines then tell me where I should be discussing this? Are you kidding me? You are the one that began the discussion with your post accusing me of a dispute across talk pages. That is incorrect. This is the page that was nominated, not the Carmel by the Sea article. The issue on that page was a dispute the other editor had with my changing a low resolution image. I did not intrap the man into violating the # R Rule so I could report him. If that was true I would have reported him for other # R Rule violations. No, I made my first report to 3RR because he threatened to report me if I did it....then did it himself.

You did not and still are not assuming good faith with me sir. You exagerate when you say "carrying it out, any and all places".

I have used the talk page of the appropriate project to bring up an issue and ask a question. You seem to want this to be my fauslt. It isn't.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Fellas, please stop arguing. I'm looking into improving this article. I have little doubt that this person is notable, given the relatively low threshold for notability. He has appeared in and directed numerous professional stage productions, and he has founded and/or produced several professional theatre companies and festivals. So, let's just brush up the article and forget about fighting. What good will it do you? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not interested in entering into an ongoing dispute with this editor. I responded to the question regarding this article posted at WT:BIOG and stepped into the mire, from which I'm washing my feet and don't intend to get embroiled in it. I was attempting to encourage the other editor to keep relevant discussion about things in the places they belong. I posted my response about this article at the AfD and that's all I want to do with it. Thanks for stepping in. And for the record, I am not a Sir. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Had you simply stated what Ssilver just did there wouldn't be any mire to clean off. I am not wrong for bringing this to the attention of editors. You made specific accusations against me that were false. Specificaly that I was going any and all places to bring this up, that I was violating the spirit of the 3R Rule when it was blatantly the other user who did that as well as the true letter of the policy. (That is a Bright-line rule by the way, sir). That was assuming bad faith. You then tell me the Editor may or may not be the subject after extensively looking into this for 90 minutes? It was not only right there in the first 3RR situation, but is possibly the must blatant use by an editor to edit his own subjects that I have ever seen or read about on wikipedia. Just reading the history of the article before I began editing these last few days shows what was happening when I got there. There was already a dispute over redundancies that all basicaly lead right to this article. I am not saying we should burn him at the stake, just that the subject fails notabilty (in my opinion), was created by the subject and is a candidate for deletion based on wiki guidelines and policy in regards to conflict of interest, POV and OR.

In short, sir, you attempted to make paint me the villain, the disrupter and the one with the dispute, when I am following wiki guidelines and policy by attempting to handle the situation on our own. The discovery for sure was made after the user recieved a block. The AFD is not an attempt take advantage of his absense since he will return with time to add input.

Your response was simply to point the finger back at me--Amadscientist (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons

Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially:

• Neutral point of view (NPOV)
• Verifiability
• No original research

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines.

Madscientist, the BLP rules are for the benefit and privacy/protection of the Subject, and to protect WP from legal claims. They are not for the benefit of editors who wish to interrupt the development of articles of Wikipedia. You can't have it both ways: since you acknowledge that User:Smatprt is Stephen Moorer, the BLP rules are for HIS protection, and he has agreed that all the information in the article is accurate. -- 13:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate autobio tag

Madscientist: It appears that you have a personal dispute with User:Smatprt, and you are attacking his article to gain leverage in your dispute. Based on the nearly unanimous comments by editors at the AfD that you brought concerning this article, there is a strong consensus that this article is not adversely affected by Smatprt's WP:COI (which he acknowledges), because the assertions made in the article are not puffery or commercial in nature. Please read WP:COI, as it explains that, although people may write about themselves, they must defer to other editors in case of disagreement. Moorer has done this. As I said above, I am working on adding references, but this article is already better referenced than 90% of Wikipedia articles. And I have now added a refimprove tag in the relevant sections, which is enough. So please desist. If you have editorial suggestions, by all means make them, but your continued arguments concerning the fact that the subject contributed to the article are coming off as mean-spirited. Wikipedia does not prohibit people from adding factual information to their own articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Phohibit no, discourage yes. Just because editors wish to call me mean spirited and accept puffery and unreliable sources against policy and guidelines does not put them in the position of right or noble.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

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 Us Old

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Stephen Moorer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090708082600/http://www.cfmco.org:80/otherGrants.php to http://www.cfmco.org/otherGrants.php#4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

COI tag (October 2024)

Based on off-wiki evidence, there's compelling evidence that a major authorship holder of this page has a strong COI with this subject. Graywalls (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Graywalls, also based on the conversations found in Archive 1 of the article, this may well be an autobiography. Netherzone (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Where do you see the definitive statement? While I have my own personal conclusion, based on what I can see there, I'm hesitant to confirm or deny the allegation :\ Graywalls (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Also see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Moorer. Netherzone (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Graywalls, Read through this version of Archive 1. [3] It seems that some things were removed from the archive at some point. You are correct that the strongest evidence is not on Wikipedia. Netherzone (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Netherzone, yep read it. Although, according to Wiki policy, I feel like we still can't connect a user name to a name without a direct statement by a user name identifying themselves. Graywalls (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Birth date

@Smatprt:, articles on BLPs are held to rather high sourcing standards. That said, in this edit, you added the article subject's full date of birth without any citation. May I ask where this information came from and to provide a proper citation for it? I am removing it for now. Graywalls (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Here you go, although not sure if it qualifies. https://www.carmelresidents.org/cra-hosts---history-of-carmels-live-theatre

Also on the fb page, which is public.

https://www.facebook.com/StephenMoorer?mibextid=LQQJ4d Smatprt (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Smatprt, as a COI editor, in particular because you are a COI-PAID editor, please use the edit request system, the process of which is clearly stated in WP:COI and here: guidelines for using edit requests. Here is a link to the special "Wizard" tool that COI-PAID editors use: Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard/Paid that makes it really easy. Won't you please consider abiding by the guidelines on this article as well as others? Netherzone (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Good morning! I was just replying to Graywalls. He asked a specific question, I assume expecting a reply, so I provided one. I'm not requesting a specific edit, especially on something so benign, but Graywalls said he was "removing it for now", so I thought he was waiting for my response. Smatprt (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Netherzone might be splitting hair here, but I wonder if that Facebook is usable. WP:DOB says verified accounts can be used, but the one in question is not, although I don't really doubt the authenticity given that the subject in questionable isn't that notable. Graywalls (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF, which applies to a person's own social media accounts, including Facebook, says that they "may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as:

• The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
• It does not involve claims about third parties;
• It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
• There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
• The article is not based primarily on such sources.

So Moorer's own birthdate from his Facebook account can be used in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ssilvers I'm still on the fence even though I introduced it. Moorer claims themselves to be a "public figure" in their Facebook profile, and WP:DOB says verified social media account may be used. Verified Facebook means https://www.facebook.com/help/1288173394636262 I'll see what Netherzone has to say.. and depending on the response, I may remove it again. Graywalls (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

OK, whatever you decide on the birth date. --Ssilvers (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Board kerfuffle

The re-opening of the theatre is essential context, if we're going to mention the construction dispute. I have removed the part that praises Moorer, though I disagree with your rationale. Alternatively, I would be happy to remove the whole paragraph, because, after reading the articles, it appears that the board kerfuffle was a tempest in a teapot, the board never even voted on the motion, the disgruntled directors left, were replaced by other people, and ultimately the board simply proceeded with plan A and completed the construction on the theater. In addition, the reporting on the alleged threats is disputed and, I believe, is prohibited by WP:BLP. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ssilvers:, I'm responding since I'm the one who removed the fluff about newspaper journalist's commentary that praised Moorer. For the board matter, we should ask @Axad12: as they brought it in. I am not sure if board matter violates BLP so I suggest discussing it with Axad and/or asking at BLP/N. Graywalls (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

If you're happy with the paragraph as is, I can live with it, as I think the three sources, taken together, provide the reader with some warning about the anonymous former board members' supposed accusations. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Why are we leaving in flowery things like "another critic wrote" terrific and such? I can't access the full article, so I am not sure who the critic is, but if they're just a local paper journalist rather than a professional critic, flattering comments should not be amplified more so than unflattering ones. Graywalls (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

You missed the edit I made that removed that. It doesn't say that anymore. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, you're talking about a different paragraph (please should start a new heading if you wish to discuss other text). An article about a producer of theatre should state what critics have said about his work. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The Monterey County Herald wrote, "Moorer has staged a terrific version of this play with a fun and talented cast".[20] Of his Shakespeare "Royal Blood" series, but who wrote it? Was the writer specifically trained expert? A review by a regular assignment journalist commenting on his opinion of food likely doesn't have more weight than that of a Joe Blow's Yelp review. If he's a professional critic, that gives some weight.

Talkin' Broadway wrote, "Moorer ... has assembled a brilliant cast of actors from both San Francisco Bay and Los Angeles.... Moorer's direction is first class as he makes both productions exciting human dramas."[12] no comment if they have any more weight than a blog/website. Another critic wrote, "director Stephen Moorer handles the time-shifting sequences with a keen immediacy that's become his trademark". but what makes that critic's comment more meaningful than some Google Review commentator? Graywalls (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I do not agree that it was a tempest in a teapot. The rationale given by Sssilvers (that a vote was not taken) is laughable. If that was a legitimate measure then many high profile decisions made by governments and multinational corporations would be unable to be covered by Wikipedia.

Ssilvers had been riding shotgun for Moorer on Wikipedia for 10 years and clearly has ownership issues in relation to this article, which they currently have 45.8% authorship of.

Graywalls and I both believe that the board material is relevant.

The idea that anything which is disputed is prohibited by WP:BLP is also laughable. The article text makes it clear that there was a difference of opinion, and that is obviously sufficient to satisfy BLP. There is no reason to assume that the material as covered in the article is disputed in any meaningful way.

Really what is required here is for Sssilvers to stop pursuing a 'don't like it' agenda. Axad12 (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I have compromised on every issue. I just want to improve this biography and the other articles about arts in Carmel that became the topic of contention recently. Please be WP:CIVIL and assume good faith. Also, please talk about content, not editors. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ssilvers:, Some board members criticized Moorer of his management skills, this observation of opinion was picked up by the press with attribution which is an arm's length separated from the source, but you felt this had to be suppressed. Paper journalist's own commentary is like their general purpose writer of all topics thought the pizza at joint abc was good". If there was allegation like "some people who work for him thought he embezzled", that would violate BLP as a baseless allegation, but expression of opinion on managerial competency may not. Why did you feel criticism of his managerial ability should be selectively suppressed while things like "terrifc" "brilliant" and such should be kept? Why do you feel the board disagreement matter violates BLP? Graywalls (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, I said that I can live with the paragraph as is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully this personalisation has now come to an end, so hatting

Apologies, but I'm not going to take lessons on civility and WP:AGF from someone who throws around BS allegations of vendettas and people being bullied off talk pages. Axad12 (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC) @Axad12 and with that, let's try to keep discussion to contents. Graywalls (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC) @Axad12, I’m going to echo the calls for AGF, and to depersonalise matters please. Comment on the content, not the editor please. - SchroCat (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC) Given that I have myself previously asked at COIN for de-escalation in these ongoing discussions I'm happy to take your advice. In any event, the very specific issue under discussion in this thread seems to have been agreed by all parties now. I'd reiterate that I don't feel it's a very good idea for a user to claim that BLP policy requires that properly sourced material related to a dispute should be treated in an identical way to disputed material. The two situations are entirely different. Nor do I think it is helpful for a good faith user to make accusations of others being involved in a 'vendetta'. Wikipedia content disputes rarely resemble Shakespearean tragedies. Axad12 (talk) 06:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC) Again, please comment on the content, not the editor. - SchroCat (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC) Axad12, I withdraw that word -- it was never directed against you -- I intemperately used it to refer to the people who had made wholesale deletions and then nominated a half dozen of those articles for AfD without giving the AfD reviewers the fair opportunity judge the content deleted (when I restored some of the sources and key information that had been deleted, all of those articles were kept), and who had merged, or tried to merge, articles out of existence without preserving the key information in the article to which each was merged. I apologize for getting agitated about it and should have described more clearly what was concerning me. 4meter4 did state that he was bullied off the Pacific Repertory Theatre page and had received what he considered threatening communications about it (I think he gave a fuller explanation somewhere, but he refers to it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:4meter4#Please_do_not_allow_others_to_deter_you ). Can we move on, please? -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC) SchroCat, I don't see how generalised statements on whether or not particular types of talk page comments are helpful or a very good idea is a comment on the motives of a specific user. My comments in my earlier post were clearly intended as being non-personalised. Ssilvers, As background here, editors who are involved in preventing COI/PROMO editing (which is not what I'm saying is occurring here) are routinely accused of pursuing a vendetta by the blatant COI editors whose work they are often trying to undo. For example, in other locations I've been accused of pursuing various vendettas just in recent weeks, simply for removing unsourced or self-sourced material of an outright promo nature. Similarly such good faith editors are routinely accused of acting on disreputable motives such as racism, misogyny, etc. All of those allegations are simple personal attacks on volunteers trying to implement non-controversial policy. The repeated use of the word 'vendetta' at COIN, the PRT article, etc. by multiple users was therefore extremely unhelpful and polarising and I'm very grateful indeed to see you withdraw it (even if others have not). I apologise for raising that issue on more than one occasion but the use of the term does begin to wear - and ultimately it saddens me to see it used by good faith users. I was also not the only user to ask for retractions in the use of that kind of language. With regard to the other issue you raise, I take your point but I'm not convinced that 'below the line' comments added by readers are admissible under WP:RS, regardless of whether the readers are informed (no doubt) and non-partisan (who knows?) in relation to the matter under discussion. However, others may take a different view - and if I end up in the minority then so be it. Thanks again, Axad12 (talk) 08:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC) They were still about editors, not about the content. Focusing on any content issues ensures that not only can things not turn personal, but neither can they be perceived as being personal. Hopefully, given the last comments from both Ssilvers and you, we can avoid such personalisation or perceived personalisation in the future - it doesn't solve any issues, but does exacerbate situations. - SchroCat (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC) As I've now stated on more than one occasion, those were very generalised comments solely about content and not in the least about editors. That was my intention and I'm not going to be drawn into a discussion over whether they can be read in a different way if one reads them with a very prejudiced eye in an attempt to find fault. The only person here exacerbating a situation is you. Everyone else has moved on. I suggest you do the same. Axad12 (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC) Given this is the second page on which I have asked you to rein in your personalisation of comments, I am not sure I am the one exacerbating the situation. It's the person who put the match to the petrol who is at fault, not the one who asks them not to do it again. I am happy to move on, but if you keep moving away from discussing the content of the various connected articles, I will happily move this to a more formal setting where your comments can be examined more fully. - SchroCat (talk) 10:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

With respect to this paragraph about the Board dispute, would you both kindly read the first comment under the source?: https://www.montereycountynow.com/entertainment/art/a-rift-over-management-at-carmel-theater-nonprofit-pacrep-leads-to-an-exodus-of-board/article_75c8586c-557c-11ed-a62f-c7e6483feae5.html Of course we cannot cite or refer to the comment, but it provides a lot of context missing from the source and alleges that the report makes serious errors. First the comment states that of the 14 board members who resigned, only 6 did so because of any dispute with Moorer, and all of those were after the contentious August meeting. Second, it points out that the motion to fire Moorer at that meeting could be brought by any one director, and that the vote was never taken because the unhappy board members did not have the votes to dismiss Moorer. Third, it notes that the cost overruns and delays were partly due to the COVID pandemic. It further states that the reporter was cherry-picking her facts. But as I said before, if none of this persuades anyone that the incident was comparatively trivial (see WP:TENYEARTEST), I can live with keeping the paragraph as is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

[The words that follow are taken from the hatted discussion, but are I think relevant to the post directly above which was removed from the hatting:] I take your point but I'm not convinced that 'below the line' comments added by readers are admissible under WP:RS, regardless of whether the readers are informed (no doubt) and non-partisan (who knows?) in relation to the matter under discussion. However, others may take a different view - and if I end up in the minority then so be it. Axad12 (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ssilvers:, if it's contents you don't like, it's removed and you try to keep it suppressed as "Please use the talk page." and while if it's something you like, it's "WP:PRESERVE." You also suggested earlier about potential BLP violation, but you haven't given satisfactory explanation for that reasoning. Graywalls (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Graywalls, I don't think that's fair. For example, I never tried to delete the paragraph about the Board resignations, even though I think it is pretty clear that it is misleading. I immediately took my objection here to the Talk page, and in every case, I have tried to compromise with you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

To rescue a further comment from the rather indiscriminate hatting above (albeit slightly reworded to avoid any accusation of personalisation)...

BLP policy does not require that properly sourced material related to a dispute should be treated in an identical way to disputed material. The two situations are entirely different. Axad12 (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with that. I just think that the report about the dispute is misleading, and that, if one considers the facts, like that the theatre did complete the renovation and reopen, the dispute was trivial. Anyone who has ever sat on an arts-related board knows that board members very often worry that the organization's leaders are not steering the organization in the right path, and it upsets them, and they resign. Disputes on arts boards are like Wikipedia talk page disputes. I have sat on many, and I have never known one where some people didn't resign after disagreeing with others. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm slightly concerned here that the application of the term trivial is being used in an inconsistent way in different discussions. E.g. you oppose the removal of certain material (claimed by others to be trivial) from the PRT article, but here you support removal because you claim the matter described is trivial.

Personally I believe that the matter discussed is not trivial and that it sheds light on an aspect and period of Moorer's activity which is otherwise poorly covered in the present article.

I'm somewhat concerned by continued efforts to present arguments for the removal of this properly sourced and relevant material from the article, none of which arguments seem to me to have any real substance and which generally amount to special pleading.

The article contains (elsewhere) an amount of material that I would consider exceptionally trivial detail, and the fact that this section has attracted your attention as the only part considered trivial seems exceptionally arbitrary and rather one-sided.

You've stated now at least twice that you're okay with the passage as it currently stands and I suggest that we leave matters there. Axad12 (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Making assumptions like this as made in their edit summary though, is a BLP violation. Coming to such conclusion when a source isn't available is fabrication. We can't simply assume Moorer wasn't heldback, or graduated ahead of others. Graywalls (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you are right that my reasoning there was not acceptable under the WP:BLP guideline. However, l had already seen the PacRep webpage that gave his birthdate, and also this, and numerous other web sources that stated the birthdate, but you had rejected such sources as "primary" or not reliable, so I thought that reasoning might be acceptable to you. I was wrong. In any case, now the information is in the article so let's just talk about improvements in the article. Please start a new heading for any new text discussions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

On that note, the subject's date of birth is given here [4] on the PRT website. Surely that is a better source than the one used at present (the subject's own Facebook page)? Axad12 (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

That works too. I was just commenting on Ssilvers's introduction of contents based on original research without having offered proper sourcing at the time. Graywalls (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

That web page is fine with me. Or, would you prefer this? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The PRT's site would be preferable. There are two things that come into play. First, where it is published has to be reliable. I think their own site or their own company is fine. It also shows they voluntarily disclosed it publicly. I oppose using Californiabirthindex.org here, or in other articles for the same reason as not using complete garbage like FamilySearch. FamilySearch is unusable in itself, because it's a user that digs through resource like Californiabirthindex and connect it to a specific person whose process could be full of error. The second thing is that if the living subject don't publicly reveal birthday, we usually omit it. Graywalls (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)