Talk:Stephen Moorer

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.

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. As I said above, I am working on adding references, but this article is already better referenced than 90% of Wikipedia articles. And one tag at the top 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)