Talk:Collective:Unconscious

Article improvement

please offer suggestions or define what makes this page read like an advert.67.101.248.245 02:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

look, there are two theaters that were involved in the history of Collective:Unconscious. Please leave it.

Justindavila (talk) 04:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, quite clearly; however, this does not mean that the article needs another infobox. The article is about the group, not the theater. Each article should only have one infobox. Justin, I'm not nearly as concerned with the COI thing as I am with your blatant disregard of our editorial policies and careless reversions of edits. Wikipedia is not for tongue-in-cheek comments, nor is it for excessive lists and crowded pictures. GlassCobra 04:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

then you suggest a separate article for the theater?Justindavila (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

also, the artists I listed all have wikipedia articles on them. part of the reason they are artists is because the used this theater. are you sure you're qualified to make these editorial decisions? Justindavila (talk) 04:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely do not suggest a separate article for the theater; it does not have enough notability to warrant a separate page. What I suggest is that you cease adding the second infobox, as you have been told by myself and several other editors.

I do not object to adding wikilinks to related articles, I object to the way you were doing it, in massive lists. Notice that I did keep intact the group of notable people that have worked with C:U, I just merely incorporated it into a subsection. GlassCobra 04:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

you're the only one (in fact, I think you're the only one who seems to care about this), but my point is that there is an organization that exists in conjunction with a theater space, of which there were more than one. the nonprofit organization deserves an infobox as well as the theaters. recommendations? Regarding notabilty, I hope you took note of the second paragraph: "Collective:Unconscious as an organization has provided notable and demonstrable effects on New York City downtown culture, society, and entertainment...." Justindavila (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

also, i cannot find in the Manual of Style where it indicates there cannot be more than one infobox per article. can you point me to that, please? thanks. Justindavila (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Your assertion of notability in the article needs to be backed by reliable third-party sources. It's not enough that you write "notable and demonstrable effects". The only time we have multiple infoboxes for one article is for song articles where multiple artists released notable versions of the song. This article is not on the theater, therefore it is not appropriate to include an infobox for it. If it is notable, then it should have its own article, otherwise, it is undue weight to go so far as to include an infobox for it in this article. The conflict of interest in this case is clear. WP:COI reads "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." This becomes a problem here because the article is not being edited within our guidelines. The history section currently reads as original research, as it is wholly unreferenced. The same for all but the last sentence of the Lower East Side theater section. If this information is notable, there should be reliable third-party sources discussing it. It's also necessary to know if the logo or any of these images are published elsewhere and, if so, we must ensure they are licensed the same there as they are here. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 05:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, I cannot find in the Manual of Style where it indicates there cannot be more than one infobox per article. Can you point me to that, please?

Also, can you indicate the specific conflict of interest? Certainly I am cannot be promoting my interests in a defunct theatre; that doesn't make any sense. Certainly New York University, and over a decade of press coverage (some of which is listed as references) indicated this theater had significant enough value to the culture of New York to warrant one of several million articles in Wikipedia. Not to mention New York University's Fales Library interest in materials to be preserved for posterity as part of their Downtown Collection. All images, including logos, have ownership information clearly listed. This article is absolutely not "wholly unreferenced."

Of course, I would appreciate your constructive suggestions in light of this information. Thank you.

Justindavila (talk) 05:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I just explained the conflict of interest. I'm not sure if it's in the MOS or not, but the applicable page is also linked above: WP:UNDUE, specifically paragraph three thereof. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 12:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

undue weight appears to apply to "minority opinions" (such as Flat Earth theory in the Earth article), without any reference to infoboxes. Further, the guideline states "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." In this case the physical theater and the resident managing non-profit company of administrator-director-artists are essentially linked, therefore justifying a second infobox.

Finally, I just explained how there is no conflict of interest. What now?

I would appreciate your constructive suggestions in light of this information. Thank you. --Justindavila (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

— WP:UNDUE, paragraph three

Please take the time to read thoroughly the messages and links that are being provided to you. The fact that you are unable to edit this article within the guidelines of the site is evidence that there is a conflict of interest. You are ignoring our norms in order to promote the interests of this group. We are trying to help work through this, but in order to be successful in this, we need for you to listen to our advice and trust that we know how to build articles here. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 19:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Completely ready and willing to take messages and links to make a better article, thx. Have continuously revised article based on good advice from wikipedia admins. Reviewed all comments and norms, and not ignoring any. Grateful for your suggestions. --Justindavila (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have made every effort to accommodate reasonable recommendations by admins and other editors, even relentless editing by "GlassCobra." I regret that "GlassCobra" fails to "see any kind of significance in the logo," despite the link to the wikipedia I Ching article which explains the logo, but I understand that he or she may be uninformed and/or may be trying to prove some other point or gain wiki "cred." This effort to ban me is completely unwarranted. As per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." I have made every effort to collaborate with other editors to come to agreement on changes, and explain my viewpoints in a friendly, positive, and objective, manner. The article may ultimately include conflicting viewpoints. I will again ask GlassCobra to please not abuse the power of an admin. Thank you.--Justindavila (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the content, not the contributors.

It's a matter of policy. We don't use our own articles as sources. If the logo is significant, then reliable sources should have information on it. Otherwise, it's all original reasearch. This has been pointed out. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 14:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thx for the clarification. --Justindavila (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Enough is enough

Due to the repeated edit warring, insertion of unsourced and irrelevant material and attempts to WP:OWN the article, I have protected The Wrong Version of this article. User:Justindavila has had multiple final warnings from multiple administrators regarding this article; while they are welcome to edit the article, if users with a COI continue to edit-war or make inappropriate additions to this article once the protection expires, they will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. – iridescent 14:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Happy to comply. Even happy to discuss how I'm not subject to claims of COI -- as long as such discussion would not be considered an inappropriate addition that would subject me to an immediate and unchecked use of admin-only blocking powers, especially in light of your specific (and what could be quite reasonably construed as an intentionally intimidating) remark reminding us non-admins ("users") of your power to block us non-admins ("users") from editing across all of Wikipedia. (Also: please don't do this? Even though you can? Even though you might want to? Because it's not fair? Thanks.) --Justindavila (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, you stoopid and self-important, and everyone can see that, regarding this particular subject, you crazy-person.