While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because...
The page is being created by the author of the page with similar text at the Robbinsdale Historical Society's website. That work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The Creative Commons logo is proudly displayed at the bottom of ever page. The wording was removed after a recent update to the site, but it has since been restored. The Robbinsdale Historical Society is a non-profit 501c3 engaged in an effort to save and preserve this old theater. I am the author of this article and pages with similar wording at Save the Terrace website [1] and the Robbinsdale Historical Society robbinsdalehistoricalsociaty.org. I am also a board member of both organizations. These are my own words.
The author of the article is also the author of the page in question. Material on the Robbinsdale Historical Society Website, robbinsdalehistoricalsociety.org and the Save the Terrace Website, savetheterrace.org have been created by the author. Work on the Robbinsdale Historical Society's website is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nokohaha (talk • contribs) 17:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because the Robbinsdale Historical Society strongly discourages the deletion of this place. Our organization maintains a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License on our web content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew B. Robbins (talk • contribs) 18:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Contested Neutrality
This article has multiple issues, particularly in the (literal) Condition and Integrity sections. None of the claims of the theater's structural integrity have been cited. Approximately 24 hours ago there was blatant bias in favor or preserving the theater. Attempts to post survey results conducted by the official City of Robbinsdale, scientific or not, but still properly cited, have been edited into further negative bias toward redevelopment (and then reverted/edited again). This page currently deserves the contested neutrality tag because there is an obvious attempt to either spin or hide information that is readily available online. Wikipedia's purpose is to properly aggregate stated and proven facts, while working toward answers to unsolved questions. This article does not currently meet those standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BirdtownBovine (talk • contribs) 02:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What a difference approximately 24 hours makes! Maybe it's the pending full moon. Who knows! This article has been cleaned up and clarified magnificently, and I'm proud to remove the tag I put on this article. In my opinion, it could probably use a few more tweaks in sentence and paragraph structure, but those things take time and thought. No matter what happens in the future, let's make this article shine! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BirdtownBovine (talk • contribs) 02:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright Issue
The complaint appears to be valid (see the Copyvios report that was provided) and should be addressed, but I'm not sure if a re-write of that sentence is necessary or if it should just be removed to eliminate any further challenges. Proper protocol should be followed and an admin should become involved once we think the issue has been resolved.
I'm personally for keeping the information of the theater having 1,300 seats but rewording and properly citing it. I don't want to take fixing the issue entirely on myself because copyright law can be very sensitive. Creative Commons licensing and the timing of it being attributed to a piece of media adds another factor. If nothing is done in the next few days, and there are no responses to this talk page entry, I will do my best to remedy the situation on my own. Thanks. (BirdtownBovine (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]
The user Cassianto seems to be opposed to the inclusion of a photograph or photographs documenting the current status of the building. I feel it's important to show what has happened. I attempted to repost the photo that had been removed but was unsuccessful. I then uploaded and inserted two new photographs. Cassianto promptly removed them. I will revert. I do not seek a battle; I do desire historical accuracy. If my captions appear contentious (as Cassianto appears to suggest?) I trust another editor will improve them. Thank you.
KIRTIS (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The user Cassianto seems to be opposed to the inclusion of a photograph or photographs documenting the current status of the building. I feel it's important to show what has happened. I attempted to repost the photo that had been removed but was unsuccessful. I then uploaded and inserted two new photographs. Cassianto promptly removed them. I will revert. I do not seek a battle; I do desire historical accuracy. If my captions appear contentious (as Cassianto appears to suggest?) I trust another editor will improve them. Thank you.
KIRTIS (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Photographs of the demolition
The user Cassianto seems to be opposed to the inclusion of a photograph or photographs documenting the current status of the building. I feel it's important to show what has happened. I attempted to repost the photo that had been removed but was unsuccessful. I then uploaded and inserted two new photographs. Cassianto promptly removed them. I will revert. I do not seek a battle; I do desire historical accuracy. If my captions appear contentious (as Cassianto appears to suggest?) I trust another editor will improve them. Thank you.
KIRTIS (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi KIRTIS. I have no real opinion as the whether photos should be added to the article. However, if you do not seek a battle, then you should not revert because doing so it the surest way to lead to further edit warring. FWIW, "historical accuracy" is not a acceptable reason for engaging in edit warring or for risking violating the three revert rule. My suggestion is that you try to engage Cassianto in discussion here on the article's talk page per Wikipedia's dispute reolution guidelines to see if some middle ground can be found or a consensus established either way. Photos are like textual content in that simply adding them because we want to add them is not always enough. In many cases, a consensus for adding them may need to be established through talk page discussion. You were bold and added the photos, but were reverted by another editor. When that happens it's generally a good idea to follow WP:BRD and engage in discussion at that point unless you can cite some fairly strong policy/guideline reason (i.e., obvious vandalism) for reverting the editor who reverted you. It wasn't only Cassianto who reverted you addition of the photos; Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi did so as well. So, two editors are disagreeing with you about including the photos; this doesn't necessarily mean they are right, but it does mean that the additon of the photos is considered contentious by other editors.
Finally, as for photos themselves, you've uploaded them to Wikimedia Commons as your "own work". That's perfectly fine if you took the photos yourself (which from the EXIF data it looks like), but if by chance you happened to get them from some website online andor did not take them yourself, then you will need to show that you have received explicit permission from the copyright holder (typically the photographer) to release the photos under a free license as explained in c:COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder. Please understand that I am not trying to suggest that you've done something wrong; I am only pointing out something about Commons that you might not be aware of since you seem fairly new to Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC); [Post edited by Marchjuly to clarify that the last paragraph was not intended to be an accusation of copyright violation, but rather is intended to be just information about relevant Commons policy. --12:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)][reply]
The pictures you are trying to add have no value to this article. One is a picture of the theatre (supposedly) being demolished - so? How does this add interest to this article? You would be better suited to add a line or two about the demolition and add a reliable source. The picture is completely unnessersary. Secondly, you have a picture of some mingling people and the backs of their heads. How the hell does this improve our understanding of the subject matter? I also note that the copyright has also been brought into question above. Please answer these points before reverting further. CassiantoTalk|
Response to Marchjuly, Cassianto, and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I have read the suggested article suggested by Marchjuly. As I've said repeatedly, I'm still learning my way around Wikipedia and I clearly have a lot to learn. I firmly believe that a photo of the demolition is relevant to the article. A photo proves that the demolition is real. In another user's Talk page (sorry, I can't remember which one at the moment) I explained that I agreed that a photo of people's backs does not add much. However, when the first photo that I took and then posted late yesterday was removed, I was unable to put that particular photo back (I did not revert). I thought I could get it back since I had uploaded it but I couldn't figure out how. I tried uploading it again and was prevented because the photo already existed. So I renamed my photo and tried another upload, and was still prevented. I felt this photo was the best one to post because it was a long view of the building from a similar angle to the 2016 photo that is currently in the article, but this one clearly shows the damage that was done. This, to me, is relevant.
Since I could not find a way to put that photo up again, I felt I had no recourse but to upload another photo. At that point, I decided to upload two of the photos I took yesterday, one showing the demolition and the crew and the other showing people on the scene. I thought both were relevant to the story.
Why does an administrator need to "resolve the situation"? There is no situation: the images you are adding do not aid the reader in their understanding of the theatre. It's as simple as that. CassiantoTalk16:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@KIRTIS: I agree that the photographs add value to the recent events documented in the article which is why I restored the original photo yesterday which has since been undone.-- Dane2007talk21:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I am guilty of acting in haste. I should not have said the page was "stripped down." I thought the "Current Status" section had been removed because it was no longer at the top. Now I see that it is still in tact, but has been moved down. I believe it belongs on top but I will defer to others on that. I will post another reply on Marchjuly's Talk page.
KIRTIS (talk) 02:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why has this page been "stripped down" ? (If you aren't using those words, may I please borrow them)
Is there any excuse for not using at least one of the photos recently added, showing a backhoe making a hole in the front of the building? These are surely relevant to the current status, even if subjective comments like "a judge was on site at the time" would need a better source before adding them. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you are being so badly treated by other editors that you're driven uncontrollably to uncivil obscenity, I thought you might appreciate some help. You're welcome. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors have suggested that the article needs further citations. I have been working this morning to update and verify information, making some additions to the "History" and "Historic Designation" sections that I feel add value to the article. I have added citations wherever possible to the best of my ability. I appreciate that others are taking a careful look at this article.
KIRTIS (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some general comments based upon what you've done. I'm not sure why two separate sections on the history of the theatre are needed; it seems better to combine them into one since "Historical designation" (the correct way to write the section heading per MOS:SECTIONCAPS btw) is part of theatre's history, isn't it? The new "History" section could then be rephrased accordingly as needed to trim out any repetition, etc. I also think it's better for the any section on the history of the theatre to be the first section after the lead since the article is supposed to be a discussion of the theatre from the day the first brick was laid to the day it is no longer standing. I think it's OK to have a specific sections on architecture, etc., but they should not come immediately after the lead. It might be helpful to look at some FAs and GAs about similar buildings for ideas.
I believe the second paragraph in the "Architecture" section needs to go or be seriously trimmed. It's fine to mention the architect/firm by name if properly sourced, but we do not need so much information about him/it as background. It's extraneous and not the focus of the article. It's almost as if it a "stub" about Liebenberg being embedded into the article. If Liebenberg or the firm are notable for their own stand-alone articles, then someone can try and write them, but excessive detail about either is not really needed here per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. The section reads much better without all that information in my opinion, and often articles can be improved simply by removing lots of excessive detail.
The proclamation by the city council is fine to mention, but it does not need be recreated within the article, especially since the source cited is basically a photo copy of the same proclamation. As for the source, it looks like a primary source which might not be OK in this particular case. Proclamations such as these tend to get mentioned in local news reports, don't they? So there's probably a secondary source out there which can be used instead. I found this and this which might be OK, but there is also probably something better as well.
Finally, not sure if "Current status" is the best name for a section about the demolition related-stuff. It seems like a heading that is always going to be a little problematic per WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS since it is going to be seen as the place to put "new news" about the theatre. Maybe a section heading more specific about the demolition debate/controversy but neutrally worded is possible and would be better? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, these comments are very helpful. I will work on it more tomorrow per your suggestions.
The photo KIRTIS took adds greatly to the article. We can and should have a section describing the partial demolition, but a picture tells a thousand words. Jonathunder (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Marchjuly and Dane 2007. In fact, it wasn't until this happened that it clicked for me, and I decided to submit my photos of the damaged Historic Terrace Theatre to the contest!
KIRTIS (talk) 13:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bias problem
Multiple articles on this theater show the community in Robbinsdale is not in favor of preservation—or at least a significant number wanted a Hy-Vee. Now this article has been sanitized in favor of the small Preservationist group. See the bottom of the history section article as it appeared here. Admins should be called in here. --2603:3016:2402:A400:9CF6:BD83:C451:8AC5 (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a sentence to the article about nearby grocery stores because I think it is important to the story of the site. In my note about the changes I said I added a Google map showing nearby grocery stores. I should have said I added a link to a Google map. I'm not sure if this is acceptable in Wiki. If not, please suggest an alternative. Thank you.
KIRTIS (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatives are pretty irrelevant I'm afraid, in the context of what you have added being mostly trivia. The section is far too big, and, as Marchjuly has pointed out with his tag, completely over-detailed. That whole section can be reduced to a paragraph- and, indeed, soon will be. Cheers! MuffledPocketed15:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@KIRTIS: I agree with Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi that information about these other grocery stores is not really needed. I also think the section might be getting too detailed which when it comes to Wikipedia is not really a good thing. I understand that might seem counterintuitive, but Wikipedia articles are not really intended to include every bit of factual information about a particular subject, even if it is supported a reliable source, as explained in WP:NOTEVERYTHING. These details may seem important to you and others living in the area, but are they really relevant to readers living in other parts of the world. Too much detail also tends to be added when events are unfolding in real time because there can be a tendancy to try and keep the information as up to date as possible. Wikipedia articles, however, are not intended to news accounts of what's going on, but rather encyclopedic accounts of what reliable sources have said about something after it has already happened. Care needs to be taken to avoid the problem of recentivism because it can create an imbalance in the article where the main focus is on "the now" at the expense of other things. The article is about the theatre from start to finish, not just the demolition related stuff so we should strive for a balance between all sections. Wikipedia articles are not just written for today's readers; they are also written for the readers 20 years from now. Will those readers benefit from know all of this details? I am not trying to discourage your trying to improve the article, but I am just suggesting that it might be best to slow down and wait to see how events play out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. The demolition is currently underway (I am seeing pictures from people on the site), so events are playing out as I write. I have attempted to keep this article up to date based on what has been reported in the media. I do understand that Wiki is not a news source, but I feel it is valid at this point to present the story, citing reliable news sources. It is my intention to update the page again tomorrow, including a new photograph (probably to replace the one with the crane ion the foreground and the TERRACE sign in the background).
I do understand that the article will be a record of the history of the theater and the "Current status" section will need to be greatly reduced and incorporated under the "History" section. For now, I am just interested in keeping it current for people who are interested in the developing story. As you said, Marchjuly, readers 20 years from now will not need all those details, and I will certainly clean it up and condense it once everything has played out. Thanks again for your interest and vigilance. --KIRTIS (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@KIRTIS: If you're going to remove the "overly detailed" tag after removing all of the extraneous detail you've been adding then fine. If, however, you're going to leave that unnecessary detail as is just because you want to keep it current for that particular audience, then that's not what Wikipedia is really about. No one suggesting that everything needs to go, but this section is bloated and giving undue focus to this one part of the article. As Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi suggested above, this section should probably be one maybe two well summarized paragraphs at the most. Maybe a sentence summarizing the main points of each paragraph, but not much more than that. If people want to follow the developing story, they should check out the local news coverage because Wikipedia role is not that of a newspaper, etc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Architecture" section
I respectfully disagree with the last edits made by Marchjuly. I think the identity of the architects is important to the story of the Terrace Theatre. Theirs was a prominent Minnesota architecture firm (no longer in existence), noted especially for their more than six hundred theater designs throughout the upper midwest, including two hundred in Minnesota (I will correct the omission of the word "hundred"). Liebenberg was Minnesota's first Jewish architect, so I think it is significant to also note the firm's design of two noted synagogues. The Terrace was their LAST indoor theater design, so it's important to know about the progression of their work. I would like to restore the deleted information, but I will hold off to see if other editors weigh in. Thank you.
KIRTIS (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Liebenberg and Kaplan designed a number of places Wikipedia has articles for, including buildings on the National Register. The firm certainly appears to be notable and we should have an article about them. You can create one. One way to get started is by working on a draft in a user sandbox. Let me know if you want help with that. Jonathunder (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@KIRTIS: I have no problem mentioning the firm that designed the theater or even the primary architects involved; I don't, however, think information such as when they were born, what religion they practiced, where they went to school, etc. is really necessary for this article about this particular theater. Information such as that seems more appropriate for stand-alone articles about the firm or its founders. If the fact Liedenberg was Jewish created some controversy directly related to the Terrace and it construction and this controversy was covered in reliable sources at the time, then I could possibly see how that could be mentioned in the article. The fact that he was Minnesota's first Jewish architect in and of itself, however, seems like trivial information (please don't take that in a negative way because on Wikipedia it has a slightly different meaning) with respect to the theater unless reliable sources say otherwise. It factual, but is it encyclopedically relevant to this particular article. As for the other projects L&K completed, again this seems fine for a stand-alone article about the firm itself, but not so much for this particular article. Did the Terrace resemble a synagogue and was this something commented on in reliable sources? If not, then it seems any mention of synagogues is not relevant to this article. The same rationale essentially applied to the other theaters designed by the firm, but perhaps those with Wikipedia articles could be added to a "See also" section or something. I think it's really only important to mention specific theaters by name if their connection to the Terrance (perhaps there similarities/differences in design, etc.) was something that received some substantial coverage in reliable sources. Simply adding the names because they were all designed by the same firm does not seem appropriate to me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Points well taken. When I get the chance I will try creating an article on L&K. Thanks for your help in tightening up the article. Please note that I just accidentally made a couple of MINOR edits while not logged in. It's getting late and I was getting confused between versions, and I ended up opening the article in a new window and saving a couple small corrections before I realized I was acting anonymously.KIRTIS (talk) 03:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Technical difficulties
I uploaded a file that I had cropped from another photo uploaded by another user. It did not upload correctly, so I wanted to replace it, but I seem to be unable to remove the erroneous file. I would like to upload it again but am being prevented from doing so. I will use the uncropped version in the article for now.
KIRTIS (talk) 11:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@KIRTIS: Are you sure that the photo you've uploaded can be freely licensed? I know that the Robinson Historical Society has posted it on their website and seems to have licensed their website as Creative Commons 4.0, but the copyright of photos is typically owned by the photographers who take the photos and there is no information at all about the photographer on the RHS website. An organization like the RHS might get permission from a photographer to use a photo on their website, but that doesn't automatically give them the right to freely license the photo under a Creative Commons license for the rest of the world. It's quite possible that Commons will require an explicit declaration of consent from the photographer who took the photo per c:COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS? or the file file will be deleted per c:COM:PCP. If the photo is from 1989 like the RHS website says, then it is almost certainly not old enough for public domain due to its age, and it might not possibly even be eligible for PD per Template:PD-US-1989. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: I will send this info to Mr. Richie and see what he can find out. Thanks.
I had forgotten that I had forwarded the following information to permissions-commons@wikipedia.org via email on 10/10/16. I will follow up in Wikimedia Commons. Here is that email message, FYI:
This is in response to an inquiry from Marchjuly. I received the following email yesterday from Peter Ward Richie (Nokohaha). He is the author of the book on the history of Robbinsdale, cited in the article Terrace Theatre (Minnesota), as well as a representative of the Robbinsdale Historical. He uploaded this photo on Wikimedia Commons for use on the Terrace Theatre page.
---------
Hi Kristi,
I placed another Terrace photo into the commons. I thought I'd let you add it to the article.
I decided to use the photo to replace the one that had been posted under “Design,” but first I wanted to crop out the extra parking lot and trees to better show the theater. When I cropped the photo and uploaded a new version, technical difficulties ensued: the cropped photo appears with dark bands running through it. I think I fixed that problem but when I tried to upload the repaired version I was unable to do so, apparently because the photo already existed in the Commons. In my quick perusal (I’m still a newbie to Wiki) I couldn’t find a way to delete the bad version. If an administrator can delete it, or point me to how to do so, I will then repost the cropped version.
The permission email that was sent will be checked by an OTRS volunteer. If the volunteer feels everything is in order, they will add relevant information to the file's description. If the volunteer feels that there are still issues which need clarification, they will likely ask for more information or delete the file. If the file is by chance deleted and the uploader feels this was done in error, he should not re-upload the file again. Rather, he should discuss things with the Commons administrator who deleted the file or make an undeletion request at c:COM:DRV. File's that are deleted are not really gone forever; they are only hidden from view. A "deleted" file can be easily restored by a Commons administrator if it is determined at a later date to have a proper license. It's important to remember that although Wikipedia and Commons are both operated by the Wikimedia Foundation and there are many similarities between the two, they are separate entities so the policies of Commons need to followed when dealing with Commons. File:The Terrace Theatre in Robbinsdale, Minnesota.jpg has been tagged with c:Template:No permission since. The file will be deleted unless a proper permission's email by the original copyright holder can be verified by c:COM:OTRS. The editor who tagged the file is User:Josve05a@Ww2censor:. Josve05a is a Commons administrator so he would not tag the file as such if he didn't feel it needed OTRS verification. I will post on his user talk page and ask him about this.Ww2censor works a lot with image files both on Wikipedia and Commons, and he would not have tagged the file as such if he did not believe there was a possible problem. Anyway, I have pinged Ww2censor to this discussion, so perhaps he will be able to explain this further. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC);[Correction to the above post made by Marchjuly; Commons editor who tagged file is c:COM:Josve05a, not Ww2censor. New content is underlined and incorrect content has been struck out. -- 01:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)][reply]
Hi KIRTIS. You added a link to Youtube with this edit and removed it per WP:COPYLINK. You re-added the same link again here and left the edit sum I am the copyright holder of the video. I am wondering if you would mind clarifying that statement. While I believe that you created the video, I am not sure if you created all of the content shown in that video. Do you own the copyright on the local news coverage and all of the photos you used in your video? If you do, then perhaps this would not be a copylink violation; If you do not, then I believe it probably is. If you specifically wish to cite a certain news program or official news footage, then there is a way to do so using templates such as Template:Cite AV media or Template:Cite news as explained in WP:SAYWHERE.
In addition to the possible copylink issues, there is also a problem with this being user-generated content and citing yourself as a source. You may have created the video, but generally user-generated content is not considered to be a reliable source because such content tends to be based more upon original research and synthesis of other sources. User-generated content may be acceptable to a certain degree in certain cases such as when the source of the information is recognized by independent reliable third-party sources to be an established expert in their respective field. Are you saying that such sources consider you to be an expert in all things related to the Terrace theatre? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Marchjuly, thanks for your comments. I may be considered by some third party sources (e.g. Nokohaha) as an established expert on the Terrace Theatre, but I don't know if I can fully make that claim. Regarding the footage from the community TV news cablecast, it was used with express written permission of Northwest Community Television. I would like to include the link to my video as a source (because it does tell the fuller picture of what happened with the demolition and the lawsuit that was filed but never heard in court), but I will accede to your advice. Please let me know if you wish to restore the citation, or if I should instead site news sources. Thank you. KIRTIS (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You should be careful when citing yourself because it can easily lead to others assuming that you might have a conflict of interest with the subject of the article. Even apparent COIs can be problematic. If you are writing about the Terrance for other websites or organizations like you stated here, then you might actually have a conflict of interest. I have no idea who "nokohaha" is. Are you referring to this editor? I'm not sure whether another Wikipedia editor feeling you are an establish expert on the subject qualifies as an "independent third party source", especially if that editor might also have a conflict of interest when it comes to the article. If you would like the opinions of others on whether you can be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes, you can always ask at Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
