Talk:New Line Theatre

Conflict of Interest
Scott Miller, the artistic director of New Line Theatre, wrote the majority of this article. His writing shows very considerable bias in favour of his theatre and its productions, in violation of WP:COI.

admits he is Scott Miller, on Talk:Johnny Appleweed -.

I will now remove much of the article to remove this bias, and thereafter patrol the article to ensure that the said content is not reinserted. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Continued conflict of interest
I have removed some more content added by Scott Miller, the artistic director of New Line Theatre. Despite being serially advised about WP:COI, Mr. Miller either believes the policy does not apply to him, or else he has some other comprehension difficulty.

The removal is predicated on the observation that it is not enough to add cited content, if there's good reason to believe that a partial view is being given. In this case, just such a partial impression is being fostered by Mr. Miller. He has not, for instance, chosen to balance the news story added with equal and opposite stories. I've just read a howler of a review of one of his shows, which pretty much said, in effect, that Scott Miller had created a dreadful and ghastly mess rather than a musical. Yet we do not see Mr. M reaching for that particular review to grace his article about his theatre company. Balance, Mr. Miller: you appear incapable of it when it comes to those things that are connected with you, at least if we judge by your contributions to wikipedia.

Scott: COI applies to you. You have a conflict of interest in respect of this article. Please do the reasonable things and start abiding by wikipedia policy. At the moment, all you are achieving is a growing stain on your reputation as you add COI content and I remove it. What remains are these comments on a number of talk pages. Pretty soon you'll find that queries on google for Scott Miller and New Line Theatre point to this and other talk pages which describe how you have knowingly sought to gain advantage for your commercial endeavors and/or some sort of ego gratification by dishonourably failing to abide by settled wikipedia practice which has been brought to your attention. Why it is that you'd want to do this to yourself is way beyond me, but I do earnestly suggest that you sit down and have a long think about what you're doing. You are by now in a hole and so are advised to stop digging. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What an unfriendly place this can be! :) First of all, I did the last "undo" and I do not have a conflict of interest, since I do not work for or with New Line Theatre (though I have enjoyed seeing their work for many years). I reinstated the deleted material because I know, living in St. Louis where New Line Theatre is headquartered, that this information is true and, as anyone can see, well footnoted. (And to respond to Tagishsimon's darker comments above, if you check the past reviews on the New Line website or the Post Dispatch website, you'll see that the vast majority are very positive. St. Louis is very proud of this company.) I do not understand Tagishsimon's anger over this. I will happily resubmit this article if that solves the problem. I think Tagishsimon's past objections over notability and sourcing have been put to rest; if I resubmnit the article myself, then his concerns over COI will be settled as well. Do I need to do that? CarlottaACT (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't tempt me to start adding the poor reviews you'd rather forget, Scott. And no, as a sockpuppet your resubmission of the article would not help matters at all.


 * Be clear: the edits in question are those which suggest that New Line Theatre is a great place (which, in fairness, I'm happy to accept that it is). But we are not here to be a glee club for your theatre, but to amass and dispense a neutral view. And you well know that challenging edgy theatre does not garner solely bouquets, but also brickbats.


 * I suggest you should leave the article as it is - a nice neutral statement of fact, devoid of opinion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral is good, but the last things you deleted from the article were statements of fact. New Line Theatre DID create the St. Louis Political Theatre Festival (as sourced), so why would that fact not be neutral and why should it be cut? New Line also has in fact received a number of Kevin Kline Award nominations; again, why is that not neutral and why should it be cut? There doesn't seem to be a consistent criterion here, just personal preference... And then, on this Talk page,Tagishsimon's "threat" to go dig up negative reviews??? Is that really how this works? Newchaz64 (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Where some balance is required - for instance, where a COI has added glowing references for his own productions, whilst trashing others' productions, then yes, digging up the bad reviews (and gosh, there are loads) is the right way to go.
 * You have still not condescended to tell us why the COI policy does not apply to you. If & when you do that, I might answer your other questions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Seriously??? This has become about bashing a theatre company you know nothing about? Is that really the point of Wikipedia? And for the record, there have been very few negative reviews in New Line's 18 year history. Take a look at the company's website and you'll see hundreds of extremely positive reviews. As if that has anything to do with this discussion... 71.85.148.212 (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You have still not condescended to tell us why the COI policy does not apply to you. If & when you do that, I might answer your other questions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Probable sockpuppet
I see that Scott Miller logged in at 16:55 today and discovered that his most recent additions had been deleted. Then lo, at 17:00 a new user was registered - - who preceded with consummate skill considering it was his first edit, to revert my revert; and then trooped off to comment at an AfD concerned with Scott Miller's self-penned article, to express support for the article.

We can either call this coincidence or sockpuppetry. For me it is very clear; not content with the straightforward COI approach. Mr. Scott Miller is now engaged in running a sockpuppet. I presume that it is only his relative inexperience ikn wikipedia and not his crashing arrogance, that makes him believe that he would be able to get away with this. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No "consumate skill" required in hitting the "Undo" link... You overestimate my prowess. What have I walked into...? :) CarlottaACT (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You have to know that articles have histories and histories allow undo. Simply put, in my near 5 years on wikipedia, the pattern of first edits being undos and second edits AfD comments is invariably associated with sockpuppetry. You can protest all you want, but you really are busted. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Line Theatre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419055215/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/185536-St-Louis-New-Line-Theatre-Will-Present-Regional-Premiere-of-Frank-Wildhorns-Bonnie-Clyde to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/185536-St-Louis-New-Line-Theatre-Will-Present-Regional-Premiere-of-Frank-Wildhorns-Bonnie-Clyde

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)