Talk:Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa

Gay
I note that the categories for him being gay were recently removed, a suitable reference is his interview in Advocate Where it is claimed that this is the first time he had been "officially" asked the question. I am sure this means the category can be re-added and something to this effect should be written into the article body. Fæ (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You are correct. But the article, and not just the talk page, needs to say it. I will take your information and integrate it. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Productions?
I don't care whether you want to say "of [his] plays", but it now is incorrect, as none are [his] productions. In fact, there can be other types of productions of [his] possible works, ie, comics, operas, movies, quiz shows, etc.

More importantly, the content of that section is now wrong; none of the listed reviews were source references for the production dates, and usually don't include that info. The references given were there because they contradicted the mentioned database (and are believed more reliable). Sort of reverting that change, will leave the link as a reference but specify it as a review. The references should now include the title, author, etc as a regular reference. Have fun fixing those!69.72.27.109 (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I can't make sense of your above post. Placing the citations as footnotes, where they belong, rather than as links inappropriately placed amid the text, does not change the content of the citation. Also, you should have given full citations with titles, byline, date, etc., rather than just "(review) The New York Times." Please read WP:CITE and WP:FOOTNOTE for further information.


 * The in-line links to review were _NOT_ citations or references! I was not the editor who moved them to footnotes without them being in proper format! When I ran across the reviews when double-checking the Doolee database it seemed a shame to not list them, and in fact I did not want to go to the trouble, or have the article cluttered, with full references to reviews. Why not all reviews? But since some editor has removed their identification as reviews and mis-identified them as the source for the production dates, I will remove them entirely.  Does the community want another section for "Reviews of Productions"?.  Also, the important early productions of Rough Magic (documented by Roberto in his 2009 edition) and Muckle Man were removed; if multiple productions are not going to be listed, then the later ones should be the ones to go.69.72.27.231 (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Reviews can verify a play's existence, locale and dates as well as any other source. I'm not sure you understand the guidelines of WP:VERIFY. Also, the way you refer to "Roberto" by first name and the very personal nature of your comments, I need to ask if you have any professional or personal relationship with the subject of the article.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Reviews can verify a play's existence, BUT THEY WERE NOT USED FOR THE VERIFICATION AND REFERENCE OF THE TEXT IN THIS CASE, AND ARE THUS FALSE AND MISLEADING WHEN REPLACING THE PROPER REFERENCE! I created the entire section; every entry was verified, and there were specific references (some of which, I believe were also reviews). But in general, The NY Times & W. Post do not state when the opening date of a production was. And as I mentioned before, the reviews were mentioned as External Links. The format, being in a list of productions instead of at the very end as a section "External Links to Reviews", may violate some style policy, BUT IT DID NOT VIOLATE ANY VERIFICATION POLICY! I am not about to see the time spent on this editing wasted by someone who did not even try to understand the text. I have no relation to the subject here, I was simply appalled by the poor content of the article when I consulted it. The use of the name Roberto is simply shorter than the alternatives; I will now use initials if you are offended. What may I ask is a comment with a personal nature?69.72.27.191 (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * When a play is produced, it is a production. Since the article is about a playwright, the productions are of those plays that he has written. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have looked through the anon IP's most recent edits, and in addition to his all guideline violations he has taken to adding personal details about hte subject within cited passages but which the citations do not support. For example, nowhere in the dramatists.com bio for the playwright does it say he is "the son of prominent Nicaraguan diplomat," which is both a dishonest attempt at putting an unverified claim within a footntoed passage, and violating WP:PEACOCK. Since the anon IP refuses to discuss his edits beforehand, I am asking for page protection. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * THERE ARE NO GUIDELINE VIOLATIONS! (at least of the type complained about). As far as "the son of prominent Nicaraguan diplomat" WHY DO YOU THINK THE SECOND FOOTNOTE REFERENCE WAS ADDED! This was mentioned in an interview in Pittsburgh. As a discussion topic, it would now appear that the infobox giving "nationality:american" may be wrong, as children of diplomats are not automatically US citizens. It is also possible that the Pittsburgh writer was wrong, or that his mother was a US citizen or non-diplomatic US resident, or that he affirmatively chose US citizenship.69.72.27.191 (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A request has been filed at Requests for page protection. In the interim, I would ask that the anon IP not continue to edit-war. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It needs protection from vandalization by Tenebrae- by definiation, when text is reverted based on the perception of who edited it last. I am planning more substantial editing, incorporating the Washington interview, and don't want the time wasted.69.72.27.191 (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Copy of post at User talk:Boringbob4wk
Below is my response to an UNCIVIL and inaccurate post on my page, which by new user User:Boringbob4wk. removed from his talk page. I would note to him that removing it from this talk page would be, in fact, actual vandalism on his part and would be dealt with by an admin. [My mistake; it appeared to have been removed. This is a minor point that does not detract from the below]

[Begin post]
I'm afraid I find your remarks puzzling, as an admin agreed to semi-protect Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa because an anonymous IP was consistently adding non-MOS footnoting, removing citation requests, WP:PEACOCK terms, and most seriously inserting uncited personal material in violation of WP:BLP &mdash; doing so by inserting them within footnoted passages to make them appear to be cited. Given the vague and non-specific claims you made in your post at my talk page, I don't believe your charges are valid, and perhaps we need to seek an RfC or other third-party mediation. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've just gone to the page and I'm afraid that your calling my good-faith fully edit-summarized edits, which included restoring citation requests from uncited claims, and adding titles, bylines and dates to footnotes, as vandalism, is inaccurate and slanderous. I understand you are a new user who has only been on since April, but that is no excuse for such behavior. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * For example, Metro Weekly is a periodical. They are italicized. By changing the field from "work" to "publisher", you remove the italics. That is an example of the changes you made to my so-called vandalism. Your intemperate actions and accusations are inaccurate and uncalled for. I hope you don't mind, but I'm afraid I must italicize that periodical. I will also add bylines to the Playbill footnotes. In addition, we don't say "Mr. Aguirre-Sacasa," which I will remove. I don't believe an admin would consider this vandalism, and in fact, at this point, I believe a Wiki etiquette filing would not be out of order. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You additionally removed full citations, inserting instead footnotes that simply lead to a number and a link. Despite what your colleague, the anonymous IP, wrote, Wikipedia does indeed have standards for footnotes and citations, and leaving a bare number and a link is certainly not one of them. I would respectfully ask that you temper your comments, behave more collegially, and, as a new user, read up on Wikipedia citation guidelines. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Promotional additions by an insistent editor
I have surveyed the playwrights Arthur Miller, Neil Simon, Terrence McNally and Gina Gionfriddo, which span different generations, and neither in their articles nor elsewhere have I found someone adding a link to a positive review at every play in a list where it was possible to do so. Indeed, those articles do not link plays to any reviews.

These positive reviews were not added as citations to verify a play's existence or performance &mdash; each play already has a footnoted citation. Rather, they are unnecessary, additional links that appear to be solely promotional. They were added by an editor from an area where the playwright grew up, who has made no edits to any other playwright's article, and whose incivility, edit-warring and sockpuppetry regarding these promotional-seeming edits led to a one-week ban from Wikipedia.

Since it is up to each editor to justify his or her addition of material, I would hope and expect a talk-page discussion before or if this editor resumes trying to add these types of edits, which as noted above do not seem to be used elsewhere on Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Taymor's denial
Rather than edit-war over the undiscussed removal of pertinent content, I'd like to begin a dialog with User:Leocomix and other interested editors. Julie Taymor's denial that Aguirre-Sacasa was becoming involved seems far too important a fact to simply ignore. The transition wasn't smooth, and to pretend otherwise is whitewashing the circumstances. And while normally sources are mentioned only in footnotes, that fact that these claims and counterclaims were being waged in one high-RS source gives them historical weight they wouldn't have if these reports were coming from tabloid sites. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with an edit-war. That paragraph sounds like a compilation of news tidbits added one after the other as developments came to be known (which it probably is). Since we're not anymore in that speculative time of whether Aguire-Sacasa will replace Taymor or not, it's time to assess the information. The fact that Taymor said something or not on a forum is irrelevant to this article, which is about Sacasa. You can include the information on her article or the show's article. So, until you have a rationale for including the politics of the show in this article, leave it alone. Leocomix (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)