User talk:SuziArch

Hello, SuziArch. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Association of British Theatre Technicians, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
 * instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Association of British Theatre Technicians. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017
Your addition to Association of British Theatre Technicians has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why I am getting blocked for copyrighting as I am a volunteer for the charity of the ABTT as well as a professional theatre technician. I have had full permission from the C.E.O and all the trustees of the charity before I even started editing the page. So there are no copyright violations as I got permission to use the material first. I have emailed your office and no one has got back to me. If you look at the page, there are not any pictures just the text of which I got permission from the charity to use. So please talk to me and tell me the specific issues you have with my editing? As I am getting highly frustrated with no one talking to me and being specific!
 * Pinging again since the last ping most likely failed due to the lack of a WP:Signature. (t)  Josve05a  (c) 18:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Suzi, ok there are two issues. The copyright which is the minor one and the content which is the major one.  Let's talk about the majr one first.
 * Put simply, Wikipedia isn't interested in what ABTT has to say about itself but rather what others, who are independent of ABTT, have said or written about it. As an example you wrote a section about training courses in things like pyrotechnics and risk management and what ABTT courses offer.  What Wikipedia would be interested in is what others have said about ABTT training courses and whether they are good, bad or indifferent.  So if The Stage wrote an article reviewing pyrotechnics training in the performing arts and said ABTT is the bees knee's then that is the type of content and sourcing the Wikipedia article would supply.  Similar comments apply to the rest of your edits to the article.  While you added a lot to what is otherwise a stub article it all read as highly promotional "we offer", " please contact ABTT" and most definitely not neutral in tone or content.  I do agree that workers in the arts need to keep (be kept) safe but Wikipedia is not a medium for promoting one organisation's services in that area as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a news or advertising service.
 * If you appreciate the above then the copyright issue goes away as you will understand that the article should not comprise of text copied from the ABTT website. There are times when small extracts from organisations' websites are acceptable but small is the operative word and should not supply the majority of text of the Wikipedia article.
 * I'm sorry if you feel ignored and/or frustrated and getting the hang of what Wikipedia is about can be difficult but there are numerous links given above which explain things in detail. Nthep (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi SuziArch. Just adding that we can't take your word for it that you represent the organization and have their permission to use their copyright material. We require written permission directly from the copyright holder. If the copyright holder is interested in donating the material to Wikipedia under a compatible license, please have them follow the instructions at Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:consent. However, regardless of the copyright issue, it's important to note that your addition was removed by two different people as being unsuitable for inclusion because of its promotional content. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * :: Thank you so much the pair of you for getting back to me and letting me see things more specifically. I did try and neutralise it but someone I am having trouble with, has deleted it again. The stage does not review training courses, just shows. Would someone like the Head of Technical at the English National Opera be ok to review the training courses? My intention was this, as a technician's life can be isolating as it is a self-employed job, I wanted to show the support groups and committees around the UK so technician's can turn to for advice, discuss issues with like minded people. These groups aren't just for professionals but for students, amateurs and people wanting to find out more about the industry. The support groups are all free and the committees are all volunteers. The needs of a Theatre architect is different from a lighting designer and rigger etc. And working in different types of buildings has different rules,regulations and work practices within UK law i.e. Grade 1 and 2 listed buildings are different from new or refurbished buildings and outdoor spaces are a whole different ball game altogether. I'm more than happy to explain it but I will be here forever. I thought wikipedia would be a great medium to allow people to discover the support groups in a encyclopaedial way. The technicians had a place to go to discuss the issues they are having with other people, or amateurs learning from the professionals so their aren't any accidents. That was my only intention. I can get the C.E.O of the charity to email over the copyright consent. Is there a specific email I need or will it be on the link you gave me?

As for the first person to delete the page. I feel I am having issues with them. I did get in contact just as I did with you both in a polite manner and ask for more information on why and all I got was negativity, unprofessional responses and they were not listening to what I had to say or even help me improve the page in a positive way. As I am working with you both to improve my page, could you please tell them to back off please. I do feel that it is becoming trolling and even if I did the best page ever, they would delete it just for the sake of it. Please could you tell them to leave me alone as I am working with you both. Here is the responses I got from them:

"@SuziArch: Have you read Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest Policy? I only ask because I have no idea why you have posted this onto my Talk page, which is not what the policy requires. Regarding your edits, they are promotional in nature - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, it is not a place to promote things. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Exemplo347: Thank you for getting back to me and I do appreciate it. I have also emailled the the office but as you were the one in deleting it, I wanted to here your views as a person and not deal with a faceless page. I feel very passionate and strong in my views in my job and safety matters in my industry that I love so much and as these support groups are free and the committees are all volunteers, the articles are explaining what is out their for support and information. This is not promotional in any shape or form. I just wanted to show people that there are places to go and not feel isolated. This was my only intension. Thank you.

Ah, I see you've been warned for copyright violation. Never mind. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Exemplo347: I don't understand why as I am a volunteer for the charity of the ABTT as well as a professional theatre technician. I have had full permission from the C.E.O and all the trustees of the charity before I even started editing the page. So there are no copyright violations as I got permission first.

I asked you if you'd read the Conflict of Interest policy - have you read it or haven't you? Exemplo347 (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)"

I have been a theatre technician for 16 years. I think these support groups are amazing and do help so many people. Their words "Ah, I see you've been warned for copyright violation. Never mind" Was there really any need for that comment? It was bitchy like the person wanted to get one up on me. Seriously?! Are we 5? Why can't this person have a normal conversation. I feel that I can't edit anything because they think they're god and they can do what they like. I just want to keep people safe in my industry, is that really so terrible? And why is keeping people safe through sharing of knowledge in an isolated industry a conflict of interest. I'm not getting paid for any of this, nor are there any benefits. I just want to help people, why is that so bad?!

Please help me!!!! Thank you for all your suggestions. You both have been so helpful. I will do what I can to rectify them.

Speak soon.


 * ::Hi guys, Sorry for the questions but is it just the training section that is the issue for promotional text or is it the beginning few lines as well i.e. The Association of British Theatre Techicians also known as the ABTT etc. before the content an issue as well. Is everything else ok or will the other sections need changing as well? Sorry for all the questions but I just want to get it right so I don't have any more editing issues for the future.


 * Thanks so much for all your help. You really don't realise how much I appreciate your input to all of this.


 * Suzanne


 * Suzanne, I can understand what you are trying to achieve but I think you are using the wrong vehicle to do it. Wikipedia isn't the place to extol the benefits of training in theatre technical topics unless theatre technical skills are being more widely discussed outside of Wikipedia. ABTT may offer all sorts of training but Wikipedia isn't the place for prospective students to find out about it, Wikipedia would report that other sources have said "ABTT offers all sorts of technical training and support" not "ABTT says of itself that it offer all sorts of technical training and support", I hope you can see the differences in these two statements because that difference is key to understanding what Wikipedia is about.   From what you have written it sounds like ABTT does some great work but if that has not been reported on by others then it doesn't get written about on Wikipedia.  As for the way others have communicated with you, I apologise for the tone but in mitigation we see a lot of overtly promotional content being added to Wikipedia and sometimes we forget that those additions are made in good faith rather than as a deliberate advertising attempt.


 * Let me sum it up this way, if what you would like to see in the Wikipedia article isn't already covered in some depth by sources outside ABTT then I'm afraid it has no place in the Wikipedia article on ABTT. If you want to add anything then it needs to be sourced to something other than ABTT's own website or publications. Nthep (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I can take the training and publications part out if that is easier. That's not a problem. Unfortunately in our industry technicians and support groups do not get referenced online nor do they get reviewed in publications. It's all done by word of mouth. As self employed people move about a lot, it is easier to do this. I thought puting it on wikipedia would be a way of getting inside knowledge to the masses who don't necessarily know where to look for it. I can put external links in to Equity, Bectu, SOLT, Threatres Trust and various other places so people can cross reference if that helps. But otherwise I don't know what else I can do.


 * As for your comment on the other person, I do understand where you are coming from but there is being reasonable with productive commentary to help people editing their page as yourself and Diannaa have done and negative, unproductive and trolling matters. I am now being accused of personally attacked them. This is rubbish. I have always been honest with you all and asking for guidance so I can do the right thing. Their responses are completely irrashional, snipey, unprofessional and quite rude. I'm not the only one that they have done this too. I have tried to reason with them but how can you reason with the unreasonable. Why are they trying to twist things into what they want? I said trolling because of how their responses and sniping and unprovoked comments to perfectly normal conversation, for me it all came accross as them attacking me. There is no conflict of interest. I am a volunteer that doesn't get paid. I fit my voluntry work around my professional workload which does not have anything to do with promoting the ABTT. My job consists of putting shows in, taking shows out and playing with lights all day. I did not provoke their behavour, I was just trying to reason with them. And now they have made sure that no one can comment on the post at all. I'm so sorry but their behavour is rather childish and quite disgusting. And I'm not the only one they have done this to either. Please see their comment below:

"I see on your talk page that you DO work for the organisation in question - that DOES give you a conflict of interest. Secondly, if you're going to write posts asking people how you can get me to leave you alone, and accusing me of trolling (that's a personal attack, by the way) then I'm not sure why you've posted on my talk page after saying that. As a result of this personal attack, you're going to have to look elsewhere for help. Wikipedia runs on Assuming Good Faith, by the way. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)"


 * I'm so sorry for all of this but it is really upsetting when all you're doing is the right thing and someone is their trying to play god and not listen to you. I do know not all of you are like that and I am grateful for your feedback and advice. Unfortunately, people like that do give good people a bad name just because of association which is really wrong and unfair on the good ones.


 * Anyway, if you could get back to me on any of the above, I would be garteful.


 * Thanks so much once again.


 * Suzanne


 * Suzanne, regarding sourcing I think you have identified the impassable wall - It's all done by word of mouth - if that is the case then everything you are wanting to add lacks reliable sources and shouldn't be added. I'm sorry but that is how it looks to be panning out.


 * With regard to the attitudes of others all I can say is move on and chalk it up to (bad) experience. Nthep (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I think we have. I think that inside information should be shared to the masses and not kept for the few but I will have to think of another way of doing it. I have to disagree about the attitude of others as a bad experience. I see it as trolling but wikipedia doesn't have a higher authoritive to make an official complaint to, there is nothing I can do.

Thank you for all your help and guidance throughout my journey with wikipedia. Yourself and Diannaa have been so lovely and helpful. I really do appreciate your time and effort you have given me.

Thank you so much.

Suzanne Archer