Charliehertz

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Charliehertz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! OlYeller21^Talktome 21:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Phew! I was confused! I've been working on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownbrokers) and was wondering how I could enhance it to rid the page of the issues at the top.

Charliehertz (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, there's three templates there right now. One is very easy to fix (External Links). All you have to do is remove the external links from the body. If it's in a reference, that's OK; just the ones outside of references. It's obviously very easy so I went ahead and did this. The only reason I didn't do this right away is so that anyone editing the page could learn a little bit about our external link policy as they're appearing often in the article.

The second template mentions having a close connection and notability. The close connection issue is harder to handle so I'll leave that one for last. The notability issue should be easily to handle. Wikipedia has a guideline regarding what can be included in the encyclopedia. It's called WP:N (for "Notability") and has a lot of subsections. The areas that would apply to this subject (Brownbrokers) is WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE, and maybe WP:ORG. WP:GNG will be the easiest to satisfy and just requires that Brownbrokers receive coverage from multiple (2+) reliable and independent sources. In short, if CNN and WSJ both published a story about Brownbrokers, it's notable. If the only coverage was done by someone in the group, is just a blurb about a show, or is from a neighborhood newspaper, that wouldn't really work. The easiest thing to do is just search for article on Google News and Google New Archives. I see the article has several references now but it's difficult to assess how independent they are as they all link back to Brown's website. They could all be links to an archive that shows reliable, independent, and significant coverage but it's just something that has to be checked by someone.

The last issue is regarding a close connection. The guideline that this refers to is called WP:COI (for conflict of interest). As I'm sure you're aware, people who have a close connection to the subject of the article may not be able to write in an encyclopedic way about it. That doesn't mean they're bad people or came to WP to promote a subject but it just raises some flags. The template at the top of the page is to alert readers and other editors that there may be an issue with the article. There's two things to do One would be to alert editors at WP:COIN that the article needs checking. Those editors focus on this issue, comb the article for problems, edit the article to make it encyclopedic in tone and neutral, remove the tag when the article is in good shape, and watch the article to make sure that there aren't any issue in the future. The second thing to do would be to make a connection known. If you have a connection to the subject, that's OK. I encourage anyone with a close connection to make it known; it's viewed as very helpful and admirable to do so and as such, people are much more likely to lend assistance if needed.

You can read more about how to deal with a conflict of interest at Wikipedia:AVOIDCOI#How_to_avoid_COI_edits.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask here or on my talk page and I'll do my best to assist you. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! On Notability, I've linked about 50 references to the Brown Daily Herald Archive, the Pembroke Record archive and the Encyclopedia Brunoniana: Brown's History. There are also a few playbill.com and more contemporary links. All of these references are for facts, authors, dates, etc. None of them are being used to judge the "quality" of the programs or productions. All the reporting was done for the dissemination of facts. Google News does not have articles relating to this, since the rich history of the program was before the internet. I think that the fact that Tony, Pulitzer and Oscar winning playwrights and composers were trained through the program makes it notable at the very least. How else can I go about establishing notability? Thank you! Charliehertz (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey. I can see someone arguing that the articles used as references aren't independent enough to be used to establish notability but I personally feel that the last part you mentioned (about Tony, Pulitzer, Oscar winners, etc.) is enough to establish notability. I'll go ahead and remove that improvement template. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Also, the issue of the close connection. I'm not sure exactly where I'm supposed to "declare" this but I in fact was involved (as a manager for 2 shows) in 2 Brownbrokers productions during my 4 years at Brown (I am a graduate, not a current student). I was not, however, ever a playwright, director, composer or lyricist, all of the positions cited here. I am personally interested in the history of this organization, because of its ties to Alfred Uhry, Burt Shevelove, David Yazbek, Stephen Karam, etc., having a rich history searchable in the public domain. I think knowing about this organization allows you to understand the award-winning playwrights literary history in a deeper way. I know a few other Brown graduates and others have contributed as well. How would I go about removing this issue? Is there any hope? I've worked very hard to frame all text/rhetoric neutrally - I aimed for a presentation rather than an interpretation of history throughout. Best!

Charliehertz (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This message (the one you just left, above) is a deceleration. We can definitely work on having the template removed. The best bet is to get the article to a point that you consider being done or at a stopping point until more information is created. From there, a few other editors and I can read through and make sure there's no bias or advertising. From what I've seen in the article and by being forthcoming about your connection (or previous connection), I think that process will go very quickly.

When you feel that the article is at a place where you want it assessed, let me know here or on my talk page and I'll get the ball rolling. I don't expect that process to take more than a day and it may take as little as 30 minutes. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I feel that the Brownbrokers article is now at a place to be assessed! Thanks!

Charliehertz (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. I am done editing the page and feel that it is ready for a neutrality assessment. Many thanks for your time and work!

Charlie

Charliehertz (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Charlie. Sorry for the delay. I've been busier than expected. Another editor and I have looked over the article and feel that it's ok to remove the tag which I have just done. Also, I saw that you posted twice on the conflict of interest noticeboard. I had already posted there about the article so I merged your two posts with mine which can be found here: Wikipedia:COIN#Brownbrokers. If you have any questions about WP, feel free to ask me here or on my talk page. If you want to discuss the article, leave a message on the talk page of the article and we can talk about it.

I hope your experience here has been good so far and that you continue to edit the Brownbrokers as well as any other article that you would like.

Have a good evening. OlYeller21^Talktome 22:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)