Talk:Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Citations
[edit]To the editor who has questioned the listing of performers who have performed at the UCB, how exactly would you suggest reconciling this list? There is a huge banner claiming citations are needed, but what would satisfy this?SpyMagician 03:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
SpyMagician: Just because something can be cited does not mean it needs to be. Again, see verifiability standards. Citations are needed for quotes or material likely to be challenged. Do any of your tags fit those criteria? BronsonPunchout (talk) 03:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
References
[edit]I am working to find references for this and other comedy- and humor-related articles. Please help if you can. I would prefer this article's quality reflect its subject's importance. Please see WP:reliable sources for a description of the type of sources that can be used to improve this article. Thanks. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 09:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- This posting in and of itself is actually a good example of the issue I've had with your edits. Despite references being made and additional links being provided, you are still insisting on a level of citation that is simply practically impossible to provide. I have said it before, but I will continue to post the concept of assuming good faith on the part of Wiki contributors and not be so quick to judge or act tempermental when someone does not aggree with your strict view of Wiki guidelines. Ultimately the Wiki is a collaborative environment, and the way you are going about these requests bellie the concept of cooperation and seem to be a tad "power hungry" more than anything else. SpyMagician 09:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- In reference to the above notes, anyone reading this—especially those who edit comedy articles—might want to know the following and take this into consideration. Future Fun Jumper (TIC), was a 'sock puppet' of a rogue admin who took it upon themselves to slash/burn hundreds of comedy articles. For those unfamiliar with the term, a 'sock puppet' is someone who uses multiple accounts deceive others on and influence others Wikipedia. And in this case, Chris Griswold was an admin who used 'sock puppets' to taunt and bully dozens of comedy and improv related articles. —SpyMagician 00:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Spymagician, i have personally encountered you undoing a number of removals clearly without reading them. You have undone citations and restored the unreferenced tag, clearly not looking at what you were doing. Additionally, i encourage you to not just go about removing information but at least occasionally adding some. If you feel citations are needed perhaps you can do some googling and add some, as opposed to just removing other peoples edits or throwing up an unreferenced tag. This is not constructive, and certainly dismissive of newer contributorsBronsonPunchout (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Please see WP:GAME, WP:DIS (specifically hostile cite tagging section), WP:OWN, and WP:BITE for further consideration. BronsonPunchout (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
BronsonPunchout, your reaction is simply an overreaction. What I did was the following: 1) Remove the "bits" section since it's considered trivia and 100% uncited. 2) Add citation tags to claims that clearly need citation and in which I know citations exist because the UCB Theater has been around long enough and is prominent enough to contain such citations. 3) I removed the "Solo Arts" heading initially because there was 100% absolutely nothing there to begin with other than the title "Solo Arts".
I did accidentally ad an unreferenced tag when I accidentally thought it was removed without citations being made and apologized for that. But otherwise, I think the article right now is tons better and actually more substantial than before.
As for your involvement with the UCB theater, you have behaved very questionably with regards to these edits. One second an edit is made from BronsonPunchout. The next it's made from 68.175.98.195. This points to two browsers being used: One logged in and one not logged in to present the illusion that more people are editing than they are. Technically this is called "sock puppetry". But I can almost understand this happening accidentally. Almost. The reality is you have clearly attempted to "game" other pages on Wikipedia in an attempty to promote the UCB theater and the concept of "bits". [1] This ridiculous edit to bits was done 3 days prior to todays edits from the same anon IP. What this all points to is edits being made by someone who knows more about how Wikipedia works and who is attempting to "game" the edits for their own purpose.
I don't have the time to enter another warning template, but will say you clearly have done some good work on the page. Good job! But attempt to "game" or "sock puppet" in an attempt to further your own personal agenda and I will take note, log diffs and contact admins.
Please, keep up the good. And don't hustle. --SpyMagician (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- I will repost what i wrote on my own talk page
- I hate to break it to you, but i found all those by looking at the links you posted and reading further. Perhaps it took you or others a long time to find this "deeper" Wikipedia knowledge such as a talk page, but it was pretty clear to me. I am not a "new user" per se. I frequently read wikipedia and have occasionally made edits on some things where i had knowledge, but i purposely set up an account to adhere to the policies of Wikipedia and encourage this kind of discussion. I can make the same claims about you and your conflicts of interest, and i suspect you in fact may be Chris Griwsold yourself. Nonetheless, you have a clear feeling of ownership over this article, which is perhaps one of the reasons it has not grown very much over the years. If you know citations exist i encourage you to track them down, instead of just removing sections you did not provide. Its easier to criticize than to be correct. I will not be cowtowing to you any longer. I encourage you again to actually look at the edits you are making. You have had to apologize to myself and others several times now for making revisions you did not even bother to look at, including removing citations. BronsonPunchout (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- As for your claims i have puppet accounts, that is just incorrect. It is possible i made edits while not logged in, but the ip address you reference and BITS article are certainly not mine. I in fact said i was open to discussing Bits, and personally am unsure of their validity. Nonethless, you clearly have a sense of ownership over this article and now are making accusations. Someone else was making additions to the page, and pushing the Bits, likely one of the many people who have knowledge on this subject who i have encouraged to make contributions. I do regret any bias on anyone elses part of agendas, but i also think you to have an agenda. I move for large edits to be discussed on this talk page, which has been quiet for years except for you. I will only be making contributions to this and other pages under my only id, BronsonPunchout. Lets keep it civil and not get into baseless accusations. Again, its easier to criticize than be correct. Finally, you are right there is a wealth of info on this subject. If you know of it i hope you will add it to the article as opposed to waiting for others to do so. BronsonPunchout (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- I hate to break it to you, but i found all those by looking at the links you posted and reading further. Perhaps it took you or others a long time to find this "deeper" Wikipedia knowledge such as a talk page, but it was pretty clear to me. I am not a "new user" per se. I frequently read wikipedia and have occasionally made edits on some things where i had knowledge, but i purposely set up an account to adhere to the policies of Wikipedia and encourage this kind of discussion. I can make the same claims about you and your conflicts of interest, and i suspect you in fact may be Chris Griwsold yourself. Nonetheless, you have a clear feeling of ownership over this article, which is perhaps one of the reasons it has not grown very much over the years. If you know citations exist i encourage you to track them down, instead of just removing sections you did not provide. Its easier to criticize than to be correct. I will not be cowtowing to you any longer. I encourage you again to actually look at the edits you are making. You have had to apologize to myself and others several times now for making revisions you did not even bother to look at, including removing citations. BronsonPunchout (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- I will repost what i wrote on my own talk page
- SpyMagician has removed the notable-wikipedian tag relating to himself and to me and to another use as at attempt at negotiation, which seems like bad faith to me. I am relatively new user and don't unsderstand this all and am trying to follow the rules I thought it was bad form to remove justifiable tags that relate to oneself, so i did not remove the one about me. However, i think this article has suffered from SpyMagicians perceived owndership. Please use section-stub tags and citation-needed tags, and leave them up for a reasonable amount of time before making reverts. Also, there is a discussion page for the same reason - to discuss where sections should be kept/deleted/merged. When there is a debate such as this, shouldn't it be a community issue and left to a vote as opposed to a single user who claims wikithaurity? BronsonPunchout (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've posted this in response to a similar screed on my page: So you're telling me that my hour or so of edits in September 6th 2008 have been the cause for years of the UCB article lacking? I'm happy you were able to discover a handful of minor incidents on my part. But in the case of Chris Griswold he was an admin who setup at least 3 other sock puppet accounts to "game" improv and comedy articles because he was/is a failed improv actor. The history of his outing and subsequent banning from Wikipedia is logged here [2]. What you're doing in comparing me to him is laughable and shows you barely understand the difference between people making good faith edits/removals versus malicious removal of content. In fact what's hilarious about your claim is in the case of the Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre I knocked heads with Chris and his sock puppets over his true mass culling of the Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre article and others. He was going nuts and deleting anything/everything and even "Speedy Deleting" stuff. I have done nothing of the sort. And the "worst" I have done is removed the "Bits" section of the article but even then I said "Okay, I hate doing major removals but every improv space has bits. None of these are referenced or cited and all fall under the rubric of trivia unless they can be cited." I think you need to separate your personal involvement with UCB from creating a neutral article that can stand on its own. And please, keep on threatening me. I have these things called "facts" and "logs" and a trail of edits to support my claims. Much more than you.
- And please, do continue to make baseless claims against me. The logs, diffs and trail of edits exists for a reason. --SpyMagician (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- For the benefit of this article, i again suggest that in the future instead of removing sections, such the solo arts and del close marathon, you put a section-stub for a reasonable amount of time so as to encourage others to contribute. Also, when making reverts, please take some greater time to look at the edit and see it if is actually in need of reverting, a citation, or is good as it is. I think that will clear up most of these issues. The Bits section you keep bringing up was not my contribution and i don't really care about it. If others want it restored it can be discussed and voted on here on the talk page. Personally, i think there are issues of greater importance in regards to this article that are lacking, such as a greater documentation of the growth of the theater from its inception, notable shows, more in-depth documention of the philosophy (especially in contrast to other improv schools), and how the has UCB's influenced the greater comedy world. Example - Tina Fey and Rachel Dratch did a sketch show for a month, which was attentended by Lorne Michaels and which lead to him to promoting her from head writer to cast member. BronsonPunchout (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Spymagician, you seem to be requesting most of the citations, which at this point seem excessive and do not meet the criteria needed to question verifiablilty. This article has 24 citations, many of which are redudant, and most of the information in the article is easily referenced on the UCB site itself, on improvresourcecenter.com, or by a simple googling. It seems you want a citation for every statement. Please re-read the citation needed tag page wikipedia:contents: . It states "The "citation needed" link you just followed was placed there because a Wikipedia editor feels that the preceding statement is likely to be challenged, and therefore needs an inline citation." Do you believe the existence of a "chill out" room at the new theater, or the address or opening date of the LA theater are likely to be challenged? Wiki is very specific about this. Please look at the verifiability page, as i don't understand how many of your requests for citation satisfy the requirements: WP:CS BronsonPunchout (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- BronsonPunchout, look Wikipedia is not a place for original research. The UCB theater is well known and well documented. When you say "...most of the information in the article is easily referenced on the UCB site itself, on improvresourcecenter.com, or by a simple googling..." Great! Than provide the citations! The issue is most improv and theater articles on Wikipedia are filled with unverifiable claims and are often used for self-promotion and not much else. In the case of UCB, this is a theater that is VERY WELL COVERED in the press.
- Why am I not adding? Well, I am. And if you look at my edits I have edited and provided links. I cover what I can. Another editor will cover something else. And admins as well. The way Wikipedia works is if someone can plant a seed of an article, others are open to contribute as long as they cite facts and avoid "puffery". Why you are so hellbent and have spent most of September 6th complaining about people wanting "facts" to back up claims, I do not know. Wikipedia is not a press release resource nor free advertising. It's a collective encyclopedia with the cornerstone being outside verifiability. If you can't point to outside citations and you make a claim that is beyond the ordinary, it NEEDS to be questioned.
- Personally I am getting sick and tired of the improv/theater ego battles on Wikipedia and think I will do research and see if there are editors out there willing to deal with the unique needs of this type of article. The "battles" are ridiculous and often nepotistic. --SpyMagician (talk) 03:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Your statements above show a clear bias against improv theater and performers, which would inform your editing. You have not responded to my pointing out your use of disruptive editing, nor have you explained why you put citation needed when you yourself admit there is no quotation nor challenging. Please point out any sections that are advertings or press releases. If you see sections like that, there are clearly tags you can post on those sections. Instead you revert and delete. I again show that your clear sense of ownership and disruptive editing have hampered this article, and now you have broken the three revert rule and engaged in biting. Perhaps you can bully others so they won't contribute, but i will not be bullied. I look forward to an admins involvement, though i don't know how to get one. Again, why are you putting the fact tag on sentences who verifiability is not in question? I am not complaining about people wanting facts, though perhaps you should read again the verifiability section. You are clearly trolling and owning at this point. I hope you get blocked BronsonPunchout (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- "Your statements above show a clear bias against improv theater and performers..." You are correct. I don think improv theater performers and actors are objective enough to truly edit an article without including POV. Take for example the imaginary "feud" between NYC improv theaters. It doesn't exist but allusions to it existed before I edited the article. Would you rather this article be filled with false self-serving drama than verifiable facts? I believe that too many are out to promote themselves on Wikipedia without an eye towards verifiability. I do respect what they do, though. Can you look at my edits and at least acknowledge where I cleaned things up without issues and even linked to Wiki articles of note? It's called objective and neutral editing. Something I think improv theater performers are mostly incapable of. --SpyMagician (talk) 03:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Your statements above show a clear bias against improv theater and performers, which would inform your editing. You have not responded to my pointing out your use of disruptive editing, nor have you explained why you put citation needed when you yourself admit there is no quotation nor challenging. Please point out any sections that are advertings or press releases. If you see sections like that, there are clearly tags you can post on those sections. Instead you revert and delete. I again show that your clear sense of ownership and disruptive editing have hampered this article, and now you have broken the three revert rule and engaged in biting. Perhaps you can bully others so they won't contribute, but i will not be bullied. I look forward to an admins involvement, though i don't know how to get one. Again, why are you putting the fact tag on sentences who verifiability is not in question? I am not complaining about people wanting facts, though perhaps you should read again the verifiability section. You are clearly trolling and owning at this point. I hope you get blocked BronsonPunchout (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi all - I would just like to point out that Chevy Chase was not in "Father of the Bride" as mentioned under the Notable Performers heading. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.139.154.93 (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Bits
[edit]Spymagician - Firstly, i appreciate your maintenance of this page. I agree the importance of this section is questionable, and open it up to discussion. I do think citations of some of these is difficult to impossible, and should the merits of be accepted, will have to be taken in the good faith clause you yourself mention. Additionally, i never knew that Chris Griswold stuff. Very interesting. 66.108.108.88 (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- The Griswold stuff is indeed interesting. But as far as bits and trivia goes, that stuff really needs citation. Every group for every thing has it's own bits and references. As listed, they are out of context with the vast majority of them red-linked to dead links. Good faith is one thing and I err on the side of good faith when it comes to the names of groups and performers in them, but bits/skits are so arbitrary that without context they just are fluff --SpyMagician (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)