User talk:Marmelstein

August 2012

Hello, I'm Zad68. This might not have been intentional, but I noticed that you recently removed some content from The Players (New York City) without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Zad68 15:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Players (New York City)

Please do not remove material from articles which is accompanied by a citation from a reliable source, in this case the New York Times. Your explanation that it might hurt the feelings of somebody at the club is not sufficient, and not our concern. Removing sourced material -- which has now been reinstated by 3 different editors, including myself -- is a serious matter on Wikipedia. You've now been warned once about it, and should have been warned again after you removed it again. Consider this your last warning: if you remove this material again without discussion about it on the talk page and getting a consensus of the editors there to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia altogether.

Further, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newsletter for the Players. Please do not insert promotional material such as the announcement of the event honoring Audra Macdonald. Such material will be removed per our policy. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In looking at your contributions list, I see that all of your edits have concerned the Players, which raises the concern that you may have a connection with the club and are editing on its behalf. Because of this, I'd like to point you to our policy on editing with a conflict of interest, which you should read and follow. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at The Players (New York City), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have always edited The Players wikipedia page. I think I started the page back around 1995 and, if not, contributed to it's creation. This page has always been used by disgruntled members to put any kind of nonsense up on the page (despite the NYT's article, it is riddled with mistakes) I did not remove the NYTimes article - leaving it to readers to look it up if they are so minded. I was always allowed to put up a current "Pipe Night" so I'm perplexed as to why Audra McDonald's name is being taken down. It is NOT a promotion. If it was, I would include dates and prices. I do suggest, if Wikipedia wants to be accurate, that they contact The Players for information.

I also edit and created the George Innes wiki. Marmelstein

No one is "using" the page to do anything. All the information there comes from reliable media sources. I am not a "disgruntled member" (in fact I'm not a member at all, I just live in the neighborhood), and I have done considerable work in cleaning up and maintaining the page. I'm sorry if you have a connection to someone who is involved in the various controversies that are reported in the article (which take up a relatively small part of it), and if that person or persons would rather not have the issues appear in our article. We don't make the news, we don't directly report the news, we include things which are reported by reliable media outlets. If you have an issue with the stories, you need to takle it up with the New York Times, New York magazine, the New York Post etc., not with us, and, as I said before, get someone to write up the other side of the story (if there is indeed one) -- then we can include it in the article. In the meantime, we cannot take your say-so, we cannot investigate ourselves (that's called original research and is not allowed, and your attempts to whitewash the article have gotten you blocked.

As for the other stuff, we're not a calendar of events, we don't include "Pipe Nights" or events honoring actors, or anything else in particular, because such information is not encyclopedic, and would also violate our policies against using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. The fact that you've been able to do this in the past only indicates that no one was paying any particular attention to the article (which is probably why it was a mess when I stepped in to clean it up).

I urge that when your block expires you do not continue with the bahvior that got you blocked. If you want to contribute to the article, I think there's probably a lot more that can be said about the history of the club, so that's an area that can be worked on. But please do no remove any sourced information, and do not add promotional materials announcing upcoming events. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure why you need to be so angry about changes I made to The Players page. Believe me, since at least the 1990s, we were putting up mentions of Pipe Nights. Pipe Nights have been held since Edwin Booth founded the club and are a VERY traditional part of the Club. If you look into any definition of The Players, you will find descriptions of Pipe Nights. Maybe you should educate yourself in the history of the Club (try the book "A Certain Club") since you are not a member and only live in the neighborhood. There have been many changes over the years to The Players entry. I am certainly not responsible for all of them and many of the changes have gone from silly to vindictive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marmelstein (talk • contribs) 16:06, 20 August 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I just checked the Friars Club entry and it mentions its famed Roasts. To leave out the roasts of the Friars Club is like leaving out the Pipe Nights of the Players. And where did you guys come up with that old, old, old Earl Wilson quote??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marmelstein (talk • contribs) 16:11, 20 August 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelvant what you once were able to do because no one as paying any attention to the article. Someone is paying attention now, and you're not going to be able to use the page as a promotional device. Any edit which is in violation of WP:PROMO will be reverted, and you will be warned for it. Eventually, you'll be blocked again, and the blocks get longer each time. If your interest is in getting yourself blocked from editing indefinitely, just keep it up. If, instead, you're interested in improving the article in an encyclopedic way, there's much that can be done. It's your choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can sign your comments by putting 4 tildes (~) at the end. The system will automatically add your esername, the date and the time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not edited the Players entry for at least a week, so why should I be blocked? I have no interest in editing at this point. But I'm now being blocked from adding my rebuttals to "My Ken". I find it pretty petty to add such old stuff to the "Controversy" section - just to score me off. MarmelsteinMarmelstein (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what I wrote again. I said nothing about your possibly being blocked for taking part in a discussion on your talk page, only about your possibly being blocked if you continued your previous behavior in editing the encyclopedia. which is quite a different matter.

Regarding "Pipe Nights" - I wanted to make it clear that there would be nothing wrong in mentioning any long-running institutional series in the article, giving its history and highlights. What would not be allowed is announcements of upcoming events in the series, except in the most general way, i.e. "In the future, Pipe Nights will feature blah, blah, blah and blah," but not "On November 30th, the Pipe Night will honor blah, and on December 15th blah will be the topic." I hope that's clear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before you removed my mention of the Audra McDonald Pipe Night, you should have noticed that I only mentioned the month and year. Not the day, not the price, not the time. I would NEVER do that. I can't do it anyway, because it is only open to members. There was nothing promotional in that posting and perhaps you could put it back. I must say, in reading the entry of The National Arts Club, there is absolutely nothing mentioned about the FBI raid on that institution or the deeply controversial president Aldon James. No Times article on hoarding or James' releasing of hundreds of birds into Gramercy Park where they eventually died (and those Times articles exist). Why? I notice your name is mentioned in the editing of that entry. MarmelsteinMarmelstein (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My name is mentioned in the editing of about 20,000 articles, so your insinuation of prejudice on my part is just plain silly.

Look, you're an editor with very little experience. You've been around for 5 years, but you've basically only edited one article. I've been here for 7 years and have over 100,000 edits. I'm trying to give you some advice based on my fairly extensive experience, but you seem determined to ignore it. I suggest you read WP:IDHT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- and that's the extent of my patience with you, which has, I'm afraid, run out. If you'd like your experience here to be comfortable and collegial and to productively contribute to the Players Club article, I would urge that you follow my advice above; if, instead, you prefer to be confrontational and pig-headed, you're eventually going to be blocked -- that's a prediction, not a threat, I'm not an admin and I can't block you.

So, what I'm going to do now is to take your talk page off my watch list, so that I'm not tempted to reply to another "rebuttal", but I'm going to continue to watch The Players (New York City) and remove any edits (by anyone) which are not permissable under our policies. I hope your experience on Wikipedia from here on out is a pleasant one. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Editing while not logged in in order to avoid scrutiny of your edits violates Wikipedia's policies on sockpuppetry. Please do not do this again. Please edit using your account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again --do not removed sourced material from articles. If the information is inaccurate, your quarrel is with the New York Times, not with us. Get a reporter to write and publish a new story and we'll include that in the article. Until then, a reliable source has reported the controversy, and we have reported it here. We cannot "call the Players" and ask them about it, we're not a publicity outlet, we're an encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2012

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at The Players (New York City), you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

You were previously blocked for repeatedly deleting sourced information from this article, and you have returned to the same behavior again. Please be aware that blocks on Wikipedia generally increase in length for each infraction, so if you continue to edit disruptively, you next block will be for more than the 31 hours you received before.

As for your contention that I have some sort of beef against The Players Club, I have told you before that this isn't true, and your refusal to believe this is a violation of our policy requiring all editors to assume good faith of other editors. In any case, the sourced material you insist on trying to remove does not show the club in a bad light, but might do so to some of the officers of the club.

Considering that you have an obvious conflict of interest regarding the club, and have attempted in the past to use the article as a promotional outlet for the club's activities, I suggest it would be best if you do not edit the article in the future. Instead, post your suggested edits on Talk:The Players (New York City) and other unconflicted editors can decide whether your suggestions should be implemented. Finally, having created the article does not afford you any special privileges regarding it - please see this policy for additional information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012

Once again, let me try to bring you up to speed on some basics of editing Wikipedia:

Information put into articles, especially controversial information, needs to be supported with a citation from a reliable source, thus the "Scandal" section you added to National Arts Club has been removed, not because it is untrue or inaccurate, per se, but because it does not have a citation from a reliable source supporting it. Please do not restore the information with a source, which should be easily found in a Google search.

On the other hand, information which is supported with a citation from a reliable source, such as the New York Times should not be removed from an article without a consensus to do so. For this reason, your removal of sourced material from The Players (New York City) has, once again, been reverted. You'll recall that it was this repeated behavior which got you blocked several months ago, and if you start it up again, that's likely to be the result this time as well.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice your hands are not too clean when it comes to being accused of "Sockpuppetry", Mr. Ken. Well, at least my editing of this page and The National Arts page has forced you guys to tell the truth about various "controversies" at that particular club. Marm.

November 2013

Regarding your edits using the IP 69.203.87.201:

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at The Players (New York City), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warned per the edit warring complaint

Please see WP:AN3#Various users reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result: Block, PC). If you continue to revert The Players (New York City) against consensus, you may be indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]