Talk:Pioneer Playhouse

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Kentucky portal This article is supported by WikiProject Kentucky.

Untitled[edit]

I have removed the defamatory material from this article; there is no newspaper as the "Lexington Star Tribune" and there is no credible reason to believe that the alleged events actually occured. As to the copyright issue, I have reason to believe that the author of the material in question has licensed it for use under the GFDL, and am awaiting confirmation of the same. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Reason to believe"? Not sure what that reason would be, but why not leave it out until we have something a bit more solid? Friday (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Something's very fishy here. Eleemosynary 16:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should AGF all around. I don't think anyone's "up to no good". I just think we should take care with copyright issues. Friday (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding plagiarism, if one googles the text I removed in my most recent edit, it will bring you to a verbatim page on the theater's website page. No indication (other than an editor's personal research assertion of permission) disputes this. If the Tribune article is bogus, it should go, but I just saw it's a 1978 reference. Is it possibly an out-of-print paper? Eleemosynary 16:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's too much for people who demand that others assume their good faith to give it themselves. I'm one of the people who works the "info-en@wikipedia.org" mail queue, as well as an administrator here. We received, via this address, a statement which seems to me to be pretty obviously permission to use that content; I have requested a more clear statement of permission. I can't give you a copy of those communications because emails to info-en are confidential, so you will simply have to assume my good faith as a Wikipedia editor and administrator that I'm not lying. If you still insist in not believing me, contact one of the other people who works the queue and ask them to look at ticket 2006042510002736. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you had simply indicated that much at the outset, rather than the cryptic "I have reason to believe," that would have saved a lot of time. For the record, I did assume good faith (which I why I haven't reinserted the newspaper info). But "I have reason to believe" is, at the very least, not an acceptable basis for an edit. And threats to block based on my not accepting such a statement are laughably imperious. Should you attain a statement of permission, please let the editors know. Eleemosynary 17:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The threat of a block is for edit warring, not for "refusing to accept my statement". You've been edit warring on this article to the point that someone wrote to the Foundation, exasperated at your conduct. Since you were also reverting a libel in so doing, you came very close to embroiling the Foundation in a potential legal situation. If you had stopped to discuss your edits with the other party instead of continuously reverting them without comment (other than highly abrasive ALL CAPS edit summaries), this entire situation might have been averted. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, Kelly. I was not edit warring. I was reverting unexplained deletions which seemed clearly sourced. If that kind of "conduct" makes one "exasperated," so be it. I still haven't seen any indication (other than your assertion) that the material was libelous. Nor did I "come close to embroiling the Foundation" in any sort of "legal situation." My original edit summaries were not ALL CAPS; they only became so after they were repeatedly reverted without comment. The first reversions were done not by me, but without comment by other users. And none of them were explained, even in the edit summaries. Haughtiness and disingenuousness is no excuse. Eleemosynary 00:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Pioneer Playhouse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]