Jump to content

Talk:Street Artists Program of San Francisco

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deletions

[edit]

I deleted the statement, "The new arts program would be run by a chief administrator, Tomas Mellon, and" because it is incorrect. The SF Arts Commission was given the authority to run the Street Artist Program not Mellon as the sentence before this one clearly states.

I also deleted the sentence about Joy McCoskey because it incorrectly makes it appear that she was the person who suggested the midnight to 6 AM rule when she wasn't. It was already in effect under the original Kopp Ordinance and was in the new safety regulations that were being discussed and voted on at the SF Board of Supervisors meeting at which she made her comment supporting the rule.

I also replaced the word, "developed" with the word, "authored" because it more accurately described what I did. I "authored" Proposition J. I didn't "develop" Proposition J.

Finally, I'd like to know why was the statement about Bob Clark and Dale Axlerod being cited while putting up "Yes on J" posters and my other edits deleted?

I cited a reliable source for all of those edits and they are all important parts of the history of the Street Artist Program.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.240.200 (talk)

Who are you? Wikipedia has strict rules against sock puppetry and meat puppetry. All posts must be signed. Yoninah (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I accidentally forgot to sign my post this time but you know who I am by my statement that I authored Proposition J. Now please answer my question. William J. Clark 66.81.240.211 (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you accusing me of sock puppetry and/or meat puppetry?
I used my friend's computer while I was staying at her house watching it for about a month while she was away. I occasionally used my own computer during that period when I was working in my workshop and I am now using just my own computer since I am no longer staying at my friend's house.
I have not told anyone to come to this site and post anything in this article. In fact, I've told a few people not to waste their time trying to post here because I can handle it myself. William J. Clark 66.81.240.211 (talk)
The reason why suspicions like these are raised is because you're using a different IP address, which can raise concerns that you might be asking other people to help you out, or you are "IP hopping". Things like these has happened in the past, and usually the culprits were blocked from editing. To ensure that we know that you are always Mr. William J. Clark, you should create an account and log in with it. K6ka (talk | contribs) 13:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern with sock puppetry and meat puppetry but even if someone creates an account those two things can still occur simply by the person still using other IP addresses or by giving their user name and password to anyone they want. I've explained the reason why I used two different IP addresses and that I am not telling people to post here so I hope it ends your suspicions regarding me.
I am not interested in starting an account because I don't intend to post on Wikipedia on an ongoing basis. I only made edits on this particular article because I was one of the main people involved in the movement to create the SF Street Artists Program and I am not going to allow anyone to post misinformation about what really occurred and who were the people responsible for the creation of the SF Street Artist Program.
I posted some relevant information on another Wikipedia article but I have no intention or interest in posting on any other Wikipedia article in the future.
I would have been finished editing this article and wouldn't have made any further edits in this article if someone had not deleted my previous edits and replaced them with the incorrect history that my previous edits had corrected.
Now please answer my question. William J. Clark 66.81.240.96 (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Between you and your friend Inquiringmindswanttoknow, so much non-neutral and "self-congratulatory" text was being inserted into the article that an administrator reverted the page back to an NPOV (neutral) version. The information about Dale Axlerod and Robert Clark was frankly tangential to the description of the ballot initiative and its approval. I'm sure there's much more you'd like to say about yourself and your role in the Street Artists Program, but the goal in Wikipedia is to be as brief and succinct as possible. Not everything needs to be said. Yoninah (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Replacement of Sourced Facts with Personal Recollections

[edit]

William Clark continues to flaunt the most basic rules of Wikipedia by continually deleting sourced facts and replacing them with his own flawed personal recollections. Case in point are his repetitive deletion-edits concerning the statement, "To end the problem of people guarding their selling spaces overnight, street artist Joy McCoskey suggested that no selling spaces could be occupied between the hours of midnight and 6 am." That is a directly sourced fact from a November 22, 1975 article of San Francisco's main newspaper (The Chronicle) which even includes a photo of Joy McCoskey from that meeting, along with the caption "She spoke for Street Artists". Clark’s continual refusal to register with Wikipedia and his frequent anonymous edits from various IP addresses also contribute to the confusing behavior of sock puppetry. Rather than persist in an unending edit-war from an obsessive individual, Wikipedia needs to reexamine it's initial assumption of “good faith editing” and consider page protections for this article.James Carroll (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After I informed Yoninah and K6ka of the legitimate reason why I used two IP addresses and after being informed that I should sign my name after my posts I have signed my name every time except once when I accidentally forgot to sign it. Despite that fact, Mr. Carroll continues to falsely accuse me of sock puppetry for some personal reason and is trying to prevent me from editing this article.
Mr. Carroll also accuses me of "flaunting the most basic rules of Wikipedia by continually deleting sourced facts and replacing them with his own flawed personal recollections".
Flawed personal recollections?
This isn't just my personal recollections. I have the public records that prove I am correct.
Since Mr. Carroll considers himself a good researcher, he must have a copy of the original Article 24 which created the Street Artists Program on March 27, 1972 and he knows that nowhere in that legislation is language giving the CAO, Tomas Mellon the authority to run the original SF Street Artists Program. Article 24 gave the SF Arts Commission the authority to run the original SF Street Artists Program. The only legislation that would have given Mr. Mellon the authority to run the SF Street Artists Program was the legislation proposed by Supervisor Kopp which the SF Board of Supervisors rejected. There was a separate resolution No. 175-72 that was adopted by the SF Board of Supervisors at the same March 27, 1972 SF Board of Supervisors meeting "...designating, for a limited period of time, areas where street artists or craftsmen may sell or solicit offers to purchase art or craft items of their own creation; designating the Chief Administrative Officer to head a task force to study and report to the Board of Supervisors on the feasibility of designating a permanent central sales area." The newspaper article Mr. Carroll quoted obviously erroneously stated that this resolution gave CAO Tomas Mellon the authority to run the original SF Street Artists Program when all it did was give Mr. Mellon the authority to head the task force that was going to look for a permanent central sales area where street artists would be allowed to sell their art or craft items. If Mr. Carroll does not have a copy of Resolution No. 175-72 then he can go to SF City Hall and get a copy.
Just because a newspaper article erroneously states that Mr. Mellon was given the authority to run the original SF Street Artists Program doesn't mean it was true.
As far as the statement made by Joy McCoskey that was posted in a newspaper article, since Mr. Carroll considers himself a good researcher, he must have a copy of the proposed new safety regulations which included the midnight to 6 AM rule that were being discussed and voted on at the SF Board of Supervisors meeting at which Ms. McCoskey made her statement in support of the midnight to 6 AM rule. Ms. McCoskey was NOT the person who first suggested the midnight to 6 AM. rule which the statement Mr. Carroll posted erroneously suggests was the case.
In fact, The original SF Street Artist Guild proposed a time restriction prohibiting certified street artists from selling on the public sidewalk from 11:30 PM to 8:00 AM. That time restriction was contained in the SF Street Artist Guild's proposal that was voted down by the Police, Fire and Safety Committee of the SF Board of Supervisors on January 11, 1973. That proposal was referred to as the "Barbagelata Proposal" and the time restriction was labeled number 11 under the proposed list of conditions and limitations.
The proposed legislation referred to as "The Barbagelata Proposal" is contained in File No. 109-72-10 which is available to the public at SF City Hall.
BTW, Ms. McCoskey was speaking only for herself and those street artists who were members of the "Street Artists Coalition". She was not speaking for all of the street artists and she was not speaking for my brother, Robert J. Clark and myself. We represented ourselves at that meeting.
Finally, I would like to respond to Mr. Carroll's defamatory statement, "Clark’s continual refusal to register with Wikipedia and his frequent anonymous edits from various IP addresses also contribute to the confusing behavior of sock puppetry. Rather than persist in an unending edit-war from an obsessive individual, Wikipedia needs to reexamine it's initial assumption of 'good faith editing' and consider page protections for this article."
I informed Wikipedia of the legitimate reasons why I see no need for me to register with Wikipedia. I also informed Wikipedia of the legitimate reason why I posted from two IP addresses.
Mr. Carroll continues to call me "an obsessive individual" who should be prevented from editing this article when all I am is a person dedicated to making certain this article contains the truth regarding the history of how the SF Street Artists Program was created and who the people were who were responsible for the creation of the SF Street Artists Program.
William J. Clark 66.81.241.77 (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Clark, I also question your veracity. Your decision not to log in is NOT a legitimate one. In Wikipedia terms, "signing your name" doesn't mean writing your name and then hitting "enter". It means signing up for an account and then logging in with your personal password before you begin editing. (This will also allow you to edit from any computer; as long as you log in, your username will appear the same in every post.) You can choose the name William J. Clark as your username, and then it will print properly on each post, just like mine and everyone else's. It doesn't matter if you're just planning to edit this one article; it's a system that Wikipedia has chosen to make posting and reviewing other editors' posts more consistent and easy to track. If you continue to post from different IP addresses, you are gaming the system and may very well be accused of sock puppetry. Yoninah (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've again deleted the incorrect statement that CAO Tomas Mellon was authorized to run the original SF Street Artists Program. I explained to Mr. Carroll that the newspaper was incorrect and that Mr. Mellon was only authorized to head a task force to try to find a permanent centralized sales location where street artists would be allowed to sell their art and craft items. I supplied Mr. Carroll with the file number of the resolution which gave Mr. Mellon that authority and since Mr. Carroll is a good researcher, he should have no trouble getting a copy of the resolution at SF City Hall.
I can also provide several articles in reliable newspapers stating that fact if it is necessary.
I also again deleted the statement about Joy McCoskey because of the reasons I have already stated. Her statement at the hearing in which she merely said she supported the midnight to 6 AM rule is inconsequential to the history of the SF Street Artists Program and therefore should not be included in the article.
If Mr. Carroll believes otherwise then he should cite some legitimate and reliable source that supports his belief before he is allowed to repost those two statements.
William J. Clark 66.249.173.226 (talk) 02:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Clark, please read WP:OWN. What you are claiming is that Mr. Carroll's reliable source is no good in your opinion. This is not the way Wikipedia works. If you have a different source, you can add it to the page as an alternative opinion ("However, X paper says...") but you cannot simply remove sourced material just because you don't like it. Moreover, you should be discussing any changes you think should be made on the talk page, rather than constantly deleting whatever information you don't agree with in the article. In the eight years I've worked on Wikipedia, I have never seen a talk page like this one, where your posts all seem to be addressing an omnipotent personage while defending your views against everyone else's. You should be talking directly to the other editors, and maintaining a civil and respectable tone. Yoninah (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per Yoninah's note, I've reverted back to what we have sources for. If secondary sources can be found contradicting the text, then relevant excerpts from those sources can be posted here so we can decide how to incorporate them. --NeilN talk to me 18:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah, I am not simply removing sourced material just because I don't agree with it. I posted on this talk page the file number of the resolution the SF Board of Supervisors passed on the same day they created the SF Street Artists Program that only gave CAO Tomas Mellon the authority to head a task force to try to find a permanent centralized sales location where street artists would be allowed to sell their art or craft items. In the talk page I even quoted the resolution verbatim for Mr. Carroll and told him that he could get a copy of it at SF City Hall.

I also explained on the talk page the legitimate reasons why I deleted the statement by Joy McCoskey.

In the 43 years that I have been involved in the SF Street Artist Program I have always talked civilly to everyone about the true facts regarding the SF Street Artists Program until they have insulted me or defamed my character simply because I dared to assert the true facts that they disagree with.

In the future, if I want to edit something I'll proceed in the manner you have informed me I should do it.

William J. Clark 66.81.242.44 (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to respond to Yoninah's recent posts. Yoninah posted:

"Mr. Clark, I also question your veracity. Your decision not to log in is NOT a legitimate one. In Wikipedia terms, 'signing your name' doesn't mean writing your name and then hitting 'enter'. It means signing up for an account and then logging in with your personal password before you begin editing. (This will also allow you to edit from any computer; as long as you log in, your username will appear the same in every post.) You can choose the name William J. Clark as your username, and then it will print properly on each post, just like mine and everyone else's. It doesn't matter if you're just planning to edit this one article; it's a system that Wikipedia has chosen to make posting and reviewing other editors' posts more consistent and easy to track. If you continue to post from different IP addresses, you are gaming the system and may very well be accused of sock puppetry."

I think my decision not to register and log in was a legitimate one. However, since it appears that you are going to question my veracity and accuse me of sock puppetry if I don't register and log in, I have decided to register and log in.

Yoninah posted:


"Between you and your friend Inquiringmindswanttoknow, so much non-neutral and "self-congratulatory" text was being inserted into the article that an administrator reverted the page back to an NPOV (neutral) version."

The person who is referred to as inquiringmindswanttokow is NOT a friend of mine. I know who he is and he is grown man. He does what he wants to do. I have nnothing to do with what he does on this site.

What you call "non-neutral" and "self-congratulatory" text is merely a factual account of what happened. BTW, the truth is it was MY idea to create the San Francisco Street Artist Guild and it was also my idea to create the certification process in an attempt to force the SF Police Department to issue Police Peddler Permits to artists and craftspeople to sell their own art or craft items so that the Tax Collector would issue General Peddler licenses to them. I went through hell to force the City of San Francisco to start the SF Street Artists Program and just because I post some true facts about what I did that isn't "non-neutral" and "self-congratulatory" text. It's what actually happened.

Yoninah posted:

"The information about Dale Axlerod and Robert Clark was frankly tangential to the description of the ballot initiative and its approval. I'm sure there's much more you'd like to say about yourself and your role in the Street Artists Program, but the goal in Wikipedia is to be as brief and succinct as possible. Not everything needs to be said."

What happened to Dale Axlerod and my brother, Robert Clark, was very significant to the passage of Proposition J because it was one example of how the police were harassing and arresting Proposition J petitioners and people who were hanging up "Yes on J" posters. That police harassment and those arrests deterred other people from circulating petitions and hanging up campaign posters.

I'm leaving a lot of information out about what I and other people did in order to get the SF Street Artist Program established because I know this article is not meant to be a detailed history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William J. Clark (talk • contribs) 03:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to delete the statement about CAO Thomas Mellon (Thomas not Tomas) being given the authority to run the original SF Street Artists Program in March, 1972 because that is incorrect. According to a March 24, 1972 article in the San Francisco Chronicle entitled, "New Rules for Street Artists", the Police, Fire and Safety Committee of the SF Board of Supervisors "agreed unanimously that authority for licensing an estimated 300 street artists should pass from the Police Department to the Art Commission, which would be aided by a five-member advisory committee of artists who would verify the originality of the arts and crafts sold." According to a March 28, 1972 article on page 4 of the San Francisco Chronicle entitled, "Supervisors Act - Curbs Voted on Street Artists", "The Board of Supervisors acted yesterday on three matters aimed at regulating the city's estimated 300 street artists. In separate actions the board voted to: Restrict the vendors for the present, to the Embarcadero Plaza. Issue them vending permits at a cost of $20 every three months. Give the Art Commission the authority to issue the permits...The supervisors voted 7-4 to approve the recommendation of their Police, Fire and Safety Committee that the Art Commission issue the permits. The four opponents favored delegation of that authority to the police or the chief administrative officer." According to an article on page 20 of the February 11, 1972 S.F Examiner entitled, "Task Force Saddled With Street Artists", "The destiny of San Francisco's street artists today was consigned to a handful of City officials, led by Chief Administrative Officer Thomas J. Mellon. Mellon was instructed by the Board of Supervisors' Police, Fire and Safety Committee to lead a task force search for a suitable City-owned site - preferably a waterfront pier - where craftsmen could display their wares unhassled...Meanwhile, two conflicting ordinances to regulate street artists were taken under submission for one month. A measure by Supervisor Robert H. Mendelsohn would establish a five-member commission of craftsmen to regulate their fellows and issue permits. Another by Supervisor Kopp would invest Mellon with artist licensing authority and prohibit street artist use of streets, sidewalks or public parks. According to a March 24, 1972 article on page 14 of the S.F. Examiner entitled, "Embarcadero Plaza For Street Artists", "With the site resolution, the Board Monday will receive an ordinance establishing new procedures for licensing street artists. It would take the licensing away from the Police Department, which has issued just one license in recent years, and give it to the Art Commission." According to an article in the April 21, 1972 S.F. Examiner entitled, "Angry Artists Picket City Hall", "Even before the artists can function under the new law at Embarcadero Plaza, they must obtain permits from the Art Commission, which is still setting up machinery for issuing permits. None have been issued so far. Perhaps, by the end of the week, said Commission Secretary Martin Snipper." All these news articles as well as the sources I previously cited in this talk page clearly show that the one article cited by Mr. Carroll on page 6 of the December 6, 1972 S.F. Chronicle entitled, "The Street Artist Hassle Worsens" was incorrect when it stated that the new arts program would be run by a chief administator Thomas Mellon.

Therefore, I would like to delete that statement but I won't until I get permission from someone at Wikipedia. William J. Clark (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to delete the statement, "To end the problem of people guarding their selling spaces overnight, street artist Joy McCoskey suggested that no selling space could be occupied between the hours of midnight and 6 am."

That statement makes it sound like Joy McCoskey was the person who suggested to the SF Board of Supervisors' Police, Fire and Safety Committee that they create a midnight to 6 AM rule and inaccurately states what was said in the source cited. The news article states that the Police, Fire and Safety Committee of the Board of Supervisors was voting on reenacting "...the so-called Kopp street artist ordinance to forbid occupancy of these spots between midnight and 6 a.m." Then the article states that "McCoskey urged the last two measures to eliminate the occupation of desirable locations by force which she said has sometimes been employed - by permanent camping-out on them."

McCoskey was merely stating her support for the midnight to 6 AM rule which had already been in effect since the adoption of the Kopp Ordinance and is frankly tangential and inconsequential to the history of the SF Street Artists Program.

Therefore, it should not be included in the article and I would like to delete that statement but I won't until I can get permission from someone at Wikipedia.

However, if Wikipedia wants the statement about Joy McCoskey to remain in the article then I would like the statement about Dale Axlerod and Robert J. Clark being cited by two undercover SF police officers for putting up a "Yes on J" campaign sign reposted in the article. I would like it reposted because what happened to Dale Axlerod and Robert Clark is much more significant to the passage of Proposition J and the history of the Street Artists Program than Joy McCoskey making a personal statement in front of the Board of Supervisors' Police, Fire and Safety Committee in support of the re-enactment of the midnight to 6 AM rule when that rule was already approved and in effect at the time of her statement. William J. Clark (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for a response from someone. William J. Clark (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize; I am busy preparing for and soon celebrating the Pesach holiday. I'll be back in a few weeks. Yoninah (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's going to take you several weeks to deal with my request because you will be celebrating the Pesach holiday, I am going to delete the two statements and when you return, you can reinstate them if you think it is necessary. William J. Clark (talk) 23:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something weird happened to a message I posted on James Carroll's Talk Page.

[edit]

Yesterday, I posted the below message on James Carroll's Talk Page and today it is no longer there. I am posting it here so no one can accuse me of not trying to work with Mr. Carroll in a civil manner.

I posted a bunch of news articles

[edit]

on the talk page of the Street Artists Program which all state that the Arts Commission was given the authority to head the SF Street Artists Program in March of 1972 not CAO Thomas Mellon. After waiting a week, Yoninah finally responded by saying it will be a couple of weeks before she can get to it because she is celebrating Passover so I deleted the statement about CAO Mellon heading the SF Street Artists program in March of 1972. After you read the quotes from the articles I posted, I think you will agree that the statement about Mellon should be deleted. I also deleted the statement about Joy McCoskey for the reasons I stated on the Talk Page. Her making a statement in support of the midnight to 6 AM rule at that hearing really isn't important to the history of the Street Artists Program and the way it was written it was misleading. I hope you agree because then my involvement in making certain the article is accurate is finished. If you still have a problem with the edits I made then let me know why and I'll be glad to discuss it civilly with you here or on my Talk Page. 66.81.241.3 (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC) 66.81.241.3 (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC) William J. Clark (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to violate Wikipedia’s most basic rules with your repetitive deletions of sourced statements. The last time that you deleted these same 2 sourced statements, it generated this response from Yoninah (from above):
"Mr. Clark, please read WP:OWN. What you are claiming is that Mr. Carroll's reliable source is no good in your opinion. This is not the way Wikipedia works. If you have a different source, you can add it to the page as an alternative opinion ("However, X paper says...") but you cannot simply remove sourced material just because you don't like it."
How hard is it to understand the statement: "you cannot simply remove sourced material just because you don't like it" ??? If you want your edits to persist then you should get in step with how things are done at Wikipedia, otherwise the members of Wikipedia will continue to revert your disruptive deletions of sourced material.James Carroll (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How hard was it for you to delete the message I posted on your Talk Page and then not respond to it?

On April 2nd I posted on this Talk Page six articles from reliable newspapers which all state that the Arts Commission not CAO Thomas Mellon was given the authority to head the SF Street Artists Program in March of 1972 .

How many news articles from reliable sources must I cite before you admit the one newspaper article you cited that stated CAO Thomas Mellon was given the authority to head the SF Street Artists Program in March of 1972 was wrong?

Why are you refusing to let me correct that mistake and instead make me wait several more weeks until Yoninah returns before that error can be corrected?

I don't want to have to cite all of the sources in the article just to point out that CAO Thomas Mellon wasn't given the authority to head the SF Street Artists Program in March of 1972.

I want you to admit that the source you cited was incorrect then the incorrect statement can just be deleted from the article.

I left a message for Yoninah letting her know what I was doing because she wasn't going to back for a couple of weeks.

If she has a problem with what I did then she'll let me know.

BTW, the SF Street Artists Program didn't create a new branch of government. It's part of the Executive branch. William J. Clark (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a saying - Don't revert due to no consensus. Just because an editor has gone on a Wikibreak to celebrate Passover doesn't mean you get to take advantage of their absence to remove sourced statements without them being able to say anything. You even said:

Therefore, I would like to delete that statement but I won't until I get permission from someone at Wikipedia.

.
But you weren't given permission! Just because somebody is absent doesn't mean you get to go ahead and do whatever you want. Consensus has still not been reached.
One more thing - editors are perfectly allowed to remove discussions from their personal talk page at any time, for any reason. See WP:OWNTALK. While archiving is preferred, it is by no means necessary.
I will NOT revert anything in this article, because I am done with edit wars that carry on while a discussion on the talk page is taking place simultaneously. Bold, revert, discuss, but not at the same time. Once a discussion is going on, it's best to stop reverting and gain consensus before adding or removing material. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 00:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

k6ka said, "But you weren't given permission! Just because somebody is absent doesn't mean you get to go ahead and do whatever you want. Consensus has still not been reached."

I spent a lot of time to find and post those 6 articles from reliable sources that all state CAO Thomas Mellon wasn't given the authority to head the SF Street Artists Program in March of 1972. Then after I wait a week, Yoninah pops in for a second and says she is celebrating Passover and won't be back for at least two weeks. Any time a cited source in an article is proven to be wrong by other reliable sources then the incorrect statement should be deleted immediately instead of waiting weeks to delete it and it should be done without any argument from the person who posted the incorrect statement. or by chastising the person who provided the correct information.

k6ka said,: "One more thing - editors are 'perfectly allowed' to remove discussions from their personal talk page at any time, for any reason. See WP:OWNTALK. While archiving is preferred, it is by no means necessary."

It may be "perfectly allowed" at any time but in this case, Mr. Carroll should at least have had the common decency to respond to my message before he deleted it. William J. Clark (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians are never required to respond or take part in a situation/conflict that they are not comfortable with. So Carroll's removal of your comment was within policy.
If the information is correct and provable by reliable sources, then, instead of just removing the information, do what Yoninah suggested: add it into the article as an alternative opinion. "However, X paper says..." and then stick the citation at the end of it. Removing cited information, whether wrong or not, might cause a recent changes patroller to revert the edit because additional sources that proved the statement was wrong was not included. The only time sourced material should be removed is 1. Consensus was given on the talk page, 2. The source provided has nothing to do with the topic/Does not back up what's in the article at all, or 3. The source is unreliable and the statement is potentially harmful and needs to be removed. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 21:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's there for Mr. Carroll to feel uncomfortable about? All I did was post a message on his Talk Page telling him about the news articles I found and that I was willing to have a civil dialog with him on his Talk Page or on my Talk Page about the edits I made. He could have been decent enough to leave some sort of response on my Talk Page instead of just deleting my message and ignoring me. Also, I'm trying to avoid having to cite all of the conflicting reliable sources in the article. All that has to be done is delete the incorrect statement. However, if Mr. Carroll refuses to acknowledge that his cited source was incorrect and agree to delete the incorrect statement then I'll post all of the conflicting reliable sources in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William J. Clark (talk • contribs) 17:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When necessary I have responded to your issues on this article's Talk Page. But that's futile because you choose to ignore all the advice of experienced Wikipedia editors like User:NeilN, User:Seaphoto, and User:K6ka, and User:Yoninah. Though nobody agrees with your position, you still go ahead and change whatever you want regardless. It's no wonder that others and myself are reluctant to respond to your verbose and disorganized proposals. You have not bothered to take the time to learn the most basic methods of Wikipedia (like how to INDENT on a Talk Page or even to sign your name), and yet insist that you should have the right to DELETE previous SOURCED CONTENT. If you want your edits to persist, try learning the ways of Wikipedia and how to build consensus.
Since Mellon was a temporary appointee, I don't have a major problem with his name being removed from the article. However the issue of Guarding Selling Spaces Overnight is very serious and was a dangerous oversight that garnished disorganization and violence among the artists, and was a motivation for the replacement of Proposition J with Proposition L. Despite the existence Kopp Ordinance, the problem with Space Overnight Guarding persisted all through 1975 at Union Square and was not stopped until December of 1975 -- it is very necessary that this article portray the seriousness of that the problem, which was not fixed until after the November 22 1975 meeting with the Supervisors mention in the Chronicle article. I have tweaked the language to say that "Joy McCoskey reiterated" in suggesting that she was not the first person to present the Overnight Rule. However since Joy McCoskey was a significant speaker at that November 22 Supervisors meeting (even had her picture included within the Chronicle article ) makes it very appropriate that her name should be mentioned as being sourced content. As User:k6ka states above, sourced content should NOT be deleted unless "1. Consensus was given on the talk page, 2. The source provided has nothing to do with the topic/Does not back up what's in the article at all, or 3. The source is unreliable and the statement is potentially harmful and needs to be removed." James Carroll (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carroll said, "When necessary I have responded to your issues on this article's Talk Page. But that's futile because you choose to ignore all the advice of experienced Wikipedia editors like User:NeilN, User:Seaphoto, and User:K6ka, and User:Yoninah. Though nobody agrees with your position, you still go ahead and change whatever you want regardless. It's no wonder that others and myself are reluctant to respond to your verbose and disorganized proposals. You have not bothered to take the time to learn the most basic methods of Wikipedia (like how to INDENT on a Talk Page or even to sign your name), and yet insist that you should have the right to DELETE previous SOURCED CONTENT. If you want your edits to persist, try learning the ways of Wikipedia and how to build consensus."

I tried to have a civil dialog with you but it's apparent you prefer to continue to insult me. Since you and the others were ignoring my request, I did what I had to do to get your attention. All I care about is that it worked.

Carroll said, "Since Mellon was a temporary appointee, I don't have a major problem with his name being removed from the article."

Since Mellon was never given the authority to run the SF Street Artists Program not even temporarily I also deleted where the CAO is mentioned. If you don't like that then I'll post in the histoy all of the news articles that contradict your incorrect reliable source.

Carroll said, "However the issue of Guarding Selling Spaces Overnight is very serious and was a dangerous oversight that garnished disorganization and violence among the artists, and was a motivation for the replacement of Proposition J with Proposition L. Despite the existence Kopp Ordinance, the problem with Space Overnight Guarding persisted all through 1975 at Union Square and was not stopped until December of 1975 -- it is very necessary that this article portray the seriousness of that the problem, which was not fixed until after the November 22 1975 meeting with the Supervisors mention in the Chronicle article. I have tweaked the language to say that "Joy McCoskey reiterated" in suggesting that she was not the first person to present the Overnight Rule. However since Joy McCoskey was a significant speaker at that November 22 Supervisors meeting (even had her picture included within the Chronicle article ) makes it very appropriate that her name should be mentioned as being sourced content."

I may not know the important rules of Wikipedia such as when to indent as well as you but I know the history of the SF Street Artists Program better than you.

I was in the middle of it and once the original Kopp Ordinance passed and was enforced that was the end of people guarding their spaces overnight. After Proposition L passed they held the November 22 Supervisors meeting to adopt the original Kopp Ordinance legally. Joy McCoskey's involvement at that meeting was irrelevant to what had already been decided by the Supervisors and is not important enough to be mentioned in this history.

However, If her name is going to be mentioned in this history for just speaking at the November 22 Supervisors meeting then the incident with the police that Dale Axelrod and Robert Clark had should also be mentioned in the history because it is more important that the uninformed reader be made aware of what the SFPD was doing to stop Proposition J from winning. William J. Clark (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Originally written by William J. Clark:"Since you and the others were ignoring my request, I did what I had to do to get your attention. All I care about is that it worked."

Edit warring to gain attention is not how we operate Wikipedia. It's important not to do anything silly or against policy to gain advantage in a dispute. Neither were we trying to insult you. We are merely citing what the policies of Wikipedia have stated, quite clearly. You have not received consensus from the community on which path we should take to develop this article. Consensus first, edit later. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 01:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an edit war just to gain your attention and it's also not about the policies of Wikipedia. This is about the incorrect history of the SF Street Artists Program being allowed to remain in the article. As one of the primary people responsible for creating the SF Street Artists Program, I came to this site in good faith to correct any major mistakes in the article. I was told I would have to cite some reliable sources that contradict what was said in the article. So I spent a lot of my time in order to find some articles but after I posted at least 6 articles from reliable sources that prove CAO Mellon was never given the authority to run the SF Street Artists Program then everyone ignores it or gives the excuse that they can't get to it for several weeks because they are too busy celebrating a religious holiday. There is no excuse for Wikipedia to leave the incorrect information in the article for so long. William J. Clark (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if the consensus by the community is to leave the irrelevant statement by Joy McCoskey in the article then how long do I have to wait to get a consensus about whether to include the Dale Axlerod and Robert Clark incident in the article? William J. Clark (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is an "excuse". Wikipedia is allowed to be imperfect, and there is No Deadline. No encyclopedia is perfect, so there's no reason why Wikipedia should be any different. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 13:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

K6ka said, "Actually, there is an 'excuse'. Wikipedia is allowed to be imperfect,", and there is No Deadline."

In my book there is NO excuse when someone who is an expert on the subject presents evidence so that the mistake will be quickly corrected.

BTW, I am wearing my recent 24 hour ban as a badge of honor alongside my 13 arrests while trying to legalize selling on the sidewalks of San Francisco because they were all acts of civil disobedience in order to get the attention of the powers that be so they will do the right thing.

Now please answer my question. If the consensus by the community is to leave the irrelevant statement by Joy McCoskey in the article then how long do I have to wait to get a consensus about whether to include the Dale Axlerod and Robert Clark incident in the article? William J. Clark (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if Joy McCoskey is going to be mentioned by name in the article just because of her irrelevant statement then Frank Whyte should be mentioned by name somewhere in the early history for all of the relevant and important work he did to help in the creation of the SF Street Artists Program. William J. Clark (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent comment, "BTW, I am wearing my recent 24 hour ban as a badge of honor alongside my 13 arrests while trying to legalize selling on the sidewalks of San Francisco because they were all acts of civil disobedience in order to get the attention of the powers that be so they will do the right thing.", has been deemed unacceptable by the community, and has been viewed as a sign of persistent disruption despite escalation in actions taken. A block is already considered a serious thing, and to not take it seriously and instead wear it as a token of pride instead of a token of learning, has convinced the community that you're not here to build the encyclopedia. Thus, you've been blocked indefinitely. We're here not to promote living persons or entities, but to simply report on them. All articles need to be written in neutral point of view, and they cannot be biased. All content must be sourced by reliable sources. When removing large portions of sourced content, you should consider discussing it on the talk page first. Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, but there are limits too. Also, edit warring - where two editors repeatedly revert each others edits over and over - is not acceptable and can result in blocking. When in doubt, do not edit and do not revert. Both editors must cease immediately and go to the talk page, and no further edits should be made until the dispute is resolved. Administrator action was taken at the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 11:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an aside, k6ka, were Clark's sources ever checked? He was chided for removing sourced statements but, after reading over this talk page, it sounds as if he replaced them with statements from different sources. I'm not familiar with the topic but I hope another editor who has been working on this article could evaluate them. Liz Read! Talk! 14:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: I haven't got around to check the sources (I don't even have an interest in this subject, and I only came across it while on Recent Changes patrol), but I think the main issue here is 1. Persistent deletion of sourced statements and failing to properly cite them in the article, 2. Extreme bias, apparently aimed towards promoting Clark's friends, 3. Edit warring, 4. Because of the apparent disagreement between the sources, instead of including both in the article, Clark removes one and favors the other, and 5. Clark's apparent refusal to listen to the advice of other editors and takes his block as a token of pride. Is that block-worthy? --k6ka (talk | contribs) 15:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward

[edit]

Now that we have hopefully put the edit warring behind us, I would like to know if the page creator, James Carroll, is interested in developing this article further? First we need to check to make sure that any lingering reversions or self-aggrandizing edits inserted by Clark are removed. Are you OK with the last reversion by Clark on April 28?

Second, something that's bothered me about the article for a while is that it only deals with the past. I tried to bring it "up to date" with the Licensing section, but I'm wondering if we could add even a paragraph about "Current activities". I also came across these hits on Google which may or may not apply to this article:

Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Clark's recent edits, we should probably rollback his last change and reinsert the phrase "The new arts program would be run by a chief administrator," back to where it was in subsection "1972." We could drop the reference to him in the sentence "Following the February 6, 1971 arrest of several street artists, including William Clark," and he will still be mentioned four times in more substantial statements. We could also add internal links (many found in the Handicraft article) to the crafts which are listed by name in "Screening Committee" section.
As far as new material concerning "current activities", I am interested in any proposals you might have. Within the news pieces that you have mentioned (Sidewalk Stories, Artists are now settled in Wine Country), the interviews with current artists are interesting but I'm not quite sure how we could bring that material into this article. Do you have any tentative text to present?
Additionally, we could start a new section called "Ongoing Political Endeavors" which could have 2 subsections: "Cost Containment" and "Preservation of Selling Spaces" which are two issues that never go away.
By the way that the program is defined in the city's legislation, funds collected from license fees for the Street Artists Program can only be spent on the program and can not be redirected to pay for other municipal expenses. But since license fees have increased dramatically from $80 a year, there have been efforts from street artists to monitor and reduce the costs of the program, in order to reduce the escalating license fees. Since the city's accounting software is antiquated, it is difficult to audit the expenses of the program, and mistakes with the funds of the program have previously occurred. At least 2 of your links deal with the issue of artists' anxiety of rising license fees.
The second issue, "Preservation of Selling Spaces", has been a problem for decades because changes to the design of buildings' doorways can frequently trigger the invalidation of existing selling spaces. A couple of years ago the National Park Service even wanted to callously place a Train Stop in the middle of the Beach Street selling spaces which would take away 40 percent of those selling spaces. Once again, it came down to the artists themselves to remedy this situation as described in the below article.
Gathering sources and newspaper articles for "Cost Containment" and "Preservation of Selling Spaces" will be more difficult and would require me to physically search within the San Francisco Library's records. If you if you feel these two new sections belong within this article, I could do some research at the SF Library next time I am in town. James Carroll (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Street_Artists_Program_of_San_Francisco&oldid=1274697840"