# Talk:United Palace

An editor who apparently has a close connection with the ownership of the United Palace not only created a suplicative fork article (United Palace House of Inspiration, which I have turned into a redirect to this article), but also made some unexplained deletions from this article, which I would like them to discuss here.  Per WP:BRD, the article should stay in the condition it was in before the controversial editing began. BMK (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I work for the United Palace and was asked to restructure the page, add in content and correct any details. Also the United Palace and the United Palace House of Inspiration are 2 different entities. The United Palace is the building itself and the United Palace House of Inspiration is a spiritual community from Rev. Ike's legacy taken over by his son, Xavier Eikerenkoetter. - ksumagit1
The United Palace needs to know that it cannot control the content of this or any other page on Wikipedia.  Also, while paid editing is not disallowed, it is highly discouraged, and there are requirements.  You need to read what our Terms of Use says about paid editing - the nub of which is you need to declare you connection on your user page and on the talk page of any article you edit for hire, and also WP:COI, our policy on editing with a conflict of interest.Because you have admitted to being a paid employee of the United Palace, I am not going to restore the edits you made en masse, but I and other editors will go through them and restore those that seem reasonable. (Although you also need to read our policies on WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources, since, from what I can tell, the majority of your edits are unsourced, and therefore can be removed by any editor at any time.) In the meantime, I suggest you bring yourself into compliance with our policies and make your declarations.Regarding the spiritual community - you say that they are two different things, but you illustrated your article on it with pictures of the buildings, so I don't think that's a particularly good argument.  I would say that a small amount of information on the congregation could be added as a seperate section to this article.  But, again, please follow WP:COI and do not edit the article directly, make suggestions here and other editors can put them into effect, ifd they agree with them.I will not be able to deal more with this at the moment, but will return to it this evening. BMK (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I understand. Can we place the content that was under the United Palace House of Inspiration wikipedia page under the United Palace page? - ksumagit1  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksumagit1 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
That was my thought.  I'll have time to make the transfer later today, unless another uninvolved editor would like to do it in the meantime. BMK (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Great. And in terms of suggesting edits to the United Palace page, I can place those edits here, correct?- ksumagit1
Yes, that would be the procedure. BMK (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok. How long will it take you and the othe editors to look through the edits I made before and add in the part about the United Palace House of Inspiration? Also, I'd like to suggest changing the original seating capacity in the right hand box and in the history portion. When it opened in 1930, it seated 3,444. The source to support this claim can be found here: http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/44 and here http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/loew-legacy-alive-screens-article-1.617479. - ksumagit1

Sorry, I got hung up on some other stuff and dropped the ball on this.  You'll see some results today.  BMK (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've worked in the material from the United Palace House of Inspiration article.  I tried also to restore some of the edits you made here, but, frankly, they were so tangled up that this turned out to be extremely difficult to do, so I dropped the effort.  It would be easier for you to look through the article and make notes here about what has been missed or what might be changed.  I'll come back later today or tomorrow to copyedit through it (easier to do when one's away from it for a bit). BMK (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Here are my edits: 

First sentence, top paragraph- add in that the United Palace is also a non-profit cultural center. Source: http://unitedpalace.org/about-upca
Top paragraph: Grammar error between Manhattan and New York City. It should be a comma, not a period.
Grammar error under "performance venue" in the first sentence. Only the U needs to be capitalized.
Under “History” in the 3rd paragraph, the number of seating needs to change to 3,444.
Under History, the Kings Theatre is now actually open. Source: http://www.kingstheatre.com
I’d also like to add external links to the official website for the United Palace of Cultural Arts (www.unitedpalacearts.org) and the United Palace Theatre (unitedpalacetheatre.org).
Suggested copy to add under performance venue or the church:
Cultural Arts Center
In addition to the theatre and the church, the United Palace also operates as a non-profit cultural arts center called the United Palace of Cultural Arts (UPCA). UPCA was founded by Xavier in 2012 and works to uplift, educate and unite the community through community art programs, performing arts events and movie screenings. Source: www.unitedpalacearts.org
Also, I uploaded 4 interior photos on June 24. Can those photos be placed under the interior section with the other photos?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksumagit1 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC) 
-ksumagit1  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksumagit1 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC) 

Most of your sggested edits have been implemented, in one form or another. BMK (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I will look at the suggested edits a bit later, but right now let me ask you about the photos you uploaded: where did they come from?  Did you, yourself, take them?  Do you own the copyright on them, or does someone else, or the church? BMK (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the photos are owned by the United Palace, so the church, the theatre or the cultural arts center can use the photos. - ksumagit1  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksumagit1 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC) 

Yes, but if you are not the owner of the images, then you cannot upoload them without showing permission from the copyright owner.  You need to go to Commons:OTRS and show that permission formally. BMK (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear -- as I have a bit of a conflict of interest, being the photographer of some of the images in the article now -- the images you uploaded are good, obviously, since I presume they were taken by a professional photograph with full house lights, and I have no objections to adding them to the article and even replacing some of the ones that are there, but I'm not willing to do so until their status is cleared up with Commons OTRS and they are properly licensed.  When that happens, the photos can, as far as I'm concerned, be added to the article. BMK (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
By adding these photos to Commons:OTRS, we would be putting them in the public domain correct?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksumagit1 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
No. You've already uploaded them to Commons under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license, which is not public domain, it's a license with specific terms, which you can find here.  The photos don't need to be re-uploaded, you simply need to present to Commons OTRS proof that you had the permission of the image's owner (United Palace, presumably) to upload them in the first place.  OTRS will then place a tag on each photo's page with the ticket number which serves as proof that they can be located on Commons.  There will be no change made in the images' licensing. BMK (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
You can see what an OTRS tag looks like on this image. BMK (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
This is what declaration of consent that needs to be sent, correct? The part I am concerned about is the line that says "I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws." If I have someone send this declaration, can I have them remove the word "anyone" and replace with just my name?
I hereby affirm that CHOOSE ONE: [I, (name here), am] OR [I represent (copyright holder's name), ] the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of CHOOSE ONE: [the media work] OR [the work depicted in the media] OR [both the work depicted and the media] CHOOSE ONE: [URLs of the content] OR [attached images/text].
I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. (THIS IS THE STANDARD CHOICE; YOU MAY CHOOSE ANOTHER ACCEPTABLE FREE LICENSE, IF YOU WISH TO)
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
[Sender's name]
[Sender's authority (If applicable. E.g. "Copyright holder", "Director", "Appointed representative of", etc.)]
[Date]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksumagit1 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC) 

Let me see if I can clear things up for you, a least a little:
Where did the text you quote above come from?
Assuming that you (Ksumagit1) had permission to upload the pictures, United Palace has already licensed the images under CC-SA, so the terms of that license already apply.  Anyone can use the images as long as they do so under the same license, or one which is inclusive of all the terms of the CC-SA license.
That being said, you have not given away the copyright on the images, that still belongs to United Palace, and anyone who wants to use the images without doing so under the CC-SA license still has to come to United Palace for permission to do so.
For example, some of my own images have been republished under CC-SA, and all they had to do was to give attribution to me and be clear that they were available for re-use only under the CC-SA rules.  Other pictures of mine have been used in, for instance, commercial textbooks or other copyrighted properties.  In these cases, the people who wanted to use the pictures contacted me and negotiated a fee for the use of the image.  If I had wanted to, I could have turned them away and not let them use the image, because the copyright is still mine.
This is because I uploaded them under a CC license.  Other contributors choose to upload their images into the public domain (PD), in which case anyone can use them without permission or attribution.  You did not do that, you uploaded the four images under CC-SA 4.0, so the United Palace copyright is protected, and the images can only be used under the conditions of the CC-SA license without getting permission from you.
In general, once you've uploaded an image to Commons under a particular license, you cannot change the license to a more restrictive one.  You can change it to a less restrictive one (for instance, you can change CC-SA to PD, but not vice versa).
Lastly, and most importantly, have you contacted the Commons OTRS team?   All I can do is give you information to the best of my understanding.  If you want those images to remain on Commons, you must establish that the uploader (Kusmagit1} had the permission of the copyright holder (United Palace) to do so.  If you don't, the images will be deleted from Commons.
I hope that helps to clear things up for you. BMK (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I got the above text from this link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS
Please provide me with contact info for the Commons OTRS team. - ksumagit1  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksumagit1 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC) 

Send e-mail to
permissions-commons@wikimedia.org
BMK (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
At the end of the Architecture section the street name Wadsworth is misspelled. There is no "r."
Can we link the United Palace House of Inspiration to UPHI.org and United Palace of Cultural Arts to unitedpalacearts.org?
Can we delete or move the part about Andy Feltz under performance venue? It sounds like all of those events were produced by him and they weren't. We also have lots of Latino concerts at the United Palace. May I suggest: The United Palace also presents Latin and rock concerts. Since 2007 the pop acts include: 
- ksumagit1

The general rule of thumb is one official link per article.  Since the United Palace website has links to the UPHI and UPCA sites, there's no need for additional links.  As for Feltz, please provide a list of which of the concerts were produced by him, and which were produced by you and I'll clean up the section, but I will certainly not remove his name from the article entirely. BMK (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, please note that the picture you uploaded to Commons and is in use on Xavier Eikerenkoetter has the same problem as the other images we've been discussing, and must be cleared with the Commons OTRS team, or else it will be deleted. BMK (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
On the theatre side, we do not produce concerts. We only lease the space to promoters, such as Andy Feltz. Those concerts listed on our wikipedia site are produced from a variety of promoters, not just Feltz. Those lines read more like an advertisement for his business, that people have to go through him to book an event, which is not the case. People need to go through our licensing manager to book space. This is the reason I asked if he can be deleted. If not, I will provide you with a list of concerts he produced. 
As for the Xavier, yes I saw the message and am working with the United Palace to get that email sent stating that I have consent. - ksumagit1

If I understand correctly, he was the first to produce concerts there commercially.  If so, then he needs to be in the article, as that was significant historically. I can make the paragraph clearer with the information as to what he produced (not all of which necessarily has to be in the article), and also be clearer that since then other promoters have utilized the facility.  Perhaps a list of who did what would be helpful.  If you post it here, I'll condense it for the article. BMK (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually Feltz was not the first to produce concerts at the United Palace. Here is a DVD from an Aventura show from 2005: http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/movie/pid/6939373/a/aventura+-+love+%26+hate+concert+sold+out+at+the+united+palace.htm. I can provide you with examples of other acts that we had at the United Palace before Feltz, if needed. - ksumagit1

I'm sorry, given the rather devious attempt to misuse the Common OTRS process to delete four of the images you've already uploaded, while keeping a fifth, I can no longer in good conscience continue to work with you on editing this article.  You can certainly continue to make suggestions for changes (see the next section), but other editors will have to institute them. See my comment here for further information. BMK (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I have made suggestions in the next section below but no one reached out to me. Please connect me with an editor. - ksumagit1  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksumagit1 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC) 

Everyone here is a volunteer, and every editor can decide for themselves where they want to edit.  I'm afraid you'll have to wait until an editor with an interest in this article reads the talk page and decides to act (or not act) on your suggestions.  As I told you before, you have no inherent right as an employee of the subject of the article to control or shape the content of the article. BMK (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Please put your suggestions in this new section. BMK (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello I had suggested that we remove/reword the part about Andy Feltz under the peferformance section. Andy Feltz was not the first to produce concerts at the United Palace. Here is a DVD from an Aventura show from 2005: http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/movie/pid/6939373/a/aventura+-+love+%26+hate+concert+sold+out+at+the+united+palace.htm. I can provide you with examples of other acts that we had at the United Palace before Feltz, if needed. The way it is worded now makes It sounds like all of those events were produced by him and they weren't. As I explained before, those lines read more like an advertisement for his business, that people have to go through him to book an event, which is not the case. People need to go through our licensing manager to book space. We also have lots of Latino concerts at the United Palace. May I suggest: The United Palace also presents Latin and rock concerts. Since 2007 the pop acts include: - ksumagit1

From what I've seen a photo gallery is at the bottom. User:Beyond My Ken, show me these other pages with galleries breaking up the text. - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no requirement that galleries be at the bottom, and, in fact, there are many, many articles in which galleries are spread throughout the text. It's not my responsibility to educate you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Having images spread throughout the text is fine. But when a half-dozen or more images are grouped together and given their own section named "Gallery", it goes on the bottom of the page, with only refs and External links below it. Your version looks like it needs a copy editor. - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
No response. I'm moving it to the bottom to match every other page that uses a Gallery section, as described above. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I've been trying to update some of the information regarding the United Palace Theatre (and church) as well as some of the images. Some of them only to improve their quality and some others to show both the building itself (theatre and the spiritual side (church). I tried to insert references to support some of the words (i.e. church) I have included in the article, but I still haven't got it right. I currently work for the United Palace, and was appointed to do this task, is there anything I am missing while trying to make this information accurate? Thanks Dorisnz (talk)

The problem is that your edits are a combination of OK and bad, and many indicate that you probably have a WP:Conflict of interest and shouldn;t be editing this article at all.  What, if anything, is your connection to the United Palace, and are you being paid to edit this article? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Can you point out at least one example of the "bad edits"?. I currently work for the organization, but I am not being paid to edit this article. The organization is only trying to have more accurate information available and updated images.Dorisnz (talk)
If you work for the organization, then they pay you, and you have a serious WP:COI and should not be edting the article at all.  Read the COI policy, and make any suggestions you may have for changes here on the talk page for other editors to evaluate and decide whether they should go into the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)