Talk:Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa

message: I note that the categories for him being gay were recently removed, a suitable reference is his interview in Advocate  Where it is claimed that this is the first time he had been "officially" asked the question. I am sure this means the category can be re-added and something to this effect should be written into the article body. Fæ (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. But the article, and not just the talk page, needs to say it. I will take your information and integrate it. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay 

message: Below is my response to an UNCIVIL and inaccurate post on my page, which  by new user User:Boringbob4wk. removed from his talk page. I would note to him that removing it from this talk page would be, in fact, actual vandalism on his part and would be dealt with by an admin. [My mistake; it appeared to have been removed. This is a minor point that does not detract from the below]
===[Begin post]===
I'm afraid I find your remarks puzzling, as an admin agreed to semi-protect Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa because an anonymous IP was consistently adding non-MOS footnoting, removing citation requests, WP:PEACOCK terms, and most seriously inserting uncited personal material in violation of WP:BLP — doing so by inserting them within footnoted passages to make them appear to be cited. Given the vague and non-specific claims you made in your post at my talk page, I don't believe your charges are valid, and perhaps we need to seek an RfC or other third-party mediation. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just gone to the page and I'm afraid that your calling my good-faith fully edit-summarized edits, which  included restoring citation requests from uncited claims, and adding titles, bylines and dates to footnotes, as vandalism, is inaccurate and slanderous. I understand you are a new user who has only been on since April, but that is no excuse for such behavior. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, Metro Weekly is a periodical. They are italicized. By changing the field from "work" to "publisher", you remove the italics. That is an example of the changes you made to my so-called vandalism. Your intemperate actions and accusations are inaccurate and uncalled for. I hope you don't mind, but I'm afraid I must italicize that periodical. I will also add bylines to the Playbill footnotes. In addition, we don't say "Mr. Aguirre-Sacasa," which I will remove. I don't believe an admin would consider this vandalism, and in fact, at this point, I believe a Wiki etiquette filing would not be out of order. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You additionally removed full citations, inserting instead footnotes that simply lead to a number and a link. Despite what your colleague, the anonymous IP, wrote, Wikipedia does indeed have standards for footnotes and citations, and leaving a bare number and a link is certainly not one of them. I would respectfully ask that you temper your comments, behave more collegially, and, as a new user, read up on Wikipedia citation guidelines. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy of post at User talk:Boringbob4wk

message: I'm afraid I find your remarks puzzling, as an admin agreed to semi-protect Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa because an anonymous IP was consistently adding non-MOS footnoting, removing citation requests, WP:PEACOCK terms, and most seriously inserting uncited personal material in violation of WP:BLP — doing so by inserting them within footnoted passages to make them appear to be cited. Given the vague and non-specific claims you made in your post at my talk page, I don't believe your charges are valid, and perhaps we need to seek an RfC or other third-party mediation. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just gone to the page and I'm afraid that your calling my good-faith fully edit-summarized edits, which  included restoring citation requests from uncited claims, and adding titles, bylines and dates to footnotes, as vandalism, is inaccurate and slanderous. I understand you are a new user who has only been on since April, but that is no excuse for such behavior. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, Metro Weekly is a periodical. They are italicized. By changing the field from "work" to "publisher", you remove the italics. That is an example of the changes you made to my so-called vandalism. Your intemperate actions and accusations are inaccurate and uncalled for. I hope you don't mind, but I'm afraid I must italicize that periodical. I will also add bylines to the Playbill footnotes. In addition, we don't say "Mr. Aguirre-Sacasa," which I will remove. I don't believe an admin would consider this vandalism, and in fact, at this point, I believe a Wiki etiquette filing would not be out of order. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You additionally removed full citations, inserting instead footnotes that simply lead to a number and a link. Despite what your colleague, the anonymous IP, wrote, Wikipedia does indeed have standards for footnotes and citations, and leaving a bare number and a link is certainly not one of them. I would respectfully ask that you temper your comments, behave more collegially, and, as a new user, read up on Wikipedia citation guidelines. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: [Begin post]

message: I have surveyed the playwrights Arthur Miller, Neil Simon, Terrence McNally and Gina Gionfriddo, which span different generations, and neither in their articles nor elsewhere have I found someone adding a link to a positive review at every play in a list where it was possible to do so. Indeed, those articles do not link plays to any reviews.
These positive reviews were not added as citations to verify a play's existence or performance — each play already has a footnoted citation. Rather, they are unnecessary, additional links that appear to be solely promotional. They were added by an editor from an area where the playwright grew up, who has made no edits to any other playwright's article, and whose incivility, edit-warring and sockpuppetry regarding these promotional-seeming edits led to a one-week ban from Wikipedia.
Since it is up to each editor to justify his or her addition of material, I would hope and expect a talk-page discussion before or if this editor resumes trying to add these types of edits, which as noted above do not seem to be used 
elsewhere on Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Promotional additions by an insistent editor

message: Rather than edit-war over the undiscussed removal of pertinent content, I'd like to begin a dialog with User:Leocomix and other interested editors. Julie Taymor's denial that Aguirre-Sacasa was becoming involved seems far too important a fact to simply ignore. The transition wasn't smooth, and to pretend otherwise is whitewashing the circumstances. And while normally sources are mentioned only in footnotes, that fact that these claims and counterclaims were being waged in one high-RS source gives them historical weight they wouldn't have if these reports were coming from tabloid sites. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Taymor's denial