User talk:Inquiringmindswanttoknow

Inquiringmindswanttoknow, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Inquiringmindswanttoknow! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Hello, I'm NeilN. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Street Artists Program of San Francisco seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Street Artists Program of San Francisco. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 3 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Street Artists Program of San Francisco page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Street Artists Program of San Francisco. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Seaphoto^Talk 01:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern:

Let just say for now that you are who you claim to be. That is; you are an unpaid volunteer that has no connection to the Arts Commission; it's staff and no prior knowledge of the San Francisco Street Artists Program.

Then you may not be aware of the raging controversy that recently erupted when the Arts Commission without proper public input spent over $200,000.00 and published a vanity book that among other things contained numerous factual errors and omissions concerning the founders and creation of the Street Artist Program.

So you may understand my suspicion when after 41 years since the creation of the Street Artist Program and after 13 years that Wikipedia has been launched, coincidentally some one named James Carroll proceeded to collect 40 year old newspaper clippings, write a Wikipedia article, and again deny the credit due to one of the Street Artist Guild founders Bill Clark and attempt as the Arts Commission has done previously, to write him out of Street Artist history.

Furthermore, when you claim you are an disinterested party and the article was"hijacked" and proceed to delete and erase relevant history, my suspicions are heighten further.

The original posting by James Carroll was a draft at best and should have never been publish without the review of another knowledgeable and unbiased artist that was involved with the Street Artist Movement over the four decades that the author attempts to cover.

In addition, James Carroll got the name of the program backwards. The proper name of the program is: the San Francisco Street Artists Program and not the Street Artists Program of San Francisco.

James Carroll bemoans the weeks he expended researching and authoring this issue yet he has no problem denying Bill Clark the 4 decades that Mr. Clark has spent on co-founding and persuading the work for the Street Artist Movement and Street Artist program without any compensation or acknowledgment.

And if this article is not an advertisement but a Encyclopedic account and accurate 41 year history, then there are bound to be controversies that demand to be included under the First Amendment Right of Free Speech.

Even if you disagree with it, you have no right to restrict Free Speech and entirely redact the true controversies that were accurately sourced from two San Francisco Governmental Civil Grand Juries regarding the Arts Commission's mismanagement of the Street Artist Program and a sourced major newspaper article where Bill and Bob Clark had the City return $56,000 misappropriated and then falsely claimed that the :"...Controversy section is totally out of left field and does not fit with the tone of the article at all."

These deletion of pertinent critical government reports that specifically investigated the arts commission mismanagement of the Street Artist program raises serious questions of the competence of cyber editors on this issue and the veracity of their claims that they are unbiased and unpaid editors that is just trying to help achieve a accurate forty year account of the San Francisco Street Artists program. Inquiringmindswanttoknow (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to the other editors, but I have no dog in this hunt; I ran across your edits while performing recent edit patrol using Huggle, a program we use to monitor recent changes. I reverted because your edit was non-neutral, and unsourced. Wikipedia strives for neutrality, presenting the bare facts without passion or prejudice. We don't always achieve those goals, but we are trying. For your edits to have a better chance to stand, first try and reduce the tone of advocacy, and second, supply a verifiable, independent source. For example, if your local newspaper has done any recent articles on the subject, that would be a great place to start. You can see WP:SOURCES to give you guidance on what is considered a good quality reference. I hope this helps you in your editing. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me via my talk page. Cordially. Seaphoto^Talk 01:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know how what I posted was not from a creditable sourced and sourced correctly. See below: Controversies

Civil Grand Jury #1 1977

The Civil Grand Jury's Report on the San Francisco Street Artists program states: “A major concern in this area is the issuing of licenses to Street [Artists] Merchants. The rules of "hand crafted”, and "original design of materials" are many times not adhered to by the merchants [Street Artists] and the recommendation of this Jury is directed at the Arts Commission to more carefully review both the new applications and the existing permits of the merchants [Street Artists] and be assured that these ruled have been complied with or refuse to issue a new license, and/or withdraw existing permits."

Source: page 11 http://www.archive.org/stream/civilgrandjuryre197677cali/civilgrandjuryre197677cali_djvu.txt

1987

Artist's Funds Recovered

Street Artist Bill and Bob Clark recover $56,000 for Street Artists. "The Clarks contend that the city misappropriated thousands of dollars from the street-artists program over the past 15 years by putting unspent fees into the city's general fund.

Convinced by their arguments the city controller has agreed to credit the [Street Artists] program with an additional $56,000."

Keane, Thomas G., SF Chronicle Nov. 13,1987 pg. A 4 Brothers Find $56,000 for Street Artist, S.F. Mistake Put Money in General Fund

2011

Street Artist Program Audit

After 40 years without an audit the Arts Commissions requested the Controller to perform one on the Street Artists Program when they discovered Artist's funds were stolen and the Arts Commission staff hid the fact and did not notified them. The report was titled: The Street Artists Program Should Improve Its Internal Controls and Accounting Practices. The audit found that the Program Staff would not perform proper follow up after receiving a bad checks. And a promise was made by the Arts Commission that they would have internet Street Artist Licensing renewal capability by July 19, 2011. Nearly 3 years later that promise has not be fulfilled.

Source: http://sfcontroller.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=2331

2012

Civil Grand Jury #2

A San Francisco Civil Grand Jury of June 2012 investigated the Arts Commission and the Street Artist Program and issued a report titled: "Where There's Smoke... The Need to Strengthen the Art Commission’s Stewardship of San Francisco’s Cultural Legacy" stating:

"The [Arts Commission's] institutionalized neglect [of the Street Artists] has real consequences. One consequence of that neglect is that, as estimated by practicing Street Artists, a quarter of items displayed do not meet the requirements for artist-made products."

Furthermore, the Civil Grand Jury of June 2012 recommended that the San Francisco Street Artists program be remove from under the Arts Commission's authority and stated : "Relocate the Street Artist Program to the Office of Small Business so the Program and street artists will get the proper attention they deserve and need."

Source: the Grand Jury's Press release at: http://www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/Arts%20News%20Release_072612.pdf

Source: "Where there's smoke" at: http://www.sfgov3.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=2627

Inquiringmindswanttoknow (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Street Artists Program of San Francisco shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Hello, Inquiringmindswanttoknow. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Street Artists Program of San Francisco, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.[reply]

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NPOV

We're not adding self-congratulatory puffery such as this to articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please read Wikipedia:NOFREESPEECHHERE and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive and tendentious editing, edit warring, deletion of sourced content. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]