Talk:Street Artists Program of San Francisco

The San Francisco Street Artists Program Article is a History Piece, and not a News Release or a Promotional Advertisement

I can not fathom how anyone would see this as a "news piece", when the substance of the article is really historical in nature. The article is about the history of the invention of a new branch of San Francisco's government.

Please read the original release of the article of 9 February 2014 [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Street_Artists_Program_of_San_Francisco&oldid=594692426 ]. That version is populated with an enormous amount of references to newspaper articles that span 40 years, which were researched at the San Francisco Public Library.

Once again, history is the substance of the topic and its original form of February 9th shows that it is tightly sourced to historic facts from newspaper articles. If it was really "promotional" in nature, then the majority of its text would be without referenced sources. The abundance of sourced references guarantees the essential neutrality of this history piece. The San Francisco Street Artists Program is an public municipal arts program, not unlike thepublic market in Seattle called Pike's Place.

The San Francisco Street Artists Program article is also about a part of San Francisco's government, in much the same way that the San Francisco Arts Commission article describes a branch of government. It would be a mistake to delete any article about a branch of government, or the history involved in the formation of a branch of government.

I created this article because I witnessed an extraordinary sequence of unlikely political events which shaped a new and innovative branch of municipal government, and not because I need to advertise or promote the San Francisco Street Artist Program itself.

Also, to condense the article would be a big mistake. When examining history, we need to see the complete sequencing of events in order to truly understand a phenomena and its causes. When it comes to history, more information is better than too little information. James Carroll (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I just edited the article to include language naming me, Bill Clark, as Warren Garrick Nettles' and Frank Whyte's closest ally in the movement to establish the SF Street Artist Program and state that it was my energy that carried the movement through to its vindication by voters in the 1974 passage of Proposition "J". The source for that information is Dennis Dooley's and Tom Usher's article "Concrete Roots – San Francisco Street Artists Memories & Lore". City Miner Magazine. BTW, that information mentioning me by name was contained in the very next sentence of Concrete Roots immediately after Warren Garrick (Nettles) and Frank Whyte's names were first mentioned. This is where Mr. Carroll got both of their names for his Wikipedia article because he cited Concrete Roots as his source for saying that "Later in the early 1970s two gay artists, Warren Garrick and Frank Whyte, would be instrumental in petitioning San Francisco's government for an arts program that enabled artists to legally sell on the city's sidewalks."

This is proof it is impossible that Mr. Carroll inadvertently left my name out of his article as being one of the people besides Warren Garrick Nettles and Frank Whyte who spearheaded the movement to get the SF Street Artist Program established. The fact is Mr. Carroll deliberately left my name out. I can't explain why he decided to do that so you will have to ask Mr. Carroll to explain why he deliberately left my name out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Glancing at the lede - it's pretty much a NPOV disaster and needs to be entirely rewritten. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggested rewriting

I am not questioning the historical accuracy or necessity of the article. I am questioning the style of writing: of wordiness, foreshadowing, and other journalistic devices that newspaper and magazine writers use to draw people into an article. This is not a newspaper story, but an encyclopedia entry, and needs to be written in much sparser, facts-only, and neutral prose. Rather than work through the piece and have it all reverted, I've gone through the first few paragraphs to show you what I mean by encyclopedic prose. Any inaccuracies in the rewrite are due to the fact that I haven't immersed myself in the article thoroughly enough to really understand what it's saying:

The San Francisco Street Artists Program is a municipal project {not sure of the description} in which independent artists and craftspeople sell art and crafts items that have been predominately created or significantly altered by them, in designated selling spaces throughout the city of San Francisco, California. Founded in 1972, the program is entirely funded by certification fees levied on each street artist, and generates $4 million annually for the city's economy.

The program was the result of a hard-fought political battle by street art advocates who were willing to be arrested many times in order to draw media attention and push for a change in existing laws for public street selling {or whatever it's called}. In 1972, their efforts resulted in the passing of a law allowing artists to legally sell on the city's sidewalks. The Street Artist Program has served as a training ground for grassroots political activism, and is responsible for an ongoing political dialogue about what activities should, and should not, be allowed in public areas. The program has also served as a template for other cities wanting to create their own street artist programs.

{I removed these 2 sentences from the lead, as they are more analysis than declaration, and it's unclear what you're talking about}: Although the original Street Artist Program allowed artists and craftspeople to sell only their own, handmade arts or crafts, today the certified artists and craftspeople of the program are restricted to selling items that they have "predominately created or significantly altered". Commercially-manufactured goods are also allowed to be sold in the program, thus negating an important compromise with local retail establishments.

== History ==

The roots of the San Francisco Street Artists Program go back more than a decade before the defining legislation of 1972. During the 1960s, California was the site of many outdoor art fairs, which nurtured a culture of independent artists and craftspersons. At the same time in the liberal Haight Ashbury neighborhood of San Francisco, there was an effort to sell crafts on Haight Street's sidewalks. {The foreshadowing in the next 2 sentences should be avoided; state what happened in its own chronological section}: Later in 1971 two gay artists, Warren Garrick Nettles and Frank Whyte along with one heterosexual artist, William (Bill) J. Clark, would be instrumental in petitioning San Francisco's government for an arts program that enabled artists to legally sell on the city's sidewalks. Artists and street performers who illegally set up in public areas were frequently harassed and arrested by the police. In the 700 block of Beach Street next to Victoria Park, near Fisherman's Wharf, for example, about 20 artists would sell their goods with the aid of lookouts, who alerted them to the arrival of the police so they could temporarily move and avoid arrest.

{This also belongs later, and needs to be sourced}: The widespread political activism and protests at cities and universities across the United States in the late 1960s and early 1970s is also seen as a cultural catalyst for the grassroots political energy of the San Francisco street-art advocates who would create the first street artist program in America.

Best, Yoninah (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I see where you are going with this. I do not have problem with way you are taking the tone down a couple of notches, and being more objective and concrete. As long as the raw facts remain intact somewhere in the article, I am content. And while I personally see a value in the foreshadowing that I employ to increase the reader's interest, I do not have big problem with its removal either. James Carroll (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Yoninah, I agree that the proposed text is quite an improvement. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want to write an accurate history of the SF Street Artist Program then you should have contacted the people who were directly involved in creating the program who are still alive and still in the program and not simply rely on old newspaper articles for your "facts". Newspaper articles about the street artists were not always accurate. I'm William J. Clark and Warren Garrick Nettles and Frank Whyte were my personal friends and worked with me to get the Street Artist Program started. You ask about sources. I am the source!!! I lived the history and I have all of the historical records in my own personal possession which support every correction I made to your incomplete and partially inaccurate history. For you to remove the portions of the history that I added to your account is ridiculous and a discredit to the people who you left out of the history who worked with Warren and Frank. I don't question your motives for writing the history but your account contains information that is not completely accurate. For you to leave my involvement and contribution out of the early history from 1971-1973 borders on an attempt to rewrite history. Everything I wrote in my edit of your history of the beginning of the Street Artist Program is true and accurate and I have the evidence to prove it. You started this Wikipedia page but you don't own the history of the Street Artist Program and you should be thankful I made the effort to add to your original writings with a more detailed account of the actual events that occurred and the names of some of the other people besides Warren and Frank who were instrumental in forcing the City of San Francisco to start the Street Artist Program. If you doubt the veracity of any of my edits then point them out and we can discuss them right here. If you have no evidence to disprove any of my edits then you have no right to remove them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:1b00:629:20d:93ff:fe7d:f8c8 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 17 February 2014

Dear Mr. Clark, it would be much easier for all of us if we could simply interview people and write articles based on their knowledge, but that isn't how Wikipedia works. The project is based on verifiability, which means that any information that appears in a Wikipedia article must be cited to a source, be it a newspaper article, magazine feature, commemorative pamphlet, book, or online source. (Otherwise, anyone could write anything, and a lot of false information would slip in on any number of subjects.) Verifiability is considered one of the "pillars" of Wikipedia, so you will see on other pages that anything added without a source is usually questioned and removed. Another important pillar is neutral point of view, which means that all sides of an issue must be presented, even those you don't agree with. If you wish to add content that reflects your personal experience with the Street Artists Program, perhaps you can dig up printed articles from the past (they don't necessarily have to be online) that quote you or state the same positions that you want to include the article. Then you can amend the article text based on those sources. Meanwhile, I'm going ahead and reviewing the whole article for accuracy based on the sources provided. Best, Yoninah (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand how Wikipedia works. I know you want newspaper and document sources. However, when someone misrepresents the true history of the creation of the SF Street Artist Program because they rely only on old newspaper articles which are inaccurate and incomplete and the person who actually lived the history and was a major leader of the movement during 1971-1973 isn't even mentioned until the 1974 history then you are doing an injustice to me. I deliberately allowed myself to be arrested in 1971 and 1972 in order to challenge the constitutionality of the San Francisco Peddler Laws and to establish the Street Artist Program. For you not to allow a major participant in the historical event to give their personal account of what happened is like telling jews who lived through the Holocaust that their eyewitness accounts can not be included in the history of the Holocaust because they don't have newspaper articles or other documents to authenticate their accounts. I have hundreds of old newspaper articles and documents which support the edits I made. However, not every substantial person or event which played a major role in the creation of the SF Street Artist Program had a newspaper article written about them. Is Wikipedia going to refuse to allow those people and events to be included in the history simply because there was no newspaper article about them? I resent you telling me that a newspaper reporter writing a newspaper article about something I was personally involved in is a more reliable source of what actually occurred than myself. As a result of living through and participating in the creation of the SF Street Artist Program, I became the historian of the Street Artist Program. I resent you implying that the newspaper reporter who wrote an article is more reliable and unbiased than the person who actually lived through the events. There were many newspaper articles that falsely reported what was actually occurring at the time. I encourage you to do more research on this subject and I suggest that you begin with the SF Arts Commission Street Artist Program's webpage which has a short history about the founders of the SF Street Artist Program. If you would like any information about the history of the creation of the SF Street Artist Program, I will be glad to provide you with that information. However, in the meantime, I am going to repost my edit of this article and if there are any portions of my edit that you think need to be documented then I would appreciate it if you would tell me what they are before you delete them in order to give me the opportunity to search my files for any documentation. William J. Clark (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, you are going to keep removing my edits until I cite a source so I made a few edits at the beginning and cited the sources. It's going to take me a hell of a lot of time to find the documentation to cite all of my other edits that were removed but some of my latest edits use the same cite that Carroll used because they are the same source such as The Arts Commission Street Artist Program's website as a source that besides Warren Garrick Nettles and Frank Whyte, I was a founder of the SF Street Artist Guild and the SF Street Artist Program. BTW, Warren Garrick Nettles was his full name. "Garrick" was his middle name not his last name but he sometimes used only Warren Garrick. The same Arts Commission Street Artist Program's website can be used as a source to cite. If I incorrectly cited my sources you can correctly cite them for me or tell me how to do it correctly. BTW, you should at least change the name of the article to "Street Artist Program" not "Street Artists Program" and the source for that edit is the same SF Arts Commission Street Artist Program website.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk • contribs) 17 February 2014

Thanks for the tip about the name; the "s" did seem superfluous to me and I was going to look up the "official" name on the website. Since you know Wikipedia so well, you should also know that secondary or third-party sources are preferred over primary sources like the website. I'm sorry to hear that so many newspaper sources are incorrect, but we can't put in information that can't be verified in print. Perhaps the article will just have to be shorter than normal until reliable sources can be found. Yoninah (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Both the San Francisco Arts Commission website and the Street Artists Program Bluebook call it "Street Artists Program", so I guess we'll leave it at that. Yoninah (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, your edits have not been deleted - only reverted. They can still be found in the page history. If you need to retrieve information from your reverted edits, you can retrieve it from there. K6ka (talk | contribs) 20:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I can cite plenty of sources for all of my edits and will do so as I slowly edit the article in the future. I just wonder if you would remove edits that Rosa Parks made to the history of the Civil Rights Movement on Wikipedia because she didn't cite her sources for her edited additions to the history. I am the Rosa Parks of the SF street artist movement because I was the person who refused to move and was arrested when the police told me to get my jewelry off of the sidewalk and leave or else they would arrest me. As a result of my refusing to leave and being arrested, that was how my attorney, Public Defender, Peter Keane and his law partner, Robert Kantor became involved in the street artist movement. Finally, I want to ask Mr. Caroll, in all the research you did for the years of 1971-1973 are you saying that you did not see my name mentioned once? If you did see it then why didn't you mention my name as being one of the people who was involved in the history of the Street Artist Program during those early years?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi - please don't use non-existent usernames as signatures. To sign your post, type in ~~~~ at the end of your post (if you can't do that, just don't touch your comment at all for at least two minutes, and a robot will automatically sign it for you).

The Rosa Parks article was not written by Rosa Parks, largely because 1. Rosa Parks didn't write her article 2. Wikipedia prohibits autobiographies and 3. All the information on Rosa Parks's article were from other third-party sources. Wikipedia asks for third-party sources to verify its content, much like other encyclopedias. It can't accept original research or uncited material. If you were arrested, sure, that would be a personal account. You can write a book about it, like a memoir or an autobiography. But Wikipedia isn't the place for that. K6ka (talk | contribs) 21:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Judging by your response, the point I was making about Rosa Parks obviously went over your head. I wasn't referring to any actual article on Wikipedia written by or about Rosa Parks. I was using her as an example of someone who as a result of standing up for her civil rights became a major contributor to the Civil Rights Movement. I wondered if she had edited an article about the history of the Civil Rights Movement on Wikipedia in order to correct some inaccuracies about her involvement in the Civil Rights Movement but cited no sources except her own personal experience would Wikipedia remove her edits? Or would Wikipedia recognize her as an expert on her own personal involvement in the Civil Rights Movement and not remove her edits even though she cited no sources except her own memory of her personal experience which she lived through?

Furthermore, in response to an earlier statement that was made, yes, there were a lot of inaccuracies and lies in the old newspaper articles about what was really happening in regards to the San Francisco street artist movement. All of the SF major newspapers (the San Francisco Examiner and the San Francisco Chronicle in particular) were opposed to the creation of the Street Artist Program and even published editorials against Proposition "J" after we succeeded in getting it on the June 4, 1974 Municipal Ballot. So for Wikipedia to use any news articles written in those two newspapers as a reliable source is a joke. Those newspapers knew which side of their bread was being buttered by the merchant associations in San Francisco and did their bidding.

BTW, I'm still waiting for Mr. Carroll to respond to my questions. I find it impossible for him to do all of that research in the public library and not find any news articles that mentioned my name and my involvement in the street artist movement in 1971-1973 . Hell, my picture was on the front page of the SF Chronicle in 1972 when Supervisor Terry Francois had me arrested along with Warren Garrick Nettles and Barbara Warfield when we attempted to speak during public comment on behalf of the street artists at a Board of Supervisors' Police, Fire and Safety Committee meeting. Did he miss that old newspaper article or did he just ignore it in order to paint me out of the picture?

Finally, yes, I could write a book about my involvement in the SF street artist movement and it would be the true history of the creation of the SF Street Artist Program not the phony history of the Street Artist Program that Mr. Carroll is writing in his Wikipedia article. William J. Clark February 17, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

In the case of Rosa Parks, yes, I literally mean that Wikipedia will reject text written by Rosa Parks herself, if she wrote her own Wikipedia article herself. Wikipedia's policies generally prohibit users from writing autobiographies. If you feel that you are notable and have verifiable sources that confirm your story is true, then sooner or later someone will create an article about you. You can ask another editor about the article, and I think you can request the creation of the article, but you can't actually create the article yourself. See WP:BIOSELF for more details about dealing with articles about yourself.

As we've already mentioned, we cannot accept original research. Your personal experience of being arrested is an example of original research, which Wikipedia unfortunately does not accept. Someone else needs to write about your story and publish it in another source. Your personal account is an example of "primary sources". Wikipedia generally looks for "secondary sources" and "tertiary sources". If you disagree with it, you can ask for change at the village pump, however you need community consensus (i.e. the community is in favour of your decision). What I'm trying to tell you is that we need someone else to write about you before we can write about you in a Wikipedia article. If I was a mass murderer and went on a drive-by shooting that killed hundreds of people, and the event was heavily publicized and reported on by the media, then I would gain notability, especially if I brought change (stricter gun laws). I would not be permitted to write the Wikipedia article about myself, nor can I add any sort of memoir or my personal account of the situation in any Wikipedia article. That would fall under original research, and it would be tagged or removed. However, if a news reporter interviewed me, then wrote a newspaper article about me, editors can cite that newspaper article and put what the news article wrote on the WP article. That's acceptable.

Also, I would kindly ask for you to assume good faith. Nobody's deliberately trying to exclude you from the article, but more like a simply oversight or mistake. Please refrain from using "phony history" or other negative language. Remember that wikis are collaborative projects - many of our articles are of excellent quality because lots of people worked on it, not because one person wrote it all. You're not being deliberately excluded. We just need an external third-party source to confirm that your story is true. Once we find a newspaper article that details and confirms your account, we can include it in the article. However, please exercise patience as Wikipedia is almost entirely volunteer run. Editors are not required to stay on Wikipedia, and they can leave at any time without providing any reason. I'm sure Carroll is working on the sleuth - you can help as well. If you can find any written or electronic source that meets Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines, you can cite it in the article and help make Wikipedia more complete.

If you believe the newspapers made an error, you can revive the case, bring it back to the attention of the media, maybe arrange an interview, and have the newspapers write a retraction (I think that's the correct term) and apologize for their mistake. Once it's written and maybe re-written, we can include it in the article. However, we can't actually have you write the article yourself without proper third-party sources. K6ka (talk | contribs) 17:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought I made it very clear that I wasn't talking about Rosa Parks writing a wikipedia article about herself. I gave the example of Rosa Parks editing an article about the Civil Rights Movement that someone else wrote which contained inaccuracies about her and/or her involvement in the Civil Rights Movement but only used her own personal memories about what happened to her and did not cite any other sources that verified her personal memories. Would Wikipedia delete her edits or would Wikipedia allow her edits to remain in the article even though she didn't cite any sources for her edits?

You state, ":As we've already mentioned, we cannot accept original research. Your personal experience of being arrested is an example of original research, which Wikipedia unfortunately does not accept. Someone else needs to write about your story and publish it in another source. Your personal account is an example of "primary sources". Wikipedia generally looks for "secondary sources" and "tertiary sources". If you disagree with it, you can ask for change at the village pump, however you need community consensus (i.e. the community is in favour of your decision). What I'm trying to tell you is that we need someone else to write about you before we can write about you in a Wikipedia article."

Again, I thought I made it very clear that I'm not talking about wanting Wikipedia or anyone else to write an article about me. I am simply saying that as one of the 3 people who spearheaded the SF Street Artist Movement from its very beginning in 1971, I experienced what actually occurred at the time and I edited the article to correct some inaccuracies Mr. Carroll wrote about me and my involvement in the SF Street Artist Movement during 1971-1973 and to more accurately reflect what actually occurred based on my personal memories. I find it very suspicious that Mr. Carroll cited Dennis Dooley's and Tom Usher's article, "Concrete Roots – San Francisco Street Artists Memories & Lore" in City Miner Magazine as his source for Warren Garrick Nettles and Frank Whyte being the only people "... instrumental in petitioning San Francisco's government for an arts program that enabled artists and craftspeople to legally sell on the city's sidewalks..." yet that very same article then mentions me by name and devotes the next several paragraphs describing how I was the main person responsible for getting San Francisco's government to create the Street Artist Program.

I cannot accept that omission as simply an oversight on Mr. Carroll's part. There is no way he could inadvertently miss those paragraphs so I can only conclude he did it deliberately in order to eliminate my role in forcing the City to adopt the SF Street Artist Program as well as my role in starting the San Francisco Street Artist Guild. In the past, I have experienced other individuals who have written a history of the Street Artist Movement and have deliberately omitted my involvement in an attempt not to give me the credit I deserve so I can only conclude Mr. Carroll is also attempting to do this. You may consider it "negative" language to call Mr. Carroll's history a "phony history" but I consider stating the truth as being "positive" language.

You state, "If you believe the newspapers made an error, you can revive the case, bring it back to the attention of the media, maybe arrange an interview, and have the newspapers write a retraction (I think that's the correct term) and apologize for their mistake. Once it's written and maybe re-written, we can include it in the article. However, we can't actually have you write the article yourself without proper third-party sources. "

It is absurd for you to suggest that I should waste my time and go to the newspapers that made errors in articles that are over 40 years old in order to get them to make a retraction. As far as I'm concerned, that's water under the bridge and I'll live with it. However, I am not going to sit back and allow those errors and inaccuracies to be promulgated in any present or future articles about the history of the SF Street Artist Movement and the history of the SF Street Artist Program. I am going to voice my objection to those errors and inaccuracies continuing to be promulgated and I am going to use the opportunity to set the record straight.

Finally, I am making it clear to you again that I am not trying to write the article myself. I am simply trying to edit portions of it that Mr. Carroll wrote which inaccurately reflect my involvement in the history of the SF Street Artist Movement and the creation of the SF Street Artist Program as well as include more information about what actually happened and the names of other people who were instrumental in getting the SF Street Artist Program established. To quote Mr. Carroll, "When it comes to history, more information is better than too little". As I previously stated, I will slowly edit the article after I search through my extensive files and find the sources to cite for my edits. William J. Clark February 18, 2014.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:1b00:629:20d:93ff:fe7d:f8c8 (talk • contribs)

I just edited Mr. Carroll's article where he made the statement, "Later in the early 1970s two gay artists, Warren Garrick and Frank Whyte, would be instrumental in petitioning San Francisco's government for an arts program that enabled artists to legally sell on the city's sidewalks." He cited Dennis Dooley's and Tom Usher's news article, "Concrete Roots – San Francisco Street Artists Memories & Lore" in City Miner Magazine as his source for that information. However, in the very next sentence of "Concrete Roots – San Francisco Street Artists Memories & Lore" where Mr, Carroll got Warren Garrick Nettles' and Frank Whyte's names it states, "Their closest ally was Bill Clark, an artist whose energy carried the movement through to its vindication by voters in the 1974 passage of Proposition J, the only successful street artist initiative." The very next paragraph in the article then tells how I met Warren and Frank on Beach Street. Only two paragraphs later it states that the SF Street Artist Guild was created after I and two other street artists were arrested on February 6, 1971.

That is proof it is impossible Mr. Carroll inadvertently left my name out as being one of the people who spearheaded the movement to establish the SF Street Artist Program and the SF Street Artist Guild. The fact is Mr. Carroll deliberately decided to leave my name out. I can't explain why Mr. Carroll decided to do that so you will have to ask him to explain why he deliberately left my name out. William J. Clark February 19, 2014

Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Yoninah (talk) 09:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Please assume that I always assume good faith in the first place until I find evidence proving the contrary to me. Then I have the right to conclude the contrary. In this instance I found evidence proving to me that Mr. Carroll didn't act in good faith. As I said before, in the past I've had to deal with people deliberately ignoring my involvement in the movement to create the SF Street Artist Program. Even in Dennis Dooley's and Tom Usher's news article, "Concrete Roots – San Francisco Street Artists Memories & Lore" in City Miner Magazine they make a comment about it in the sentence preceding the sentence where they mention the names of Warren Garrick (Nettles) and Frank Whyte. They state, "THE FACTS: The roots of the San Francisco street artist movement reach into the political dynamism of the 60's and were nutured by the activism and love of a few individuals, some of whom are now either ignored or held in contempt by the community." I am one of those individuals the last part of the sentence is referring to and I just presented evidence to you that Mr. Carroll is one of those individuals who attempted to deliberately ignore my involvement in the early history of the creation of the SF Street Artist Program. You and the other staff at Wikipedia can ignore that evidence and continue to assume Mr. Carroll is acting in good faith but don't expect me to assume he is acting in good faith when I found evidence which convinces me that he isn't. William J. Clark February 20, 2014

You keep deleting my name from the article where Warren Garrick Nettles and I met with Alioto and where I edited the article to say that I and Warren were the articulate spokespeople for the street artists. I cited a source for those changes and I will cite many more sources until you stop deleting those edits. William J. Clark February 25, 2014

If your name isn't in a source and you insert it in the article anyway, it's considered original research. I read the newspaper clipping you cited as a source for your participation in the meeting ("Street Artists Meet the Mayor") and didn't see your name in it anywhere, only Warren's.

BTW, please sign your edits with four tildes (~~~~) (the key is located at the upper left corner of your keyboard, next to the number 1) so we can see the date and time that you post them. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to find a source where I am mentioned by name but the newspapers did not mention the names of everyone who attended the meeting with the Mayor. If I can't find one then I won't edit it again.

In the "Concrete Roots" article, they called you Bill Clark, not William J. Clark, so I edited that according to the source.

Use Bill Clark or William J. Clark. William J. Clark is my formal name but I also go by Bill Clark. I just want to make sure that the reader realizes Bill Clark and William J. Clark are the same person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:1b00:629:20d:93ff:fe7d:f8c8 (talk) 22:49 25 February 2014

References

1971

Dear Mr. Clark, Thank you for trying to stick to the source in your recent edits. However, the article is written in a way to draw in the reader, and you're removing an important introductory sentence to the whole story by writing:

After the February 6, 1971 arrest of Bill Clark and two other street artists on the 700 block of Beach Street, the San Francisco Street Artist Guild was formed.

The reader won't understand what the connection is between the arrests and the formation of the guild. I would like to restore the original:

After the February 6, 1971 arrest of Bill Clark and two other street artists on the 700 block of Beach Street, a first attempt was made to organize the street artists.

Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I combined both your statement and my statement because I think it better explains the connection between the arrests and the reason why the Guild was formed at that time and the fact that the Guild was formed to organize the SF street artists.

2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

But if I don't understand it, the casual reader won't, either. Yoninah (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

What don't you understand? The way you stated it, the reader will not know the SF Street Artist Guild was the organization that was attempting to organize the SF street Artists at that time. It also corrects the misstatement in the next sentence that Warren Garrick Nettles was the person who decided to form the Guild and call it the San Francisco Street Artist Guild.

2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Rather than discuss this ad infinitum, I tweaked those 2 sentences.

• I'll check it out and if I have no problems with it then you won't hear from me again about it.

As for your overlong and self-promoting description of the coffin protest, I would like to remind you that 1) Wikipedia articles are not meant to go over a certain character count, and therefore I edited this piece with brevity in mind;

• That's fine. I understand. However, it was not a self-promoting description of the coffin protest. It was taken practically verbatim from the source cited and it better explains who got arrested at that protest and why they got arrested.

and, 2) your additions are bordering on conflict of interest and I suggest you read the COI page closely before adding any more mentions of yourself to the article. Yoninah (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've read your COI page which states, "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests, including your business or financial interests, or those of your external relationships, such as with family, friends or employers.[1] When an external relationship undermines, or could reasonably be said to undermine, your role as a Wikipedian, you have a conflict of interest. This is often expressed as: when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."
• My edits did not promote my own interests, including my business or financial interests, or those of my external relationships, such as my family, friends or employers. My edits did not advance my outside interests as being more important to me than advancing the aims of Wikipedia. Therefore, none of my edits are in violation of your COI rules.
• I merely edited the original article to make it a more accurate history of the creation of the SF Street Artist Program. However, some of those edits included mentioning things that I was deeply involved in that were of importance in creating the SF Street Artist Program. Should I be forced by your COI rules not to mention them simply because Mr. Carroll failed to mention them?
• Contrary to what was written in the original article, I was heavily involved in the SF Street Artist Movement from its very beginning in 1971 as well as in the creation of the SF Street Artist Program And the SF Street Artist Guild. As a result of some of my arrests, we (the steering committee of the SFSAG of which Warren Garrick Nettles, Frank Whyte and I were founding members) were able to organize the SF street artists as well as publicize through the news media what was happening at the time. I do not see mentioning my name and my involvement in the 1971-1973 as a conflict of interest. I think not mentioning the names of the people who got arrested (myself included) in order to create the Street Artist Program does those people a disservice. Those people should be named in the article if their names are known because they were the ones who put their lives on the line in order to get a SF Street Program started.
• I also noticed on the Template talk page for Did You Know nominations/Street Artist Program of San Francisco that Mr. Carroll made a comment at 18:14 16 February 2014 about me. He said, "The many new entries of the name 'Bill Clark' are by Bill Clark himself, and his edits are obviously self aggrandizing, and almost always without sources. He is an obsessive individual with no experience with Wikipedia, no interest in sourcing his statements, and should really be banned from the article. Wikipedia should consider reverting the article back to its original state of 9 February 2014, and ban Bill Clark and other unregistered Wiki users from screwing up the piece any further. If Bill Clark is allowed to continue to anonymously make edits from various IP addresses, then this article will be a non-stop Edit War which will only fatigue the sincere contributors of Wikipedia, and enable the destruction of a historic record."
• Mr. Carroll characterized me as being "an obsessive individual" and that my edits are "obviously self aggrandizing". He then states therefore I should be banned from making any further edits to the article.
• If Mr. Carroll is going to do an article on the history of the San Francisco Street Artist Program then as one of the people who co-foundered the original SF Street Artist Guild my intention is not to frustrate or offend Mr. Carroll or self-aggrandize but simply to edit the article to make it more accurately reflect the actual history of the creation of the Street Artist Program including providing the names of some of the people who along with myself helped create the SF Street Artist Program.
• Mr. Carroll calls me "an obsessive individual". I assume by that he means it was my "obsessive" behavior that allowed myself to be arrested several times which helped get the SF Street Artist Program created. It was my "obsessive" behavior to gather thousands of signatures on several petitions which helped get the SF Street Artist Program created. It was my "obsessive" behavior that found and hired the attorneys the street artists needed which helped get the SF Street Artist Program created. It was my "obsessive" behavior to work with our attorneys and file the lawsuits which helped get the SF Street Artist Program created. It was my "obsessive" behavior that made me go to every Supervisors' office and spend many hours lobbying on behalf of the SF street artists which helped get the SF Street Artist Program created. It was my "obsessive" behavior that raised money for the street artists which helped get the SF Street Artist Program created. It was my "obsessive" behavior that organized the street artists which helped get the SF Street Artist Program created. It was my "obsessive" behavior that made me attend all of the SF Board of Supervisors meetings and speak on behalf of the SF street artists which helped get the SF Street Artist Program created. It was my "obsessive" behavior that made me go on the radio and talk about what was happening to the SF street artists which helped create the SF Street Artist Program. It was my "obsessive" behavior that made me spend my personal money to pay for leaflets, legal fees and other out of pocket expenses which helped get the SF Street Artist Program created.
• Mr. Carroll is correct when he said I have no experience with writing for Wikipedia. However, I am a fast learner and in the future when I edit the article I will cite my sources and follow all of the other rules you want people to follow when they edit an article. William J. Clark 2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Yoninah, Why do you have such a persistent personal interest in this matter? Would you please declare if you are being compensated for your time spent on this issue and if so, by whom? Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Inquiringmindswanttoknow (talk • contribs) 05:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have been working on the Wikipedia project as an unpaid volunteer for nearly 9 years. I am a regular reviewer on the WP:DYK project, where I came across this article nominated for DYK. Generally I try to help writers improve their articles and their referencing so the articles will qualify for DYK and improve the encyclopedia as a whole, so I undertook to shorten and tighten up the prose. Since then, I am astonished that this article has since been hijacked by both Mr. Clark and yourself. Your addition of the Controversy section is totally out of left field and does not fit with the tone of the article at all. Yoninah (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I mistakenly thought Yoninah was asking me those two questions so I answered them. When I checked I realized someone else asked Yoninah those two questions but I'm going to leave my answers anyway because they explain why I have a persistent personal interest in the matter and that I have not been paid by anyone for my time spent on this issue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Why do you have such a persistent personal interest in this matter?
  • I was a co-founder of the SF Street Artist Guild as well as a member of the Steering Committee of the SF Street Artist Guild and I was deeply involved and spent a lot of my time and money in 1971-1974 helping to create the SF Street Artist Program. Warren, Frank and I did most of the work organizing artists and craftspeople, speaking to the public and lobbying City Hall. The Street Artist Program wasn't created because of the benevolence of City Hall. It was created by the blood, sweat and tears of Warren, Frank, myself and the other members of the original SF Street Artist Guild and I want to make sure the SF Street Artist Guild get the credit it deserves. I've dedicated myself to make certain that any history written about the creation of the SF Street Artist Program is factually accurate. Newspaper articles aren't always factually accurate.
  • Would you please declare if you are being compensated for your time spent on this issue and if so, by whom?
  • I'm not being paid a cent by anyone to do this. In fact, I have lost thousands of dollars of my own personal money in the process of creating the SF Street Artist Program. I wasn't paid a cent by any of the street artists in the process of creating the SF Street Artist Program. I wasn't paid a cent by any of the street artists or the SF Arts Commission to be a member of the original Board of Artists and Craftsmen Examiners which screened hundreds of artists and craftspeople to be issued street artist certificates. I also didn't get paid a cent by any of the street artists or the SF Arts Commission for all of the investigative work I did over the years which resulted in over $130,000 of street artist certificate fee revenue being returned to the SF Street Artist Program. I am still in the process of trying to get over $200,000 of street artist certificate fee revenue which was defalcated by the City of San Francisco returned to the SF Street Artist Program so it can be used to pay for the expenses of the SF Street Artist Program and keep the street artist certificate fee from being unnecessarily raised. I am not being paid a cent by any of the street artists or the SF Arts Commission to do that.
  • The fact that I am dedicated to and passionate about a righteous cause does not mean I am an obsessive and self aggrandizing individual. William J. Clark

2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have been working on the Wikipedia project as an unpaid volunteer for nearly 9 years. I am a regular reviewer on the WP:DYK project, where I came across this article nominated for DYK. Generally I try to help writers improve their articles and their referencing so the articles will qualify for DYK and improve the encyclopedia as a whole, so I undertook to shorten and tighten up the prose. Since then, I am astonished that this article has since been hijacked by both Mr. Clark and yourself. Your addition of the Controversy section is totally out of left field and does not fit with the tone of the article at all. Yoninah (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I am astonished that you are claiming I "hijacked" this article after I explained to you my involvement in the creation of the SF Street Artist Guild and the SF Street Artist Program as well as the reasons why I edited the original article. You enlightened me regarding the rules for editing and I told you that I will abide by those rules. I will not make any further edits without citing a source for those edits. William J. Clark 2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Please add to your reading list WP:Close paraphrasing. Since you are using offline sources, you are being trusted that nothing is being copied verbatim from the source, as you mentioned above that you did. Otherwise, that would be copyright infringement and would be subject to immediate deletion. Yoninah (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would just like to clarify that none of the deletions, reversions, or edits to this article is being performed by Wikipedia staff. Wikipedia is almost entirely run by volunteers. Administrators do not work for Wikipedia. Admins are volunteers as well. Nobody is paid to edit Wikipedia.

Mr. Clark, it's important that articles do not grow to an insurmountable size, to compensate for those with weaker computers, Internet connections, or on mobile. We understand that you're a fairly new editor, and thus we ask you to read our Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Any further questions should be directed to the Teahouse, where your question will be answered by friendly, welcoming, and experienced editors. K6ka (talk | contribs) 20:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand.

However, I just edited the article by adding the following:

Clark researched initiatives and composed a Proposition. [5][38] which would require about 12,500 signatures of registered voters in order to qualify for placement on the ballot in an upcoming election.[37] 1974[edit] Clark and seven members of the Guild along with a few volunteers gathered 26,000 signatures for Proposition J, which was included on the ballot in the municipal election of June 4, 1974.[5] After Proposition J qualified for the municipal ballot, harassment of street artists by the SF Police Department took a new turn when two campaign workers, Dale Axlerod and Robert Clark were issued citations for putting up posters along Market Street. In addition, the two plain-clothesmen issuing the citations seized over 150 campaign posters and a staple gun from the pair. That was number twelve in a series of instances of deliberate political harassment against proposition J.[39]

I think it is important that the reader know who wrote Proposition J and also know that the SF police were harassing our campaign workers before and after Proposition J qualified for the municipal ballot.

I will try not to do any more edits because I now think the article more accurately states what actually occurred. William J. Clark 50.143.132.58 (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I made one more minor edit. I edited the 1975 history to say the following:

At the same time, the Board would re-enact the so-called Kopp street artists ordinance to forbid occupancy of these spots between midnight and 6 a,m. Street artist Joy McCoskey spoke in favor of the no selling between midnight to 6 a.m. rule because sometimes people had permanently camped out on selling spots.

This corrects the misimpression that it was Joy McCoskey who came up with the no selling between midnight and 6 a.m. rule when it was the Board of Supervisors and more accurately states what the cited source actually said. William J. Clark 2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I had to make one more edit in the 1972 history so that it would say the SF Arts Commission would run the new Street Artist Program instead of incorrectly saying CAO Thomas Mellon would run it. William J. Clark 2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Lede

I think the following paragraph should be deleted from the article because there is no mention of any of it in the source cited.

"The Street Artists Program of San Francisco is responsible for an ongoing political dialogue about what activities should, and should not, be allowed in public areas, in relation to protections granted by the First Amendment. The program's rules and procedures have also served as a template for other cities wishing to create their own street artists programs."

Since all of my edits for which I didn't cite a source were deleted, I think that paragraph should also be deleted since no source is cited for it.

I am not going to delete it but I would like Yoninah or one of the other volunteers to delete it. William J. Clark 2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I read through the source and couldn't find anything that backed up the paragraph so I've removed it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Additional editing

I would like to edit these two sentences:

"Following the February 1971 arrest of several street artists, including William Clark, in the 700 block of Beach Street, a first attempt was made to organize the street artists.[6]Under the direction of Warren Garrick (Nettles), a sculptor-painter[7] who would become the group's "chief spokesman",[8] the Street Artists Guild was formed."

I would like to edit, "Following the February 1971 arrest..." to read "Following the February 6, 1971 arrest...". The source cited gives the exact date and I see no reason not to state the exact date since it is known.

I would also like to edit, "...the Street Artist Guild was formed." to read, "...the San Francisco Street Artist Guild was formed." The source cited incorrectly calls the organization, "the Street Artist Guild". The correct name was "the San Francisco Street Artist Guild". I will cite, "Street Artist Boom brings Greed Frenzy", "Berkeley Barb" (13-19 December 1974) P. ?. , as the source for the correct name because in the first sentence of the article the Berkeley Barb correctly states the name of the organization as "...the San Francisco Street Artist Guild...".

It may seem like I'm nit-picking but I would like the reader to know the correct name of the organization and the exact date of the arrest since they are known and mentioned in the source Mr. Carroll cited and the source I am going to cite.

However, I will not edit the article to include that information until I get the okay of Yoninah or some other volunteer to do so. William J. Clark 2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I added in the date and also put "San Francisco" in front of "Street Artists Guild". The Berkeley Barb doesn't sound like a reliable source, and both the San Francisco Arts Commission website and the Street Artists Program Bluebook refer to it as the "Street Artists Program", so I would just leave it at "San Francisco Street Artists Guild". Yoninah (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just asking if I could make those two edits nothing else. After you previously mentioned that the Arts Commission's website referred to the program as the "Street Artists Program" I had no problem with you leaving it that way and went on to more important things rather than argue about whether the Program's name should or shouldn't include the "s".

However, I just want to let you know that the "Berkeley Barb" was a very reliable newspaper at that time. Along with the San Francisco Guardian, it was the major alternative newspaper that printed the truth about the Vietnam war and San Francisco politics that the mainstream local newspapers refused to print. In the case of what was happening to the street artists in San Francisco, The San Francisco Street Artist Guild was in direct contact with the representatives of the newspaper and members of the San Francisco Street Artist Guild including myself wrote articles about what was really going on between the street artists, the police and the SF politicians which the Berkeley Barb published. William J. Clark 2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Besides, if you don't think the Berkeley Barb is a very reputable newspaper then I can also site several articles printed in the reputable newspapers, the San Francisco Examiner and the San Francisco Chronicle which both mention the Guild's name is the "San Francisco Street Artist Guild" including the October, 3, 1971 Sunday combined edition of the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Francisco Examiner that has two pages of photographs of the July 1-July 4 San Francisco Street Artists Guild's Stonestown Shopping Center show including one photograph with our official sign that read "San Francisco Street Artist Guild will appear (undisturbed) Stonestown Mall July 1, 2, 3, 4". William J. Clark 2601:9:1B00:629:20D:93FF:FE7D:F8C8 (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, those would be two good cites to add after the phrase "the San Francisco Street Artist Guild was formed". Please see WP:Citing sources for a fill-in template. Yoninah (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletions

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Disruptive Replacement of Sourced Facts with Personal Recollections

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

Moving forward

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:

• San Francisco Street Artists Guild v. Scott (1974)
• "Sidewalk Stories" (this could be an extra cite for the street fairs in Haight-Ashbury in the 60s)
• "Sidewalk art permits' cost may increase" (2008) (this could be an extra cite for the program costing no money to the city)
• "SF street artists thrive in 'grassroots economy'" (2011) (statistics about the program)
• "'Made in San Francisco' fight heats up for street artists" (2011)
• "Pay to Paint: S.F. Street Artists' Perfect Circle of Fees" (2012)
• "San Francisco Street Artists to Celebrate Anniversary of Going Legit" (2012) NBC 40th anniversary report
• "Op-Ed: San Francisco Street artists are now settled in Wine Country" (2013) (maybe good for another citation on statements made in article)

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

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.

• http://blog.sfgate.com/cityinsider/2011/07/14/controller-arts-commission-mismanaged-street-artists-money/

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.

• http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-street-artists-fight-to-sell-wares-at-key-spot-2309612.php

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)