User talk:Agrajag27

I am looking at the emailed rejection from Live Nation of FotB's offer to buy the Boyd. I am not at liberty to post that document online. 205.147.200.37 (talk) 04:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

(From Agrajag27) Oh, well then it must be true since an anonymous person on Wikipedia says they're looking at it but can't post any part of it. Also, this still doesn't mention a formal offer. It mentions a rumor about an e-mail, that you refuse to produce, of Live Nation rejecting an "offer" from FoB to buy the Boyd. No details. When was it dated? What was the offer amount? Did this have anything to do with the buyer referenced at the Historical Committee meeting? Seems we may never know, and thus, this information does not belong here until it is factually proven.

I am not Howard and the information I have was shared with me confidentially. Fact is, with or without you seeing it, you have no basis for your incorrect statement that no formal offer was made. 205.147.200.37 (talk) 09:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

(From Agrajag27) I really don't care who you are. I assumed you're not Howard. Again, the point remains, until proof of such an offer is actually available to the public, it's a rumor. You're purposely choosing to hide your identity and trying to back up your actions with more unsubstantiated commentary. It also doesn't escape notice that you somehow neglected to answer any of the direct questions presented to you.

Again: Fact is, with or without you seeing it, you have no basis for your incorrect statement that no formal offer was made. You are stating as fact that there was no formal offer. You have no direct knowledge upon which to base such a statement. 205.147.200.37 (talk) 09:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

(From Agrajag27) And again you ignored every question. My statement is supported by the lack of any evidence to the contrary. The word of an anonymous poster on Wikpedia not-withstanding. I also note that, contrary to your argument, that's not the section you limit your edits to. Why is that? I'll be more than glad to change the wording of that if it'll make you happy but we both know, that isn't your motivation here.

Then please do change the wording. I seek accuracy and a link to your inflammatory personal blog post doesn't contribute to accuracy with its baseless speculation. And by the way Sharon Pinkenson was never a founder of Friends of the Boyd or its predecessor. 205.147.200.37 (talk) 09:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

(From Agrajag27) Again, ignored all questions. The link is one of several and there's absolutely nothing inflammatory anywhere on the site regarding this issue. Your true colors continue to shine through. The editorial is simply a different point of view, which supporters continue to remove at every turn, including Sharon Pinkenson's letter. Care to explain why you feel her letter isn't valid for this article as well? I can wait.... And perhaps you're not familiar with this:

http://articles.philly.com/1995-05-24/news/25675178_1_boyd-theater-sharon-pinkenson-united-artists-sameric

Are you saying Carrie Richey is a liar now?

I stand corrected, sort of, on that point. By predeccessor, I meant the Committee to Save the Sameric founded in 2002. I wasn't aware of the previous 1995 organization, which apparently dissolved, after that earlier crisis passed and the Sameric remained in operation for 7 more years. I can't answer a lot of your detailed questions without betraying confidences, something I will not do, but the date of the offer rejection from Live Nation was February 27.

And I don't think random letters to the editor and blog posts contribute much to a wiki article that should serve as a synopsis of the Boyd's history. 205.147.200.37 (talk) 09:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

(From Agrajag27) You can reach me at any time. I'd be more than glad to listen to any point of view -- and that's entirely sincere. I believe that the Boyd article, to be fair, should not just be a large advertisement for a preservation effort. Prior to the edits, no alternative view was offered what-so-ever. it was written entirely from the perspective of the preservation viewpoint alone. Sharon's letter to the editor is important. She played a major role in the effort early on and is a major film luminary locally. Her shift in support is absolute pertinent. I also am entirely wide open to your input on an editorial about the other side of the equation. I suspect if we actually spoke instead of carrying out a battle via Wikipedia, we'd probably have a good chat, a nice laugh and we'd both understand one another a bit better and walk away better people for it. Again, I simply could no longer ignore the growing questions that were continuing to come my way. I did not search them out and, as I shared with the press, I sat on the first ones for months without any public comment until, later, they were validated by other sources (which I also didn't search out). Had you been in my shoes, I suspect you'd also find it hard to just ignore and, in my view, I'd have been entirely derelict in my civic duty to just push them under the carpet.

Understand, I tried talking to Mr. Haas. The result left me with more questions as a result of how he handled himself. And I wasn't the only one that felt that way. Has anyone thought to actually take five minutes to have a conversation with me about this? Nope. Instead the group just circled the wagons and put on the armor. I'm sorry that no other path seems acceptable. But, I do want to thank you for the limited dialogue. At least someone is saying something other than just insults. You'll note that, as our conversation morphed, I also made changes to my comments including editing my own editorial.

Oh, FYI, there's one other section of the article that has a possible error. Several sources told me that Sameric never actually owned the building, that they only leased it from another group that. Could that possibly be the Goldenberg Group?

June 2017

Hello, I'm 331dot. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Northgate Computers, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. While I believe what you say, your word is not sufficient as a reliable source, as any Wikipedia user can make almost any claim. If you have documentation of what you say, that can be used a a source. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Philadelphia Film Critics Circle moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Philadelphia Film Critics Circle, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Praxidicae (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Philadelphia Film Critics Circle (June 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Philadelphia Film Critics Circle and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Philadelphia Film Critics Circle, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Agrajag27! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Philadelphia Film Critics Circle concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Philadelphia Film Critics Circle, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Philadelphia Film Critics Circle

Hello, Agrajag27. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Philadelphia Film Critics Circle".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! HasteurBot (talk) 07:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)