Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:22, 5 March 2012

Discussions about the content of articles belong on the talk page for that article. This includes discussions about text, images, tags, or other physical things on the page. This way everyone can participate. If you want to discuss general policy, ask for help on a page you haven't seen me on, or other topics that aren't related to the actual article, post it here.

ARCHIVES - Archive 2006-1010 - Archive 2011 - Archive 2012

Goodwill, The Amity Group

The page I am attempting to create keeps getting a redirect. I am referencing from a written book, it was published in 1985 and it is about the history of Amity Group which later went on to become a member of Goodwill International, it is an independent member of the international social enterprise known as Goodwill. Does this help. There is great history and a good story to be told. The author is Guy Jones from Victoria BC.

• You need to start it in a sandbox. Look up in the right side of the window, you will see "sandbox". This is a space that no one will mess with. Create it there, add sources, get input from others if you need, and when you think it is ready to be a part of the regular Misplaced Pages, have someone review it and move it into mainspace for you. This is how most editors create articles here. This way no one bothers you while it is being built, and you can get the input of others. Otherwise, if you just release a few sentences into the wild, it will likely be deleted or redirected. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Okay can you check out my sandbox for me. see if Im doing this correct? thanks

Montague22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC).

It Must be Nice

I have finally posted a comment in the section you started on my talk page, and I have also commented at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/It Must be Nice. You mention "communication problems": yes, indeed. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• The talk page on the article is even worse. I'm hoping he will just report me to ANI for my 'transgressions', and I have encouraged him to do so. Sometimes it takes a good old fashioned boomerang to get someone's attention. Sadly, I don't think that will still be enough. Again, I think his faith is ok, but I sincerely doubt he has the capability to work and contribute here in a way the community expects. Even if he doesn't mean to, his actions are very disruptive. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. And yes, I did look at the talk page of the article before commenting, so I do know what you mean. It's a great pity, because this is clearly someone who is willing to put a significant amount of effort into working on Misplaced Pages, and who could perhaps be a useful contributor, if only they could overcome various problems. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Apologies on the msg I left on your talk page. Sometimes I just can't help myself, and I'm forced to try to find a little humor in what is otherwise a frustrating situation. And I agree, the majority of his contribs are good, he just has trouble playing nice with others. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hi. I've reverted your removal of the new links added to It Must be Nice, as your reason was not valid. There is no prohibition against adding new references while an AfD is in progress - in fact it is encouraged - and it's certainly not the case that an article must be frozen at the start-of-AfD state. If anyone adds new references, they should be assessed during AfD. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• You might want to check the histories, it goes back a while. References were removed several times previously, by two different editors (including one admin, and actually, two admins have been looking it as well as you), because they failed WP:RS, not because the AFD was going on. Every deletion had a rationale given, and on the talk page I said that being in AFD didn't excuse the article's sources from passing WP:RS. I did not say that you can't add new references. His rationale was "those references already existed when you started the AFD", which was incorrect. I have reverted back, offering the previous rationale, that they are not reliable sources. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• OK, apologies if I misunderstood your "Those links were not there when the AFD was started" comment. But I do think that it's completely harmless leaving them in for the duration of the AfD - it's sure to be deleted anyway, and leaving them there would take away one of the battlefield aspects. Had they been left for people to actually review (as I did), I think we would have a better AfD with less room for people to mistakenly cry "cheat" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• It happens, it isn't easy to tell what is going on without looking at a lot of history. No harm, no foul. If you check the totality of the histories, and accusations and bad faith, you will see why I'm bordering on ANI with the editor, something I've only done a couple times in 16k edits. I've asked two admins for their opinions in the matter (they are involved, so can't take action, but know the situation) If you feel like reading a load of history, your opinion would be welcome as well. I don't doubt the editor in question has made many good contributions over time and his intentions for Misplaced Pages are good, but he has some serious issues with working within a community, even before the AFD. Even good faith can't overcome consistent disruptive behavior. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The editor in question has a history of this sort of behaviour, and also (IMHO) a highly probable COI with respect to Chris Innis and Bob Murawski. Unfortunately, the tendency to personalize disagreements (and attack other editors) makes it difficult to reason with them. --Ckatz_spy 00:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, I have responded to your latest post on my talk page, but I may as well duplicate the substance of what I said here, as it is relevant to the discussion here. The editor's actions in the present case have been disruptive and vexatious, but not in themselves enough for any action to be taken, in my opinion. However, if, as is suggested above, the editor has a past history of similar problems, then the situation may be different. I would be grateful if anyone with more knowledge of the history of the case than me could give a few links to previous problems. If so, I will look at them and see what I think. As for ANI, I would not go there in the first instance. If there does seem to be a case for action then we can consider what to do, including possibly asking another admin to give an independent assessment. I would keep ANI in reserve, as a last resort. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• I also don't see enough in the one AfD for any action, but if it is part of a longer-term behavioural problem, then there might be a case for something to be done - I'd recommend following JamesBWatson's suggestion. As for the AfD, I'd just ignore any further ranting - it's not going to save the article from deletion -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Being human, when you see someone that disruptive standing so close to the edge, you can't help but to hope for a strong wind, or a gentle push...but I get your points that it is just short of action. This is why I asked for a few opinions, as I haven't gone to ANI very often. The big concern is whether or not he is capable of working within a cooperative environment. If there are strong COI issues, which has been discussed elsewhere, that might explain a lot. What is so bothersome is that all that time wasted could have been spent working on articles that are notable and just need work. Thanks for the opinions, all of you. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Being human, when you see someone that disruptive standing so close to the edge, you can't help but to hope for a strong wind, or a gentle push" - Hehe, yes, I understand exactly how you feel. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Just a note to say that, not having read this thread before with the suggestion to go to ANI as a last resort, I have opened discussion there . I don't think there's a need to let this play out interminably, especially when an editor with ownership issues continues to traffic in rhetoric that isn't constructive. Cheers, 99.136.255.180 (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Noted, thank you. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

A note on the COI - the article up for deletion is a film produced, directed, and co-written by Chris Innis, who is the spouse of Bob Murawski, who "heads up" Grindhouse Releasing. Catpowerzzz has quite an interest in these three topics, as can been seen under "Frequently Edited Pages" here. If Catpowerzzz were associated with Grindhouse Releasing, the COI would extend over to this film article concerning the spouse of the company's chief, and the behavior/"ownership" would make more sense. At least to me. What they do next is up to them, but I'm pretty sure there's an association with Grindhouse beyond a "fan" level. Hopefully that can be overcome. Doc talk 23:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Dennis Brown - I don't know why you are so obessed with this. I think you are taking this disagreement too far. I also don't appreciate the threats about pushing me off a cliff. I suggest we all just agree to disagree and stop this right now. As you mentioned you have other articles you want to be working on as do these other good users you've roped into commenting here. So do that! Please go work to contribute something positive rather than dwelling on one disagreement. That goes for the rest of you too. I think that would be a better way of spending your time, rather than making up false accusations against this user and repeatedly making comments on all these talk pages and Afd and Ani discussions, trying to trump up false charges and gin up buddies of yours to vote stack against me. Nothing that I have said or done with regard to trying to discuss the article you nominated for deletion warrants all this harassment and repeated submissions to both ANI and Afd. So please stop it now. Doc and Ckatz, I must also remind you all that it is against Misplaced Pages's guidelines to try to out a user's identity and to post these suggestions all over mutliple talk pages. It is seen as harassment, whether you are guessing or not. Doc, since I see by your block log that you were blocked recently in December, I would be careful. Someone has also accused you of being a sock puppet too. Thanks for your participation, but I don't think you want to get involved with these guys or this discussion if you weren't already, as it has been a heated one and you've seemingly already attracted quite a bit of your own heat recently. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• The situation is such that I would prefer you do not use my talk page for discussion of this matter, and instead use the ANI page. You are always welcome to use my talk page to discuss unrelated items, such as other articles. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Return to an earlier discussion...

If you want a break from "It Must be Nice", you may like to look at my latest contribution to an earlier discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Zombies

If it returns again, I'll AfD it (if you don't get there first...). Actually, I've been told off before now for AfDing things that looked obvious CSD. You never know what people are going to say or do... Peridon (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Anyone who complains about going to AFD (many eyes) instead of CSD (two sets of eyes) is simply wrong. It is the "safer" way to delete an article and give the opportunity to fix the problems. If there is a lot of detail and many references that exist (unreliable but not facebook/twitter), then AFD is really the better way to go. It isn't like we have to delete it today or Misplaced Pages breaks. I'm fine either way, but I will always AFD when there is that much info, giving a little benefit of the doubt. If it was two paragraphs and no sourcing, then yes, obviously CSD. This wasn't the case here. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Missed it - Boing! deleted it within five minutes of creation. PS I like ham too - but it's diced tikka chicken in my omelette tonight. Peridon (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that the first time the article was created , he was in high school. Maybe just trying to overcompensate now. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think they changed the rules somewhere around then, 'cos we're advised NOT to quote in the summary. Could be someone different. Peridon (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Kind of defeats the purpose of deleting a negative BLP when you put the entire article in the summary. I didn't necessarily think it was him, I just found it humorous and somewhat ironic. :) Dennis Brown (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)