Talk:More Than Just Parks

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 20 September 2017 by reviewer Aguyintobooks (talk · contribs).

North America Low‑importance

	North America portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject North AmericaNorth America articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
Their edits to this article were last checked for neutrality on 2017-10-31 by Largoplazo. Error: Disclosures that use the |checked= parameter should also use |editedhere=yes for at least one contributor.

Films2557 (talk · contribs)

COI Flag[edit]

The information on here seems to check out and is heavily cited from a wide variety of publications. Information is presented in straightforward manner. User is not single purpose. Subject seems noteworthy enough. Looks good. Grama24 (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of this alters the fact that the article was written predominately under COI and a number of sentences and phrases, at the moment, just breathe as such. Frankly, it reads like something the producers might write to accompany a film festival entry. Largoplazo (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What would you propose to fix this article? As stated the information is presented in a fairly straightforward manner and is heavily cited. I see no real issue with it, notwithstanding any COI writing. Flagging this seems fine, but not resolving it seems unnecessary. I think this is a problem plaguing Wikipedia at the moment, this seems like relevant information presented in a non advertisement manner with plenty of sources. What would you suggest here? Grama24 (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It could

not preen over how it's "dedicated to sharing the wonders";
not channel the co-founder (who is the COI editor) doing more of the same, engaging in direct outreach to the Wikipedia reader;
not launder the author's own presentation of his work (such as the bit about time-lapse videography) through a source's quoting him explaining it;
not purr about how "the films present the parks purely for their natural beauty";
basically, not exploit Wikipedia to attract attention to his own projects—nor to himself. (Did you notice that an article he wrote about himself was deleted? And then he then wrote[1] that it wasn't intentional!);
finally, not be written mostly by the person whose project it is, the very definition of an article written under a conflict of interest.

By the way, for anyone tracking this, that editor has had his user name changed from Jpattiz to Films2557. Largoplazo (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also by the way, the user was single-purpose from June 15 until about eight hours ago, after I had tagged his Jim Pattiz article as an autobiography, I had put a notice about that on his talk page; and he had then blanked that article. Largoplazo (talk) 02:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well done investigator Largoplazo! You’ve cracked the case! Someone wrote a VERY standard Wikipedia article about something they had some relation to and you stamped it out. Congrats. I’ll see about making some edits for this poor sap along your suggestions, we’ll see what good it does. Yet another seemingly useful Wikipedia article down the drain. Sigh... Grama24 (talk) 02:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For somebody who just signed up, you seem to presume yourself to be very knowledgeable about how Wikipedia works while betraying that you really aren't that familiar with it. First there was the way you got the use of maintenance tags absolutely backwards (while speaking about them with an air of authority, even pedantry), and then there's this. COIs are frowned upon. Wikipedia, with or without my participation, discourages writing about things that authors not only have "some relation with", but in which they have some personal stake. And this article exhibits a number of deficits that exemplify exactly why COIs are viewed this way, and why the guidance given regarding them is what it is.

I would now like to note that, interestingly, your account was created at 18:20 UTC, after which you came to this article to remove the COI tag. Also, you and he have both used the sentence "Attempted to edit for clarity" in an edit summary, and have each written "edited for clarity" in other edit summaries multiple times. If you, by any chance, have a conflict of interest here, then WP:COI applies to you as well. Also, see WP:Sock puppetry. Largoplazo (talk) 02:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where, by the way, did the "down the drain" come from? The article is still here. You just seem to find the accurate and justified COI tag on this presumably arbitrary article unbearable, for some reason.. Largoplazo (talk) 03:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is laughable. Let’s now discourage new users from contributing to the community. Yes this is a new account. What a crime I have committed. I found this page in a search after having edited many other pages of no similarity and having found those in a similar fashion. Yes I am still learning about Wikipedia, but I know that you are supposed to start a discussion after tagging a COI in that articles talk page, which you did not. This meant a justifiable deletion of the tag according to Wikipedia, on top of the fact that the article seemingly had no deficiencies. You point out some here, so that’s fine, though you should’ve done that here from the beginning. Too many users on Wikipedia are in the business of destruction rather than construction. I’m glad I found this article as it has provided me with some amusement. I’m quickly finding many others like it with similarly destructive-minded users. Happy to help the decent articles have a fighting chance! Grama24 (talk) 04:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to point out to you one more time that no destruction is going on here. It's a COI article with issues that I already listed that make it read like a COI article. Wikipedia articles are to be written from a neutral point of view, so tagging an article in the interest of achieving that end is constructive, not destructive. I haven't threatened the existence of this article, so your puffery about helping give an article "a fighting chance" is puzzling. Largoplazo (talk) 11:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, Thanks for the lively discussion. To be clear, the founders of this organization are my cousins. Apart from that I have no connection to the organization whatsoever. I in no way stand to gain from this article. I'm not sure what that means in terms of COI and don't claim to know. I simply thought it was noteworthy enough and would be useful to the outdoor community. I am a journalism major and wrote this article carefully to avoid any bias. I had tried suggesting a new article previously with no luck likely due to the backlog or my Wikipedia illiteracy at the time. I recently changed my username to avoid damaging the credibility/merit of the article and because it probably needed to be changed anyway. The other article I was writing was to be the first of a few on notable people in the outdoor film area, it was only meant to be a draft so that I could suggest it's creation, however it went right up (I haven't been on here in a while so I'm very rusty). Apologies for any confusion. Let me know if I can be of any help and thanks to the both of you for looking this over and helping out. Films2557 (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Cleaned up COI issues brought forth. Grama24 (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Films2557, in the future suggest any possible COI articles for creation and/or avoid citing people who might stand to benefit. Article was well written though. Good luck in school! Grama24 (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys. Thanks so much for all your help. I was not very well oriented, but did my best. Are we all clear here? Is there anything else that can be done? Films2557 (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]