Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Memphis Improvisational Theatre

Memphis Improvisational Theatre
I could not find the appropriate Level 1 or Level 2 warnings. If I made an error by posting a Level 3 warning incorrectly, then I apologize for this mistake. However, I have had to edit the anonymous vandalism on at least a dozen occasions. I also apologize for editing the anonymous vandal's discussion comments. I accept full responsibility for my actions.

If anyone searches the web for "Memphis Improvsiational Theatre" they will find that the information is rather consistent. I am the Executive Director of the Theatre, and I am responsible for the web site. I am also the one most qualified to edit this page accurately. At least, more so than some anonymous editor who seems bent on vandalism.

Some anonymous editor or editors have found it necessary to vandalize the page in an effort to discredit the theatre. It seems like the work of someone with a personal axe to grind. One of the edits was done from the IP address 147.154.235.53. This address (along with someone with the pseudonym "David Eckstein" has been responsible for vandalism on another Memphis improv page for the Wiseguys.

I strongly suspect, but cannot prove, that the vandalism is the work of my brother-in-law David, who works for Alcoa (which uses the IP address listed above). I unceremoniously fired him from another improv group that I directed many years ago, mostly due to his immature behavior. He has been responsible for this same type of vandalism on other web sites.

The fact is that the Memphis Improvisational Theatre does exist. We just finished an 8-week improvisational workshop series. We do not have any more workshops nor performances planned until after the holidays.

If Wikipedia requires more source information, I would be pleased to provide it. I have help edit several other articles in the past, and would like to ensure that I am following all established rules and guidelines. However, some anonymous editor with a personal vendetta should not be the final authority.

Gregchilders 19:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Truth be told ...
As an active member of the Memphis, Mid-south and South-Eastern improvisational communities, I can attest to the fact, as I have done repeatedly, that the "Memphis Improvisational Theater" has had no public performances to date. There are currently three active improvisational shows in production in the Memphis area, and as a frequent attendant at each of them, I have become very familliar with almost everyone involved in this active community.

Not only do none of these shows have anything to do with the Memphis Improvisational Theater, according to the hosts, directors and cast members of these shows, Mr. Childers does not attend any of these shows except on an infrequent and sparing basis.

Mr. Childers was once a producer of the Memphis troupe Verical Imbalance. Since that troupe disbanded, Mr. Childers has attempted to hold workshops several times. As far as I know, he has only held one workshop series. In February of 2005, the Memphis Improv Theater was formed and auditions were held for a performance company. Having spoken to many of the people who attended these auditions and their subsequent meetings, I can testify that the performance company was never formed and has never performed. Since that time, there have been no open, or public auditions or casting calls for performers by the Memphis Improv Theater or by Mr. Childers.

The entry in question states that there is a "performance company" that "performs longform improvisation, as well as improvisationally created sketch comedy and multimedia performances". As I have shown, not only have there been no public performances, there is no evidence of a performance company existing. In fact, all evidence is to the contrary.

I could speculate on why Mr. Childers insists on aggrandizing himself in the way he has, but I believe that would be a personal attack, which is not my goal. My goal is clarification and amplification of the truth in this matter.

Any questions? Apatronoftruth 21:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

All very interesting...
Actually, no, not really. Nobody here is interested in your feud.

The only relevant question here is: are there Reliable Sources that can Verify that this is a functioning, Notable, enterprise. If there are not multiple reports about the operation from news sources or other independent, reliable organizations, that would be, by our definition, clear indication that it is not notable. Fan-1967 21:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a shame that this anonymous editor has so much anger bottled up inside
If Wikipedia's policy is that someone cannot edit a page if it pertains to them directly, then you are well within your rights to delete it. Sorry to have wasted your time. I did not create the page for any type of self-aggrandizement, regardless of what this anonymous person may think.

Truth be known, there are dozens of articles in Wikipedia concerning improvisational troupes (with most of them done by someone in the group). If this is the policy of Wikipedia, I expect most of these will be deleted soon as well.

It is sad that this anonymous person feels so threatened that they must try to tear down what others have try to build.

I concede the argument. Delete away.

Gregchilders 23:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess that settles it, then
If Wikipedia's policy is that someone cannot edit a page if it pertains to them directly, then you are well within your rights to delete it. Sorry to have wasted your time.

Please keep an eye on entries from the IP addresses 147.154.235.53 and 24.92.134.49. In addition, please check the alias "Apatronoftruth." They have been the perpetrators of multiple cases of vandalism in the past. The former IP address has also vandalized another Memphis improvisational group's Wikipedia page for the Wiseguys.

Good luck to you, Apatronoftruth. I hope that one day you are able to get over your anger. It isn't healthy.

Gregchilders 23:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Characterizing the edits that I, Apatronoftruth, have made as vandalism is untrue and, in fact, is slanderous. Vandalism, as defined by Wikiopedia, "is generally defined as changing a wiki in a way that is intentionally disruptive or destructive. There are four generally acknowledged types of vandalism: deletion of legitimate information, insertion of nonsense or irrelevant content, addition of unwanted commercial links (spam), and policy violations specific to that wiki."


 * Before accusing me of vandalism, please cite specific examples of my edis that would be vandalism. Otherwise you are simply perpetrating slander.

Apatronoftruth 01:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Get over yourself, Apatronoftruth
The page is marked for deletion, so you'll have to find some other page to vandalize.

Gregchilders 07:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said before, before accusing me of vandalism, please cite specific examples of my edis that would be vandalism. Otherwise you are simply perpetrating slander.

Apatronoftruth 09:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edit on November 6th
Though Mr. Childers repeatedly attempts to edit this page, removing the second paragraph, further showing his conceit, as patrons of truth, we will continue to shine a light on this dishonesty.

How can that not be taken as vandalism?

Again, the article is marked for deletion. Why do you feel the morbid need to persist?

Gregchilders 14:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, according to the Wikipedia definition of vandalism, the noted edit is neither, disruptive or distructive, unless you call telling the truth disruptive or distructive.


 * The need to persist is because you still refuse to acknowledge that the entry you still continue to attempt to show the public is not based on truth or fact. The need to continue is because you still refuse to explain yourself while throwing up unfounded accusations of other's wrongs.


 * So, again, why do you refuse to answer the questions about the "performance company" that you claim to have that has never performed and, in truth, does not exist?

Apatronoftruth 16:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I will not debate with anonymous cowards
Go find something else to do.

Gregchilders 17:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not anonymous. This is from a registered user of Wikipedia.


 * And you still refuse to answer the questions posed to you. You still respond with irrational and unresponsive statements.


 * Just answer the questions.
 * Apatronoftruth 17:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)