Jump to content

Talk:Consumers Distributing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 211.21.23.71 (talk) at 22:50, 12 August 2021 (→Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2021: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Major update pending

I'm a collector of Consumers Distributing catalogues going back to 1960. I hope to be able to make some major cleanups to this page soon, using those catalogues as references. What I don't have though is references on anything to do with the founding of the company in 1957. Anybody have some good references on this? --guru (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other NJ Locations

There were at least two more NJ locations.

Totowa, New Jersey - Rt 46. Now occupied by Babies R Us. Wayne, New Jersey - Hamburg Turnpike - Located in the Wayne Hills Mall.

Consumers POS System

was nicknamed CARS (Consumers Automated Retail System), it was actually a great POS system in its time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.18.204 (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Store locations list.

I removed it because it is unencyclopedic in both tone and content. Wikipedia is not a directory (WP:DIRECTORY), even for a defunct chain. --oknazevad (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

407122

Needs at least SOME reference in this article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.76.83 (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revival

An unreigistered editor has been adding in a claim that Consumers is being revived. The edits use boldface and italcis to provide undue emphasis, use Non-neutral language that reads like promotional material rather than an encyclopedia (it refers to the alleged new CEO as being "legendary"), provides no referenes to reliable sources, and includes a link to a dead website. I googled this, and found a Facebook page making the same claims, and stating that there would be a news release announcement in August 2011. But there is no evidence oin the web that this happened. Anyone can make a Facebook page. It isn't credible. Ground Zero | t 14:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's one. Just throwing that in. consumersdistributing.ca TheAlexOfEvil (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me that this is actually the same company, as opposed to a former employee who has taken over a defunct name (or close approximation of the name). In any case, it only operated for a few months, apparently didn't provide the merchandise in some (possibly any?) cases) and is now in danger of being deregistered by Corporations Canada for failing to file its last two corporate returns. If this no tthe same company then it should either not be mentioned at all, or we should be very clear that it is not the same company. Meters (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube videos

I've removed several attempts to link to YouTube videos of ads. These are presumably copyrighted, and per WP:YOUTUBE we should not link to them or cite them. Meters (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2018

The logo should be replaced by the png version: File:Consumers Distributing logo.png, most resolution logos commonly used on Wikipedia.--Choix de DAC (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Danski454 (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2018

The file File:Consumers Distributing logo.jpg reflecting more the real last logo of the company, so it should be insert in logo line in infobox. A SVG version of this file should be created, so after it will probably stop to have the previous logo of a supposedly promotional user. If someone is able to create the logo of 1993 (File:Consumers Distributing logo.jpg) in SVG format, it should be created we hope. 69.174.249.78 (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: sockpuppet/UPE request. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Headquarters

I've just mass-reverted a long series of edits that were added by confirmed CDo sockpuppets, which again quietly removed the sourced section on Marc King's attempted relaunch of the brand, which has been one of the apparent goals of this sockfarm. There's been no actual good-faith discussion on whether or not it should be included, so I have restored it per WP:BANREVERT. I reviewed the edits that others had made in that time and I see only corrections to the links to files that the socks uploaded (which were deleted) so I've made no further changes.

The only exception is the listing of company headquarters in the infobox. @Meters: I see you have removed the New Jersey headquarters several times, and from my memory it's been in the article for a while, so I investigated. The claim was added when a CDo sockpuppet added the infobox in this series of edits, and there has never been a source. Probably it should not be there given the lack of sourcing and obvious promotional intent of the sockfarm, but I thought I'd leave it here for your opinion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove the NJ cats. As far as I know this was always a Canadian company. There may have been outlets in NJ, but there was no justification offered when I challenged the claim that it was headquartered in NJ. In fact, there was a lengthy discussion on my talk page in which one of the socks agreed that we should not list it [1] Meters (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've also removed the US headquarters claim from the body. It's not clear that they ever actually had a US division and headquarters as opposed to some stores there. A US distribution centre is not the same thing. Meters (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP address

This IP address has been asking multiple users to edit this page for them. Not really sure what to do about that, but I wanted to bring it up since it looks like this page has had problems with sockpuppets before. Lcodyh803 (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had to replace this, since the IP below me removed it, which leads me to believe they are the same person as the IP mentioned above. If they remove this again without discussion, it's probably true. Lcodyh803 (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry removed by mistake by making edit request.--222.117.76.175 (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2020

A work here of text source is improved with reliable sources to reflect cats headquarters from Canada also, without lacking of sources. 222.117.76.175 (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but sock puppets don't get to make edit requests. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sock contact?

Someone (a sock?) left a message on my talk page, asking me to replace the article text with this. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same. -Trilletrollet (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) There is no valid reason for a good-faith IP to suddenly show up on users' pages requesting proxy edits. This would likely be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ConsumersDistributingonline. The article is indefinitely protected because of this user's persistent socking, and one of his tactics now is to try to get good faith editors to make his edits for him. I've had requests too (and I'm the one who actually opened the original SPI). Meters (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They (diff. IP addresses) just tried same request on another editor's Talk as well. Schazjmd (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ConsumersDistributingonline. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This appears to be a new tactic; the IPs have posted similar messages to several newly extended-confirmed users' talk pages. I propose we add an editnotice to the article which reads something similar to the following:

If you have been invited by an IP editor or newly-registered account to edit this page, please note that the editor may be evading a community ban. Edits made on behalf of banned editors may be reverted and the account making the edit may be blocked. Please report all incidents at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ConsumersDistributingonline or the administrators' noticeboard.

Thoughts? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be helpful for all of us editors who might never have encountered this sort of tactic before. Schazjmd (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The user is persistent enough that this is warranted. Meters (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably a good idea. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Hoary is asking a similar question at AN ("Editnotice about well-intentioned proxy editing"). Schazjmd (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(You didn't ping me? Awww....) Yes, we have a similar problem elsewhere. I'm very impressed by Ivanvector's suggested notice above, and propose to plagiarize adopt/adapt it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Some folks get irritated by pings when their immediate attention isn't needed, I've kind of been defaulting in that direction out of excess deference...) Schazjmd (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've implemented the edit notice with only minor changes, you can see it by editing the page. I don't think I realized only admins and template editors can edit them, so let me know if any changes are necessary. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2021

long thread started by sockpuppet

As discussed on the Tea House, users tell me to submit my draft as an edit request. The changes are accompanied with reliable sources. If someone see promotional material that some users told me, please specify where, I can fix it on my draft before publishing my draft. Skycrapyrus (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Skycrapyrus - Asking neutral editors to identify the promotional material in a draft so that the submitter can fix it is asking neutral editors to rewrite a draft. Many experienced editors do not want to rewrite a draft to make it neutral, to do the work for a promotional editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK but what I ask to review my draft is also because I know what I made and all of that is neutral and nothing promotional, it's all with reliable sources. A great example, the last paragraph in History section about the bankruptcy (in the draft) would not be advantageous for a promotional.--Skycrapyrus (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. We are not going to simply replace this entire article with your rejected draft. If you have changes you would like to suggest then please do so properly. Meters (talk) 06:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changes are everywhere in the article, the draft is rejected and does not seem to have been consulted, there are more than twenty reliable sources added that can be consulted.These reliable sources fix a lot of information that is currently wrong in the article like years in history, number of locations in the beginning of the text and infobox… The best specifications I can mention here after reviewing my draft is adding mainly content in the history section which is currently incomplete, removing the useless section of corporate office because this information is in the infobox, and lot of minor fixes everywhere. --Skycrapyrus (talk) 07:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 07:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And has already been said, Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. We are not going to compare your draft with the existing article line by line for you. Meters (talk) 08:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In infobox: there's no Inc. on name. This evidence first is promotional. The type line is more adequate by removing private and public company years history with replacement of Subsidiary, number of locations is 219 in Ca and 153 in US that should be fixed in the first paragraph with addition of source (ref name="aggressive") like in the draft. Key people line with the name of the 3 former chief executive officer and fixing year of parent company line (see draft).
In History section:

Improvement of text with reliable sources compared to current version (see text source):


The corporate office section is not useful, information is in the infobox. --Skycrapyrus (talk) 08:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the instructions. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source, and please get consensus first. Meters (talk) 08:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's I'm doing.--Skycrapyrus (talk) 08:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No you are not. And you have still not answered user:Robert McClenon's question about a possible WP:COI. I'm not spending any more time on this until you answer that, and propose your exact changes in a "change X to Y" format with the sources. I'm not going to read your draft to try and find the sources that support the vague changes you are suggesting. And I would strongly suggest that you deal with one change at a time. Meters (talk) 08:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
About WP:COI, I'm not solicited, I am alone with what I do.--Skycrapyrus (talk) 08:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That does not address the COI question. Do you have any personal connection to the company or people employed by the company? David notMD (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not, how could I have personal connection with a defunct company since twenty five years ago.--Skycrapyrus (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is an interesting question indeed. How is it that there is a long history of promotional edits to this article? We, the neutral editors, do not know that, but we know that there has been a long history of conflict of interest editing to this article. We don't know why, but we know that neutral point of view is the second pillar of Wikipedia, which is why this article is protected. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You always say promotional edits but never specify an example, all my draft is neutral with reliable sources. A great example of what I made on my draft: the current last two references added by an established user are now dead links and I retrieved them on Internet Archive.--Skycrapyrus (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have not established a consensus for this. Also, if you keep switching the request to unanswered without gaining consensus you will be reported for disruptive editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I consulted history and I discovered that the promotional edits was about a supposed relaunch of the company. The last paragraph is about that but as we can see (with the reliable sources that I retrieved on my draft), it's really not at the advantage for a promotional. I found two websites consumersdistributing.com and consumersdistributing.ca that I really not promote in my draft. If there is really a relaunch of the company with reliable sources, I have no desire to add that, I am only focusing on the information of the original defunct company with reliable sources of the time (all in min rough draft)--Skycrapyrus (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What can I do more for the consensus, I answer what we ask to me.--Skycrapyrus (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2021

A work (text source) here improves the reliable sources and fixes everywhere missing or wrong information (like some dates), that gives this result. 211.21.23.71 (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Consumers_Distributing&oldid=1038498707"