User talk:Chick Bowen/Archive8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive. Do not edit it.

Contents

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 00:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Image?

Hi,

Just wondering why you deleted the image on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chambers_stove

Not complaining - just wondering. If I violated a Wiki policy, I didn't mean to.

John E. Chambers 21:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You had uploaded it as non-commercial/with permission. We actually can't accept that license. If you own the image, you'll need to release it under the GFDL. If it's also included on a website you own, you'll have to make sure there's a release there as well, so the two won't conflict. For more information see Wikipedia:Image use policy. Thanks. Chick Bowen 02:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed your hard work in deletions. Thank you for deleting some of that stack of CSD I2 images. I know there are a lot! --Strangerer (Talk) 15:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed how many you tagged--thanks for that. Chick Bowen 15:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] The Wedding (2000 novel)

I had similar thoughts to yours. Found it while working Category:Articles lacking sources from December 2005. I think you did a fair write up, lets see what happens. Jeepday (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Welcome

Thanks for the reminder.

I just updated the {{Did you know}} section, take a look at it to see if it's good :) Aquarius • talk 01:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Twinkle vs. Userpages

You're right, of course, but there were a lot of userpage vandals running around last evening and warning-deleters. There were one or two that I probably should have dealt with differently, so I'll keep that in mind. Thanks for paying attention to the details! Wombatcat 11:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

It took me a few moments but I figured out what happened and moved my sources to the actual article. Thanks for the heads up. Freshacconci 03:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Decepticons-als2.jpg

You stated that Image:Decepticons-als2.jpg was not a repost. It is, but under a different name. The user originally uploaded the file as Image:Transformers-als2.jpg which was deleted. He then posted the same image as Image:Decepticons-als2.jpg -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NYT

<section removed, but thanks, Richard>

[edit] Thee Boss

Hi Bowen. You have blocked this user for image use violations (and rightfully so). Well, immediately after his unblock, he posted a nonfree image to his own user page and also deleted previous warnings. Surely breaking policy right after an unblock warrants another block? Also, another user HSKHAMESH is making virtually identical edits to Thee Boss: uploading the same images after they were deleted as well as using the same incorrect capitalisation style on articles such as Lloyd Banks and Young Buck. Spellcast 18:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Correction: It wasn't Thee Boss who re-uploaded a copyvio image on his userpage after the block, but HSKHAMESH. This strongly suggests a sock puppet or meat puppet. Spellcast 19:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've indef-blocked both of them--ample warning was given. Chick Bowen 21:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked?

I was blocked because I continously uploaded copyrighted images, but after my blcok period I was blocked again because somebody else uploaded the same pictures...

Why?

Thanks Thee Boss 13:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Replied at Thee Boss's talk page. Chick Bowen 03:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Utopia

You may want to see recent developments at New Utopia and Talk:New Utopia. --Iamunknown 17:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a reasonably productive conversation to me at a quick glance. Let's see what happens. Chick Bowen 02:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks, Ill make sure that I check out what images im uploading next time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thee Boss (talk • contribs).


[edit] Guess What

I like pie do you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Mighty Clod (talk • contribs).

[edit] CZR

On June 16th you speedied an article I created, CZR, claiming it read like an advertisement. I find it odd you did not put it through a proper AFD, as this was not the only dance music article I created and I have several edits on a number of different subjects. I request that you undelete CZR so I can rewrite it and add references. Thank you. --Pc13 10:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And I see where the "advertisement" part came from. It was the recent edits by Musicmogul (talk · contribs) -- Pc13 21:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Currency Image:500000cruzeiros.jpg

Hi, To assist global anti-counterfeiting efforts you may wish to consider marking images of banknotes you upload as "Specimen" in some way, if those banknotes represent legal tender.ShakespeareFan00 16:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, our watermarking policy discourages that. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to "assist global anti-counterfeiting efforts." Chick Bowen 19:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


Sorry, admin DESiegel said to list it on AfD... Cableguytk 04:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the clarification. Cableguytk 04:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked IP

Actually, that IP is still blocked. Check the block log [1]. Could you take care of that please? It's already been ID'd as a bad block by the blocking admin, in the diff I cited in the unblock box. 24.160.241.190 18:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

All right, I've done it, as I don't see it makes much difference. However, please don't edit war over talk page comments. It is not productive. Chick Bowen 18:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks! It may not be productive, but I'm not here to create an encyclopedia, I'm here to harass users! ;-) 24.160.241.190 18:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry about the revert

The revert was an accident I didn't even see which page I reverted until it was too late, my sincere apologies. Gudeldar 18:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] eserver.org "linkspam" dispute

You previously commented on User talk:Requestion about a disagreement over whether some links were spam or useful references. May I ask you to review WP:COIN#EServer.org and comment? A level-headed outside voice would be much appreciated there. -- Rbellin|Talk 22:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the nature of the dispute at this point. Obviously you feel that Requestion has been less than civil, but in regard to the links, what is it exactly you would like to see happen? I think the COIN regulars' point is not that they're lousy links but that it's not up to eserver to determine whether they're needed on a particular page. There are currently 274 links. Do you feel that they are all basically justified? Do you feel there should be more? These are not rhetorical or loaded questions--I'm really just trying to get a sense of the situation. Chick Bowen 22:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
No, a fair number of the links were/are clearly spam and should clearly stay deleted. The problem is that some of them are useful and high-quality references (take a look at, e.g., the links in question from Slavery in Massachusetts or Charles Beecher: the first is an academic article by a respected scholar of Thoreau, the second an original text from the 19th century in a useful electronic edition, both otherwise unavailable online). And users replacing those links (myself and Moorlock) are having a hard time getting a reasonable response, and indeed are being accused of spamming ourselves and threatened with blocks. Now, nineteenth-century America is one of my fields of expertise in real life, so it may be more obvious to me what's a useful source, but I think it ought to be obvious that the basic sniff-test of what makes a better encyclopedia article (which in some of these cases is clearly leaving the link in place) is being overlooked, probably because the editors who originally added these links added them in what looked like a spammy manner (all at once). -- Rbellin|Talk 22:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
In other words, what I'd like to happen is what (I think) the spam policy dictates and what you said on User talk:Requestion: the editors of the individual articles affected should decide whether some of the links deserve to stay. But that is already what happened here; I had no idea about any of these spam accusations until Requestion's deletions came across my watchlist, and given that Moorlock contributed heavily to many of the affected Thoreau-related articles, I assume Moorlock became aware of it similarly. The trouble is with the aftermath and the refusal of discussion in favor of threats. -- Rbellin|Talk 23:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
It is always within policy to add back an external link so long as the edit summary explains why that particular link is needed. There should be no problem with your doing so. I wouldn't worry about block threats from someone without the ability to block you--no one will over this. In the meantime, you can probably help calm things down easily enough--if you see one that isn't needed, remove it. I'll leave a note at the noticeboard. Chick Bowen 23:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dick

Good work continued: Well done. (And I particularly like your informative comments on Lester's photo of Dick.

I've done a little work on categorization, though really this article cries out for the as-yet nonexistent "Category: US 'anglos' whose names seem to be back to front". That aside, This edition consists of 400 numbered copies, of which 365 are for sale, numbers 1 to 84 inclusive, containing holograph manuscript: Thanks to your new addition, I now understand this. But is there really a comma after "inclusive"?

No need to reply; but if you want to, feel free to do so here rather than on my talk page. -- Hoary 02:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You're certainly right about the name. As for the punctuation: I think so. I haven't seen the book (I could; there's one in the special collections of a library about an hour from me, but I don't think it would yield much new information). But several libraries include the note in their catalog; Harvard, for example. Chick Bowen 03:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Who are we to question Harvard? And I'm sure you have better things to do with your time. Let the comma stay. -- Hoary 04:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Karr

now that was a fast trip down incivility lane. i've reverted your bad faith edits. --emerson7 | Talk 04:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you're defending a statement that is neither accurate nor a compliment to the man ("careerist" is a negative term, though for some reason you don't seem to believe me about that). I assure you I did not intend incivility; I am merely baffled by your behavior here. Chick Bowen 04:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Petr Shelokhonov

Dear Chuck Bowen,

Thank you again for your attention to the article about my late father, Petr Shelokhonov. When he passed away in 1999, aged 70, I was earning my green card and citizenship in the USA, and, sadly, I could not be there, my mother and my sister, grandchildren, all are still struggling with their loss, especially when we see his smiling face in many movies and on TV today. They are still confused about the exact date and time and true causes of his death (our family was under all sorts of pressures in Russia for many years, especially in Siberia), but I’ll try to work on that on my next trip to Russia, no matter how difficult that may be (both the trip and getting all facts). I am unable to provide the complete date of his death now, and I am also struggling with finding the proper English words for all this.

The article is a very "raw" stub and eventually must be improved through editing until it matches the bigger Russian article, which is based on the Russian biography of Petr Shelokhonov written by film critic Dmitri Ivaneev in St. Petersburg, Russia. I am currently translating that comprehensive biography from Dmitri Ivaneev, and also in contact with other sources, theatre companies, Odessa Film Studios, Mosfilm Studios, people in Kiev, Ukraine and, of course, at Lenfilm Studios in St. Petersburg. The brief bio by Dmitri Ivaneev, which I translated and gave to IMDb in 2005, may be removed from Wikipedia, but his credits as actor and director as well as "Filmography" list and "Stage works" list are public domain and are here to stay and to be edited further in order to match the Russian source.

Pictures: both pictures are my own photos made with my old 35mm Minolta freedom camera. In 2005 I paid IMDb a fee to place my own photos on their site, but this does not prevent me from giving my own photos to public domain, and to Wikipedia. I have trouble understanding the templates for pictures submission, can you help? The multi-language issue: I'm working simultaneously on Russian, English, French, German, Ukrainian and other articles about my late father. Good part: I know material and sources for this article, Mr Ivaneev, the Russian author, living film directors, other friends with access to Russian film archives.

Challenges: Mistakes, such as the 2002 DVD release of Dauria (a 1971 film about Cossacks) has my father’s name on the cover as a main star, albeit the name is misspelled, as well as the film title itself - it must be Dauriya, not Dauria ("ia" ending confuses it with an Italian word). Same problem with the DVD versions of "Anna Karenina" and "Tolstoi's Anna Karenina" for which film I was an interpreter on locations in Russia, that's when I took photos after filming of each scene, when actors made themselves available for photo-ops. Filming was fun, but mistakes were made during post-production in Europe and while further editing at WB. Russian actors could not become internationl stars due to language problem, but some films starring Petr Shelokhonov are dubbed in 5 languages, such as “Dauria” and others. I am now receiving some DVDs and VHS of his films and TV productions in Europe which are still unavailable here. I also now have filming call lists and production files for several films, that are very helpful in correcting names spelling, filming dates and other detailes about production. Filming call lists are reliable sources, because film credits may have mistakes and omissions.

I’d like to try a “film-like” vertical sequence of head-shots and film stills in the Filmography section of this article, can you help?

Deletion of the article only slows down my work on it, and also prevents me from moving on to fixing other multi-language problems that I see in Wikipedia, as soon as this article becomes better in all 5, 6 or 7 languages. I need the article back to continue making improvements, to save me a good deal of time, because I am still learning the English computer keyboard (very different from Russian) as well as Wikipedia rules and tools (different from the real world, albeit there is some common sense, such as break all rules for getting better results). Thank you for this educational experience. Sincerely, Steveshelokhonov 22:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Steve, I had to delete it; the very first edit, from May 28, matched the IMDB bio word-for-word. I've copied the filmography and so on to a subpage of your user page, "User:Steveshelokhonov/Petr." You can work on a bio there and then move it to main space. Chick Bowen 22:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Much appreciated, Chuck Bowen.Steveshelokhonov 00:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. It's Chick, though. Chick Bowen 00:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Happy 4th of July, Chick Bowen.Steveshelokhonov 20:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA. However, it was unsuccessful. I am in no way disheartened, and I will hopefully succeed in a month or two. If you have any further suggestions or comments, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will be happy to respond. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United Nations Centre for Trade facilitation and Electronic Business

Thank you for reminding me, I almost forgot. Please revert the second move that I didn't perform, as I was greeted with an error message when I tried it the second time. That article seems to have been stable at it's location since 2003 without any problems, so if consensus to to move it back to "United Nations Centre for Trade Facilitation and Electronic Business", I think it should be up to editors of the article rather than be haphazardly moved in a collection of 4,000 moves. Thank you! — Moe ε 04:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! And I'm looking for some feedback, I already had support to do so, but I'm still uncomfortable, do you think me reverting User:Koavf so many time is the appropriate thing to do? He's been blocked for a week because of these page moves and everyone is reverting his moves so far.. I haven't got a lot of complaints about it either, so do you think I should continue with the reverting of his mass page-move? — Moe ε 04:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll try to be more thoughtful in the reverting. I've tried to be careful and keep the ones that actually met WP:MOS where they were, but I think I may have missed one or two, if thats the case I'll catch it when I go through my move log later and review it again. The real problem with the initial-spacing ones is that there have been several complaints about those as well like on WP:RFPP were it's being listed as disputed on several pages like J.R. Chandler were the spacing is probably not correct (I have no opinion on it). Sorry about the "default"-ness of my messages, but it seemed like there were several editors wondering in many areas of Wikipedia, like at the NFL, NBA, and NHL WikiProjects, editors on WP:RFPP, and all the messages left on Koavf's talk page wondering whats going on. I'll take your advice and try and put more thought behind it, and maybe leave a notice at the top of my talk page about what happened and why I amde so many page moves. Cheers and thanks for the input! :) — Moe ε 04:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vincent Bethell: create a protected redirect to The Freedom to be Yourself?

Hello Chick. Please see the discussion at User_talk:Kernel_Saunters#Vincent_Bethell, in the context of the previous comments at WP:AN#Vincent Bethell. Do you feel that this is a good enough reason to go ahead and create a fully-protected redirect from Vincent Bethell to The Freedom to be Yourself? In the context of the previous dispute recorded in the 'Vincent Bethell' entry at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 9, and the many dozens of bad edits made by the subject himself, whose traces are still visible at User_talk:EdJohnston/VB, do you think this is enough data for you to permanently protect the redirect? If you think there should be further process to justify the protection, please indicate what way you think is best. After we conclude our discussion, either way, it would be worth leaving a note at WP:AN#Vincent Bethell. EdJohnston 18:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that seems quite reasonable to me, and in general a protected redirect to the organization has been the most frequent solution to similar problems recently. There's one thing I'd really love to see, though--a citation for Vincent's request to Yahoo in The Freedom to be Yourself. You say permanently--I won't put expiration on the protection, but I will put a direction in the log to WP:RFPP in case someone (other than Vincent) wants to tackle this in future. Chick Bowen 20:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] father of...

your deletion to delete was rather unnecessarily daring. After all, deletion means "eradicate visibility from history". You can always redirect something without deleting, and people will still be able to access former content from the history tab. List of people known as father or mother of something is a redirect now, and I don't see what difference it makes that the edit history is visible only to admins. imo, we clearly need a discussion of the "father of X" metaphor somewhere. That list wasn't ideal, but deleting it was hardly an improvement. I suppose we need a section "metaphorical use" on Father, and the deleted list should just be a redirect to that section. regards, dab (𒁳) 21:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That would have been unnecessarily daring. That would have been my decision only; there was no real discussion of a redirect in the debate. I believe, as I said in my close, that the keep votes were not fully thought through, and thus that my close was the best interpretation of the debate as it took place. Chick Bowen 23:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Respectfully, I was not involved in that one because I just came upon it today - but it certainly reads like "no consensus" to me, rather than a definite delete or keep. The article is gone, so I can't verify this, but I am guessing that the redirect is to only one of the items that was on the original? So the rest is lost - does this actually make sense to you? Tvoz |talk 20:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Does it make sense to me? I have found this entire argument bizarre, and I still do. Virtually everyone agrees that the list was at best an oddball combination of loosely related entities, and at worst (and this is my opinion) misleadingly assembled bad research. But because a whole lot of pages linked to it and because the phrase "father of" is common, people object to the deletion even though they don't think the list was encyclopedic. That makes no sense; we don't keep a bad list because we can't figure out what to do with the links pointing to it. If it's bad, we delete it. Personally, I think the phrase is self-explanatory and doesn't need to link to anything, but that doesn't matter. If you or Dab or anyone else can figure out a wonderful target for those redirects, do it. If you need the deleted edits of the list, I'll provide them. But don't object to the deletion of a bad article because of the much smaller problems it creates. Chick Bowen 02:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dick: Good?

Chick, while I have a rather dark view of this rigmarole, I haven't completely given up on it, and I do think that the Dick article is good. May I nominate it? -- Hoary 23:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, bless you for the heading of this section, and thanks for your interest in the article and particularly for all your help with it. I've never been a big fan of GA either, but I would be happy to get the article some attention. I'd been planning to submit it for featured at some point, but I wanted to do a little more research and I just haven't had time, and probably won't until at least August. Also I'm going on vacation for a couple weeks in a few days, so I won't be around to respond to questions/criticism. In short--it's up to you! Thanks again, though, and either way I'll let you know if and when I do try FAC. By the way, I wanted to draw your attention to Thomas C. Roche, which I wrote the other day. It's just a little stub, but I'll see if I can expand it, too, at some point. Chick Bowen 01:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, let's wait a few weeks then. And yes, I looked at the Roche article, and liked what I saw. -- Hoary 12:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Cool. Sounds good. Chick Bowen 21:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] undeletion

Chick Bowen, with due respect, I think you went quite too far in closing the deletion discussion for List of people known as father or mother of something as "delete". The arguments for keeping it were consistent with policy, and a number of users were unconvinced by Carcharoth's argument that it was original research. (Note also that a large number of respected Wikipedians have contributed to it, and it was orignally started by a user who is now a bureaucrat. The list and the keep votes were not incompatible with the spirit of content policies, nor the letter.) There was nothing close to the required rough consensus for deletion. I've undeleted the article. Yours sincerely--ragesoss 02:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not wheel war, and have no intention of doing so, but we generally discuss first, Ragesoss. Not even a DRV? Come now. The article is meaningless--it says nothing. It comments on a mere turn of phrase without establishing that the phrase is significant or even consistent in application. But that's on your head. Chick Bowen 03:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DRV notice

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of people known as the father or mother of something. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Otto4711 03:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poor deletion decision

Wake up and smell the coffee. This was a terrible move on your part. I can’t even believe this was a vfd, let alone deleted. This article needs to be restored. Please do so. The issue (debate) with the father of chemistry is a huge talk page discussion on the chemistry articles, especially on Talk:Chemistry and will likely be an article some day. Fathers and mothers of science is very significant issue in base concepts of knowledge. This debate should have been posted on all the related project pages, especially science project pages. I’m basically speechless. Do you have any idea how linked up that page was? --Sadi Carnot 15:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

In any event, I've opened up a Deletion Review: Aug 13, 2007. I didn’t even know this happened, it was closed at 14 keeps and 11 deletes; with admins reopening and closing the article on an alternating basis, e.g. see the deletion log history. Thank: --Sadi Carnot 16:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I did not perform the most recent deletion. Chick Bowen 16:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:BenB4

I don't have the patience to educate this guy. See [2] and Wikipedia talk:Public domain#Public records. Could you help, or help to find someone else to help? Lupo 22:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope that wasn't too commando style, but the reverting had to stop. I won't comment on the issue at hand, though, since I'm the protecting admin. Chick Bowen 00:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You are calling a total of two reverts on my part and three on Lupo's part -- with constructive changes in between -- an edit war? By that standard you ought to just protect the whole encyclopedia and go home. No skin off my nose, but this is certainly the first time I've seen two reverts called an edit war. By the way, Lupo left an identical message on at least one other user's talk page. ←BenB4 01:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No skin off mine, either. It's a very short protection to head off what looked to be headed to an edit war. If I was wrong, I was wrong--wouldn't be the first time. Chick Bowen 01:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
About this discusssion -- assuming that you're referring to the Sen. Craig mugshot, I posted what I found about Minnesota law and this issue. My rather lengthy message is posted under Update: applicability of PD or non-free image tag for Sen. Craig mugshot. I also edited the rationale summary to clarify the use of the photo for the Larry Craig article. →Lwalt ♦ talk 19:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the issue Ben raised was broader, and was an attempt to apply a federal standard. In my mind, your approach--state-by-state--makes a lot more sense. Chick Bowen 04:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OsamaKBOT

Thanks for telling me, I have replied.--OsamaK 13:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need Help Keeping An Article Neutral

Hello.

You've helped before with an article I have contributed to and now I'd like to ask for assistance again. I asked one of the other Editors to help, but I think he's offline for a while, hence my plea to you for help.

The article is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chambers_stove

Here's the problem:

After much near-warfare, the user lowracer agreed to stop using the article to promote his website and forum on the subject. I also agreed to refrain from same - in short, we both agreed to keep the article website NEUTRAL.

Unbeknownst to me, he slipped a little hint on how to find his website in one of the last paragraph's some time back. I found it a couple of days ago when editing the article for better grammar, correct some technical info, etc. I revised the sentence in question (you can see the changes in the history tab), and made note of the reason for doing so. He came back and changed it back, claiming that I was trying to protect my business by "whitewashing" the article, when, in reality, all I was doing was trying to work within the guidelines set forth by yourself and others and agreed to by us.

Can you help? This person is very antagonistic and difficult to deal with. He's got a proverbial burr under his saddle against me, and does all he can to cause me harm. He started a website for the publicly stated purpose of shutting mine down, and he just won't relent. This activity has, unfortunately, spilled over into Wikipedia, making itself seen in the continued problems he's caused with the article in question, of which the vast majority of the text was written by me.

I bear this person no malice, and I'm not inclined to get into a rock throwing war with him - all I ask is that the article be kept neutral with regard to websites on the subject, links to them, or clear hints as to how to find them using, say Google, to search for them.

We need an authoritative word to stop this from escalating again.

Your help would be most appreciated.

Also - would you be so kind as to reply here, as he watches my talk page.

Thank you!

John E. Chambers 17:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems a little early for admin intervention to me, John. There's been no discussion on the article talk page since May, and no attempt at compromise wording. I've placed a note on the article talk page asking all parties to discuss there, which is certainly the next step if there's a conflict. If it goes any further, have a look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Chick Bowen 22:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Will do, Mr. Bowen. I was just uncertain as to what to do next, given this person's past behavior, coupled with my desire to work within the Wikipedia rules.

I'll post a comment on the Talk page and see what happens.

John E. Chambers 23:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Bowen is funny (it's an internet alias), but not necessary--everyone calls me Chick. Chick Bowen 02:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Question: So far, he hasn't replied to my plea for a compromise on the talk page of the article (probably because I haven't changed the text back, per your instructions) - how long should I wait, and, if he doesn't reply within said time, should I go ahead and make the article website neutral again anyway?

John E. Chambers 00:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but make sure to note the change and provide justification for it on the talk page. The goal here is to start a discussion and work toward consensus. Chick Bowen 02:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

______________

Chick (sorry about calling you Mr. Bowen: it's the upbringing, you know...) -

I have followed your instructions. I hope I did the revision and explanation properly. Please review it when you have time and advise as to any corrections I may need to make.

Thank you!

John E. Chambers 17:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

______________

Hello Chick.

Well, the unpleasantness has begun.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chambers_stove#Keeping_This_Article_Website_Neutral

We REALLY need your help over here....

John E. Chambers 20:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

_____________

Actually, the issue here escapes me. Looking through the history, your version and Lowracer's don't seem significantly different, despite the hostility in edit summaries (why estimate the number of websites at all? you don't have sources for the claim in any case). Also, you still haven't been reverted, so perhaps it would be best not to sweat it. Chick Bowen 01:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

_____________

Thanks, Chick!

Your point about there not being a source for the number of websites & forums is well taken - hadn't thought of that.

As for leaving things where they are for now, I agree. This guy goes on rants every few months and, when he doesn't get his way, deletes his account in the venue in question (like the forum he mentioned - he deleted his account 09/07/07), deletes all his posts, then goes off in a huff. Of course, this is the second time he's claimed to swear off Wikipedia, never to return, so we'll see...

I'm perfectly content to leave things as they stand.

Thanks for your help and encouragement.

Regards,

John E. Chambers 02:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

_____________

Hello Chick,

Well, the other party has, indeed, left Wikipedia. Sad, for he was actually a brilliant contributor at times.

One last question:

Several of his comments were or borderline on slander. What provision, if any, does Wikipedia make for dealing with and/or removing such comments?

Thanks again for your help.

Regards, John E. Chambers 00:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

____________

I've reviewed the comments and I see a lot of anger but nothing I would consider defamation. They can be archived (see Help:Archiving a talk page) but should not be removed altogether. Chick Bowen 17:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

I owe you a big thank you for supporting me in My RfA, which was successful with 67 supports and 20 opposes. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 23:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)