Talk:Chris Heimerdinger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chris Heimerdinger article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Praise

I think that chris should make several movies over all ten of his "tennis shoes",stories.They would be great movies! So chris if you ever read this I think you should make some movies! I think I woul dbe speaking for all (LDS) readers!I would also enjoy it if you would keep going with the tennis shoes series!Great job so far! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.58.148.2 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 15 February 2007

Hey I totally agree with whoever left that comment. I have been reading those books since i was a little kid and the whole time I was thinking wow these would make awesome feature length movies. If you do ever read this Chris I think your books are absolutely amazing. It's good to know that our church can actually have a serious writer who produces serious books that anybody could enjoy. Our church doens't neccessarily have to be limited to study guide type books. WE RULE!! Keep at it Chris, if i don't find out what happens in the 11th book i'm gonna absolutely die!!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.64.178 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 4 July 2007


I agree as well. I am not a member of the LDS church, but I still enjoy them. He is most defenantly my favourite auther. He deserves his own page, no question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.182.39 (talk) 02:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Tennis Shoes Adventure Series should be merged into Chris Heimerdinger, as there is a great deal of overlap in the material covered, and a separate article on the series is not really all that useful (a redirect to Chris Heimerdinger should be sufficient). -- 12.106.111.10 20:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a merge would work well in this instance. There is really no reason to have a separate article for Tennis Shoes Adventure Series. –SESmith 23:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seperate Subject

I think that this should remain a seperate subject as long as there is a link to it from the Chris Heimerdinger subject. The tennis shoes series is the greatest thing since sliced bread!(74.68.57.241 22:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Neutrality Dispute

To me, the Chris Heimerdinger reads like a personal advertisement for his books. There seems to be nothing that really merits his inclusion in this encyclopedia. Heimerdinger is only well-known among a portion of the Mormon community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J27c (talk • contribs) 16:21, 21 July 2007


[edit] Book Updates

I recently was privileged to be able to meet with Chris as promotion for his movie and he mentioned some projects he had been working on so I have been updating his lists, including The Revised Eddi Fantastic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.8.66.136 (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, it's really difficult to respond to someone not having a user name because there's no way to address them directly. However, this response is directed to whoever wrote the unsigned comment above. It is my understanding that Wikipedia frowns on material not verifiable. Word of mouth may not be enough. I know that there have been times when I've altered content on Wikipedia based on word of mouth, and it was reverted. What I'm trying to say here (and saying very poorly) is that my understanding is that unless there is a source for additional changes/information, and unless that source is verifiable (as in an encyclopedia or article or website, etc.) information should not be included. For that reason alone, I am reverting the changes to reflect what was last officially announced. An official statement that can be authenticated as coming directly from Chris would be enough to convince me that this is actually the case. But word of mouth, yours, mine, or anyone else's, may not be enough. The changes will be reverted to reflect last OFFICIAL information. If I am in error on this, please let me know. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable 03:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I thought I was logged in. I will be willing to get an email and try to get some more official information from him but he is currently traveling to promote the movie so it might be little while. I also added a picture of him that I obtained, to the page. I hadn't heard he was planing a second book in the passage series so I don't know why its there. But every thing I have post here would be backed by Chris himself too. [User:Lostinbrave|Lostinbrave]] 04:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:OR and WP:BLP concerns

There is a bunch of information in this article that I can't find anywhere in the cited references or external links. The vast majority of the personal and family information — parents, children names, etc. — I can't find in a source. I can find some of the stuff about his early life in sources, but not all of it. I can't help but think that maybe some of this material is a result of original research. Sometimes it sounds like it was written by a publicist, or at least someone who knows him. I don't want to place tags on all the problematic WP:OR stuff or delete it until I give editors a chance to respond and maybe show me what I'm missing in the sources. Because the person is living, I'm afraid WP:BLP suggests that we delete the personal information that can't be found in sources. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Good Ol’factory, your concerns are understandable. However, let me explain something to you that you don't understand. Most of the changes made before you performed clean-up on this article were made by the user with the IP address 98.202.23.178. Without going into detail, I need to say that the user with this IP address is Chris himself. Most of the content as it stood before you cleaned up the article was either put in by or authorized by Chris. If you go to previous edits of this talk page, you would come across comments of his left in response to edits by me. The long and the short of it is, if the one (Chris) who the article is about put the information in, it should technically remain there. At least, that's my understanding of WP policy on articles about living persons to which they themselves contribute. If I am in error, please let me know. Of course there would be some degree of WP:OR in this article, because a person can hardly contribute personal facts to an article about himself WITHOUT it being OR. However, in the previous conversation I had with him on this page, which you can see if you go back to it in the archives, Chris respectfully requested that the changes he made be allowed to stand, and I think that since this article IS about him, it should be WP's duty to honor his respectfully stated wishes. He specifically requested that the information pertaining to his marriage be omitted, not just because of the legal troubles he was going through (which, by the way, have been misrepresented by the media) but also out of respect to his ex-wife. I will let you read his comments on your own and decide for yourself what effect, if any, they should have on the material presented in this article. Suffice it in closing for me to say that Chris has asked me, as one of his fans, but more importantly, as a WP editor and his friend, to "police" this page, monitor edits about it, and try to keep it within WP guidelines while also making sure his wishes are honored, and I intend to do so. I may thus be guilty of a conflict of interest; however, I don't feel that my contribution to Church-related pages is a conflict of interest between my Church membership and my position as a WP editor. The same goes for Chris's page. I think we can stick to WP guidelines without dishonoring his wishes. With that said, I'll leave you to study his previously stated request on earlier versions of this talk page. Thanks for raising the question, and I hope I've answered it. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
You're right, I wasn't aware that it was the subject who made these additions, though I gathered from some of the edit comments that he had somehow made requests about the article. I know on WP we take a fairly tolerant attitude towards subjects of articles removing material from the article about them, as discussed here, but I don't think the same tolerant attitude exists for additions made by the subject. A WP article is not the same as a promotional site, nor it a place where the subject of the article can create autobiographical information. You're absolutely correct that "a person can hardly contribute personal facts to an article about himself WITHOUT it being OR". And that's a huge problem. There is no exception to the WP:OR rule that I am aware of that says if the subject of the article contributes the material it is OK. Of course, it decreases if not eliminates the WP:BLP/libel issues, but I still think the basic of WP's commitment to using verifiable sources only stands. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, which outlines many of these problems. I don't think we have any option but to delete the unsourced material.
As for the WP:COI issue, monitoring a page for the subject of the article who is a friend is definitely not something that I would be comfortable doing as a WP editor dedicated to neutrality; see this section on "close relationships" as an example. However, I think everyone needs to assess and sort out for themselves their conflicts and their interests and the relationship between them. In any case, having a conflict of interest in editing is strongly discouraged. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Therefore, since one of Chris's requests was for the information about his wife to be removed, I would suggest doing so, to avoid, as he said, embarrassment that might come to his wife because of the situation as it now stands. I understand what you said. I therefore concur that the removal of uncited or unsourced material is a good idea, and I will take the time to let Chris know about that.
I also hereby promise to you and to any other editors that may read this that I will remain neutral on this issue. While I cannot and will not ignore Chris's wishes expressed to me as a friend, nor can I or will allow my friendship with Chris to affect the way I edit this article. Chris's request for me to "police" this page referred only to making sure that unsourced or inaccurate information doesn't get into the article. Nowhere does he limit me to not concurring with edits done by other editors or following WP policy. So, I feel that there is no more conflict of interest for me on this issue than there is on ANY of the LDS pages to which I have contributed or which I have edited. When the consensus rules according to WP policy, I will stand by and uphold that, even to Chris himself if necessary. However, I don't see that any of Chris's requests would created a problem according to WP policy. Therefore, I think I am on safe ground. If there is ever a point where a COI does arise, I will probably step away from further editing or watching of this article, and explain the situation to Chris so he understands. For now, though, I will continue to keep an eye on this page and make edits that I feel will follow WP policy and honor Chris's respectful requests. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with deleting the wife's name. The only reason I included it was because it was included in the cited material. I've made that change. I'm also fine with simply putting an "original research" tag on the article for now. If it stays for awhile without any significant additions in referencing, then the problematic material can be deleted by someone. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Heimerdinger has authorized me to speak/edit for him

To Whom It May Concern: Chris Heimerdinger recently contacted me about some concerns he had about edits made to this page. He knows that I am a WP editor and has asked me to represent him in edits to this page. In doing this, he is not asking me to violate WP policy, but is asking me as one of his fans and friends who is somewhat aware of WP policy to make sure that edits made to this page are in conformity to WP policy but also follow his expressed wishes to me pertaining to the content of this page. I know that this is somewhat irregular, and that my neutrality may be questioned on this. However, as I have said before, I believe that Chris's respectful wishes can be honored while still having this page and changes made to it follow WP policy. Chris has asked that I post with this message notification from him verifying what I have just told you. He said: "I am authorizing [Jgstokes] to represent statements that I have added to my page on Wikipedia. I'm not entirely pleased with some of the editorial decisions that have been made, especially with regard to links or information that may have been deleted considering that I worked hard to provide the page with biographical info not found anywhere else, info exclusive to Wikipedia that I've never written before. I believe James will represent my contributions in this way. I believe I can communicate to him in such a way that will help the page to remain neutral as far as the facts and remain focused on the most critical info appropriate to the page. Any information not yet sourced should be verified by James and indicate that such was provided directly by me. You can email me at any time to confirm this authorization. Until such time that this arrangement somehow compromises the integrity of the page, I am satisified with it. Eventually I may fill out whatever forms are necessary to become an editor on Wikipedia, but my time is limited, so I like the idea of third party watching the page." As you can see, Chris has no questions about my neutrality; that is: my ability to represent his interests but still follow WP policy. In the event that I find that I can no longer do both, I will so indicate to Chris and step down from watching/editing this page. Chris has asked me to advise those with questions pertaining to this authorization or what he has asked me to do that they can e-mail him at cheimerdinger@gmail.com or get in touch with him through me. He has indicated that at some future point, he would like to become a registered WP user and thus be able to edit/change the page himself, but until that time, he has asked that I keep an eye on the page and take any questions relating to information he would like added or deleted to him. In the meantime, anyone here can feel free to contact him at the e-mail address listed above. I'm not sure I'm fully comfortable with what he's asked me to do, but I'm flattered that he feels I can follow WP policy but represent his interests. Any questions for me or for Chris about this matter? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 03:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Chris needs to understand that WP is not the place to provide "biographical info not found anywhere else, info exclusive to Wikipedia". WP reports on what has appeared in verifiable, third-party sources. If he's interested in putting information on the internet about himself that he himself has authored, he needs to know that WP is not that place. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response to User:Jgstokes inquiry

In response to this inquiry by User:jgstokes, I provide the following (it was requested that it be placed here as opposed to my talk page):

Original research (OR) is original research no matter who is providing it. If a person includes information about himself in an article about himself and that information is not found in any cited sources, then it is OR. The first line of the policy on OR says "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought." Later is says "to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." In other words, any information that is included in the article needs to be found in sources that are cited. Right now, there is information which I cannot locate in any of the listed sources, which is why I have attached an OR tag to the article. After a period of time, I will go through and delete anything that is still not cited. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As I explained to you in the comment on your talk page that started all of this, I believe a lot of the unsourced information can be found in any/all of the "About the Author" pages for his books. I understand where you're coming from, and have recommended to Chris that the unsourced material be sourced. Would that eliminate the problem? At the same time, I believe that if we allow ourselves to here on WP, we can carry a technicality too far. I believe that adding sources for the unsourced material (which should be fairly easy to do) will eliminate this problem. Please let me know if this is not the case, and we can then work something else out. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
See WP:SOURCES and WP:SPS for what constitutes a good source for WP. I don't think any of this amounts to "technicalities". On the contrary, the three bedrock content policies of WP are Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability. This is a problem with OR, and the sources issue goes to verifiability. WP is concerned with verifiability, not truth, as that policy points out. We're not worried about the truth of Chris Heimerdinger and his life — we're concerned with presenting information that can be verified by third-party sources. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
So, under that regulation, would the "About the Author" page(s) of his book(s) be an acceptable source to use for verifiability? All of this information and more is contained in those pages. Btw, Chris has told me he has no problem with the "This article may contain original research or unverified claims" tag remaining until his website is up. Then we can use the website for a reference of the currently "unverified" claims. I think I understand what you said about third-party sources. In any event, I'm okay with the above-mentioned tag remaining until we get a proper third-party source for the information. In the meantime, sorry if I seemed to be a pest about this. My understanding of WP policy has been greatly enhanced by your responses, and I thank you for them. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I would say (and this is really just a guess or my best judgment, since I don't know for sure) that an "about the author" page on a book would be an OK third-party source, unless it is a self-published book (i.e. not printed by an independent book publisher, but he's not in this situation). It's still not a "true" third-party source, which ideally should have no connection to the author. In my opinion, "about the author" pages would be better sources than his own webpage, since a webpage is definitely "self-published" and an "about the author" page has one level of "third-party-ness" in that it is published by an independent company. If the information could be cited to "about the author" pages of books, then I think that would suffice as a reference until something better can be had.
And no problem about your "peskiness" — learning the policies and interacting with others is an important part of WP, in my opinion, so I'm happy to do so with you and I'm glad you can understand where I'm coming from. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] frostcave.com and the over zealousness of jgstokes

jgstokes, you seem to be a little gun shy. I looked at the site www.frostcave.com that someone else posted and it seems to me to say "The Official Website of Chris Heimerdinger" just under the title.

I know you claim that Chris has given you permission to "speak for him" but it also seems like you don't keep in contact with him. I received an email from him that pointed me to Frostcave.com as I am assuming the other posted did as well. In part the email said "Also, in the next week or two we will release www.frostcave.com, which will become the new official website of Chris Heimerdinger. Again fans will be able to ask questions and enter our new forum."

Maybe before you undo someone's post you need to check to see if their post is invalid BEFORE undoing it.

I have gone through the history on this page and am amazed at how many times you and someone claiming to be Chris have fought over what should and should not be posted here. I wonder if you are being a little too zealous with your position as an editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.181.128 (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for expressing your concerns. However, you should know that during the time I and "someone claiming to be Chris have fought over what should and should not be posted here," I had no way of knowing that that other person was indeed Chris. Since learning that it was, I have been in frequent contact with him via e-mail working out the problems with this page. I have yet to hear what Chris has to say about my removal of the frostcave.com website. For now, I can tell you I know that that will be his site, but according to WP policy, sites not yet operational or used should not be included until they are operational or used. In short, until it's up and running, WP policy says that Chris's website address should not be included on the page. Since Chris has authorized me to speak/edit for him, I feel comfortable saying that he will likely abide by this policy as well. I leave this with you to reflect upon and consider. If you have any doubts about the authenticity of my authorization, contact Chris at the address listed in the topic discussing my authorization. Thank you. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
In WP:LINKSTOAVOID, it also says that we should avoid "links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services". I don't know what the primary purpose of this frostcave.com will be when it's up and running, but if it's primary purpose to to sell Heimerdinger's products, then it would probably be inappropriate to link to it, even if it is his "official site". Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
He has a different site for his online store. While there may be a link to that online store on this page, the main purpose of the site will be to give accurate, up-to-date information on Chris and his books and to allow readers and fans of his books/movie to gather together and discuss his creative works and other things in a forum, ask Chris questions, post reviews on books/movies, and generally just enjoy themselves. However, the principal purpose will be to supply up-to-date and accurate information about Chris and his projects. That's what WILL make it acceptable to include as a source/external link, but only AFTER it's officially launched. About all it has as of now is a way to contact Chris. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
As you say, it would be best to just wait until it's a real site, then it can be added or not added. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)