Talk:Chris Heimerdinger

message: Links to webpages that promote a book are almost always unacceptable per WP:EL.  Book reviews that appear in a respected newspaper or magazine would usually be acceptable.  See WP:V and WP:RS. --Ronz (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it really wouldn't matter what is defined as "respected" because certain editors will inevitably find problems with those sources too.  For a site that promote neutrality, this place seems to be dripping of bias against the subject.  If this is the way that games are going to be played on here, then I have every intention of going to every article I find here and flagging every single reference, just because I might not "respect" that source.  Why don't you take a look at some of the more "notable" pages that are supposedly found on here, and I think you'll find that MOST of these articles are written in the same fashion as this current one here.  Yet, no one seems to have a problem with the format or citations or anything else about these.  Again, the lack of neutrality on here is sickening.  Even is something is made neutral, it is then flagged for improper sourcing.  I daresay a good part of some of the editors on here that keep reverting changes wouldn't know a good source if they saw it!--FireandFlames17 (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." - WP:TALK.  Let's keep the discussion focused.  Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proper references

message: Please do not use primary sources or Heimerdinger's own words as sole sources for sections or large amounts of information.  Per WP:V, I'm removing unverified information and information dependent entirely on primary sources. --Ronz (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:PROVEIT --Ronz (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertisement - Continued 

message: I'm pretty busy atm or I'd do it myself:
* Use REFERENCE for unique references.
* Use REFERENCE to name a reference, then   for each additional instance of that reference.
See WP:CITE --Ronz (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Feel free to format them more consistently. --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation formatting

message: I was assuming that Heimerdinger would meet WP:BIO, but given the problems find any reliable sources at all about him, I think we need to be sure that it's clear we've met the notability critera and that we follow WP:NPF closely by including "only material relevant to their notability". --Ronz (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable?

message: : I think we've made good progress on this.  I think the remaining problems are because of the over-emphasis on local news. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of the emphasis on the local-news for Mr. Heimerdinger's sources is due to the fact that Mr. Heimerdinger currently resides in the Salt Lake area in Utah.  This is also where the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is headquartered.  As such, there is going to be a higher proportion of media coverage on some of his work "locally" than there is anywhere across the nation.  Many of the news articles for Mormon pop culture originate in Utah and are then distributed elsewhere - especially those concerning media, as many of the major filmmakers and publishers working with members of the Church reside in Utah also.  It is the same as places like Hollywood and Wall Street.  The coverage of the specific events and objects in question are often originated there and distributed elsewhere.  I believe this is no different.  Hope that clears things up a bit.--Pianoeagle1903 (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm very aware of all of this.  It doesn't change the fact that we don't have a single reference that's not local.  Further, we still have the responsibility to present and unbiased article. --Ronz (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The philosophy of Ronz is deeply flawed. And perhaps biased. In his efforts to diminish the "promotional" qualities of the article, he has also neutralized the informational aspect of the article. And he is pidgeonholed by sources that are strictly internet, ignoring other resources that may not be posted online. Being an LDS author/artist whose works focus on this segment of the population, it is natural that most resources would be locally based around the population center of where this author markets his wares. But IN that market he has sold over a million books, tapes, DVDs, etc. So the over-exuberance of Ronz is exceptional and curious. First he asks for sources. Then he asks for non-local sources. And he continually suggests that the article itself ought to be deleted. I am not famililar enough with Wikipedia to know how complaints against an editor are properly lodged. I encourage others to do so, either to individual editors or to a Wikipedia board of some sort. If any article on an artist is to be accused of being "promotional" because it goes over the very material that makes the subject worthy of having an article in the first place, then the purpose of Wikipedia is compromised. Trimming material is unnecessary and insulting to those who went to the trouble to provide the information. This is not a set of Britannicas that must be concerned with space. This is the internet. I would encourage those who support fair editing to take a close look at Ronz's edits and undo those that are inappropriate. Georgia  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgiaPeaches (talk • contribs) 17:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:PEACOCK --Ronz (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, I'm more concerned that they'll be reintroduced since no one has yet indicated they even understand the problems we've had. Still, we've improved "Heimerdinger was active in high school theatre and drama and in competitive speech and oratory, where he excelled in Wyoming High School competitions for three years in the categories of Humor, Oratory, and Drama." but without access to the actual reference, it's hard to tell.  I'm guessing the reference is actually a list of awards, which would mean that the wording is entirely WP:SYN. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, what are we basing the sentence upon?  Is it WP:SYN? I'll tag it as such. --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've removed the peacock tag given that the inline tag is in the article and no one else has mentioned other issues. --Ronz (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: peacock terms

message: : See Talk:Chris_Heimerdinger#Citation_formatting --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably could use some more wikifying, but I'm fine with the citations as they now are. --Ronz (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: wikify

message: : What sources meet WP:BIO? Maybe a notability tag should be added? We are relying far too much on local news sources. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did wonder about notability; the subject is mainly notable within his own church community. I noted in one of the references that one of the better selling books had sold only 2,000 copies. How does this compare with mainstream children's fiction in the US? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given the references we currently have, he's only notable in his own church community.  I've added a notability tag, but this has been removed without indication of how he meets WP:BIO or any discussion when I brought this up earlier  here. --Ronz (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: refimprove

message: :Given that this is a different issue than refimprove, it deserves it's own tag and discussion. See Talk:Chris_Heimerdinger#Notable.3F for previous comments. 
:Because this article is about Chris Heimerdinger, the criteria we need to meet is WP:BIO. --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: notability

message: :Out of interest, there seems to be a bit of WP:SOCK going on this page.  I am not going to point the finger at anybody but I strongly recommend that ALL editors click on this policy for their future edificiation.  Ta Shot info (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe any other editor but me is using an IP account here - if you're talking about IP's. Although looking at the talk history one could question a few of the named anonymous accounts as well...76.238.22.59 (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a number of IP's that I have researched myself and traced them.  Most trace back to the Chicago, IL area.  Anyone that knows anything about Mr. Heimerdinger in depth is most likely located in the Western US - Utah/Idaho/Washington/Oregon/California/Montana/Wyoming - as there is a larger contingent of the Mormon population...and thus his fans there.--FireandFlames17 (talk) 04:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Errr, F&F I'm not suggesting that anybody is a sock or meatpuppet, I'm just recommending to those editors here on this talkpage review the policy.  Socks and Meatpuppets are discovered and blocked all the time, there are many editors who are very good at discovering them.  So the message is - IF there are editors doing so here, it isn't worth it, just stick to one account and edit Wikipedia collaboratively.  Shot info (talk) 04:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Shot info is right.  Many new editors who run into a dispute think they can "beat the system" by being clever and logging in as multiple names, or editing anonymously.  But trust us, this has happened so many times, that Wikipedia has very sophisticated mechanisms to detect and block such behavior.  People who try socking may get away with it for a short time, but eventually they'll get caught, and when they do, they get all their accounts blocked  very quickly (and often for a very very long time).  The best way to avoid this fate, is to just stick as one account, and follow normal dispute resolution procedures.  It may seem like it makes disputes stretch on longer, but on the upside, conversations get much more productive, and any changes that come out as a result, do tend to "stick". --Elonka 04:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

text: My apologies, I wasn't trying to suggest that anyone was or was not a Sock.  I was just trying to point out evidence.--FireandFlames17 (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Socking

message: I'm happy to see that so many people are currently involved with this article. In my opinion, the more Wikipedians involved in an article, the better the article will be.
I'm also happy this talk page has been cleaned up and reorganized. Frankly, I'm happy all my old comments are gone. It feels like a bold new world here now.
Just a couple comments then I'll let you get back to work.
1. Heimerdinger is undoubtedly notable. Wikipedia definitely needs an article about him.
2. I noticed, as I read through this page, that many of us are assuming other editors should know what we're talking about. It's wiser for me to assume that I'm being unclear, than that other people don't know how to read. Instead of saying I-already-said-that, try saying it again, more clearly this time.
3. I'm glad that changes (like removing the legal info) have been well discussed. I won't go into my reasons for why I think the legal info should be included because I'm satisfied that you all have hashed it out. No one Wikipedian's opinions are greater than the whole's.
I'm planning on leaving this article alone now. I think it is excellent that a new batch of people have taken it over and I think you're doing a great job. I'm going to go off and attend to some other part of the Wikiuniverse now. Because, frankly, I am sick of this one. 
Keep up the good work! Thmazing (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. Less I be accused of anything, I don't wish to imply I am more studied or experienced than anyone currently involved with this page. Just that I've spent a lot of time on this page. Thmazing (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Observations

message: The mention in this article of the Zarahemla movie seems intended to put the best possible spin on its importance. While BoxOfficeMojo  may rank it as the 46th highest grossing Christian film, that amounts to a lifetime gross of about $292,000 according to that website. As movies go, that's not an impressive number. Perhaps we should include the actual number if it's going to be mentioned at all.  There is also the problem that BoxOfficeMojo is unlikely to be a reliable source. If you check our own WP article on that site, you'll find that it is tagged for lacking sources itself. Presenting material in a balanced fashion is one of Wikipedia's virtues, and the rule should be followed here, I think. Unless coverage of the  movie in reliable sources can be found, perhaps it should be omitted.  
Since there probably aren't that many novelists that feature LDS themes in their work, this article has the potential to be interesting and keepable, but it should not overpromote the subject. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Passage to Zarahemla]] movie 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chris Heimerdinger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070416150405/http://www.meridianmagazine.com:80/travel/031001cruise.html to http://www.meridianmagazine.com/travel/031001cruise.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060909072506/http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=155&table=review to http://www.farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=155&table=review
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Chris Heimerdinger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080613143119/http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/63813 to http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/63813
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006013256/http://www.meridianmagazine.com/arts/071009film.html to http://www.meridianmagazine.com/arts/071009film.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified