Talk:Chris Heimerdinger

Proper references

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)

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)

"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)

Controversy section

I moved the following here for discussion: --Ronz (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

In 2006, after a bench trial before the honorable Judge I. Hansen, Heimerdinger was found guilty of misdemeanor criminal mischief, involving domestic violence. Heimerdinger was sentenced to 180 days in jail and fined $1,850.00. All of the 180 days was suspended and all but, $300.00 of the fine was suspended. In addition, Heimerdinger was placed on supervised probation for one year and ordered to take a 16 week domestic violence and anger management class, if ordered by Salt Lake County Probation Services. Also, Judge Hansen specifically ordered Heimerdinger, as part of the terms of his probation, to comply with all conditions of the restraining order issued in his divorce proceedings and to not possess any pornographic material.

Discussion

Yes, it is sourced, but I still think it's inappropriate per WP:BLP, especially WP:NPF. --Ronz (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't certain it was relevant, but my uncertainty was more about a possible need to have a neutral reliable source place emphasis on the event and contrast it with any cultural relevance that the authors background and subject matter might bear on it.

I don't think this is a District Attorney drunk driving, but it's not necessarily as automatically irrelevant as a professional athlete blowing a stop sign either. In short I think it's debatable, and as such, requires a strong citation as to it's relevance.

I read your links, and I'm sorry but I don't see any policy proscription against carrying it, could you outline the policy argument against it? Thanks76.202.249.62 (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll just add that my link did not meet the standard I proposed, "requires a strong citation as to it's relevance", and I'm not lobbying for its inclusion.76.202.249.62 (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPF:

"Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability. "

"Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care." --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the second section you quote has bearing, as such I agree that "special care" should be given when considering it's inclusion. I think a reputable reliable source noting the relevance of the private act having a bearing on the public work would possibly meet that standard. None exists. I don't think your first quoted section is germane, the possibility exists in cases similar to this that private acts relate to a subjects notability. I'll mark it as resolved - not relevant, if no one objects...76.202.249.62 (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

References

Content Tags

Of the three content tags, can the two be removed? 76.202.249.62 (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Not until we get them resolved. --Ronz (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you list what still needs to be resolved? Thanks76.202.249.62 (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Besides everything already mentioned? As long as editors continue to restore poorly sourced and unsourced material, we're not making much progress. --Ronz (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can address your concerns without you specifying what needs to be resolved. I'd love to help but I do need to know what you object to. 76.202.249.62 (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Then read this talk page, get familiar with the policies and guidelines cited, and ask questions in response to the objections already given. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've read it all, and am familiar with the policies and guidelines and have already clearly indicated that I believe I've met them. I am unable to guess from here.

There are only a few sentences in the entire article:

• "Early Life" 6 sentences.
• "Tennis Shoe Adventure Series" also just 6 sentences.
• "Film" 4 sentences.

Which sentences do you feel are still in violation? Thanks.76.202.249.62 (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you please format the references properly, or list them here so they can be more easily reviewed? Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this your only objection? Format references to your standard and the tags can be removed? 76.202.249.62 (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement - Continued

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)

See WP:PROVEIT --Ronz (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Citation formatting

Resolved

 – Ronz (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty busy atm or I'd do it myself:

• Use <ref>REFERENCE</ref> for unique references.
• Use <ref name="abc">REFERENCE</ref> to name a reference, then <ref name="abc"/> for each additional instance of that reference.

See WP:CITE --Ronz (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to format them more consistently. --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Notable?

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)

Merge Proposal: Tennis Shoes Adventure Series to be merged into this article

Proposed: Merger of Tennis Shoes Adventure Series into this entry about the author.76.202.249.62 (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Agree: I was going to propose the same thing in the hope that we can eventually come up with some sources for some of it. Doesnt appear to meet WP:BK. --Ronz (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think it clearly meets the standards in the policy you linked WP:BK. Specifically numbers, 1&3. He also meets the threshold standard and, as an indicator of notability, is rated by Amazon as a top 100 author in books in the category Mormonism. I just felt the two subjects might be better combined for efficiency - it will be interesting to see other editors take on this. 76.202.249.62 (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree: While I think this article will discuss the book series if we can find sources, there is no sourced content to merge. I think it would be better to start from scratch. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree: But for different reasons, both articles could do with work, so do some. "Start from scratch" seems to be a code for delete rather than spend the efforts in improving. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 17:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

"Start from scratch" means that we find sources and write from those, rather than cut and paste from pr material, then look for sources to justify it. --Ronz (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree: Its a well known fact that the author's main website is currently down and a new one is under construction. Some people do have access to it and the information therein, and therefore the source is verifiable - even if another editor does not have access to it. There is also enough information provided on the book covers and contents of this author's series to allow for a separate article. Also, notability is in the eye of the beholder. For someone that is a member of the Mormon religion, Mr. Heimerdinger is a very notable author. One could contend that any author who is not read by a given individual is not a notable author just because the said individual does not read that series. The argument does not hold water. As far as this series is concerned, there is plenty of source material out there to cite things, one just has to be willing to do the work to get it!--FireandFlames17 (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"There is also enough information provided on the book covers and contents of this author's series to allow for a separate article." See WP:SELFPUB.

"Also, notability is in the eye of the beholder." See WP:BIO--Ronz (talk) 00:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned multiple times now, if the material cannot be verified, it doesn't belong in the article. --Ronz (talk) 00:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree I am going to disagree for several of the same reasons listed above. As stated in several of the other discussions on this page, some of the sources simply have to be verifiable - be it by one or many editors. I can say that FireandFlames17 is fairly correct in their arguments, though not necessarily his or her approach on making those arguments. I say this because I am a former administrator of Mr. Heimerdinger's website in question. I have fairly regular contact with the individual in question, and he has stated to me several times that he gets several questions about various topics on a regular basis, and has stated that many of them he has looked up out on the web and they are there. What is not on the web is definitely available publicly if people are willing to look for it. As a prominent author in the LDS market, there is much information available on Mr. Heimerdinger. After having read through many of these discussions, it appears that there are a number of editors spinning things in circles, without ever really citing any specific problems. I'm sure that I have the ability to track down whatever source is necessary to verify information. Conversely, I would need to know exactly what needs to be verified in order to track down that information. I believe that's some of the same arguments that have been presented here previously, perhaps just not in the correct tone. I understand that there are a number of editors on Wikipedia that feel it is necessary to adhere to rigid guidelines, but there is really a time and a place for everything. From what I read here it appears that there are two "sides" to this whole "war" that's going on. I have no intention of taking either side - as it would be difficult not knowing who belongs where. I could easily make assumptions as to which side is which, but I will not in an effort to stay as neutral as possible. It does appear that there are a couple of editors who seem to be opposed to any kind of changes whatsoever, and a couple of other editors that are okay with changes, but insist on having very precise references. It appears that both sides are perhaps taking this to a bit of an extreme, so I'd like to see what I can assist with. That said, if someone would like to provide me with a specific issue or concern, I will see what I can do to come up with a reference or refute it.--Pianoeagle1903 (talk) 07:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Noting the Publisher of an Author

Resolved

 – Ronz (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Publishers are noted when discussing books and authors due to the reputations that they bring, it is akin to knowing which league or team they "play for". Here is a snippet from a paper discussing the concept that an imprint actually means something and that that knowledge of who the publisher is conveys information relevant to the work[1]:

Librarians affirm the importance of the publisher's reputation because they know how much the publisher can add to the quality of a published book, ...The reputation of the publisher serves as an indispensable shorthand in book selection. Rarely is there enough time to assess each monograph for quality or to wait for reviews to appear. Indeed, the publisher's name often provides the only known quantity that selectors have to use in making the decision. It is a necessary shorthand because selection book-inhand usually is not an option. Recent advances in Web technology now allow a selector to check the table of contents or to read a summary, but this is time-consuming. The author is, of course, another piece of information available to the selector, but the author's name may be completely unknown, as is the case with most first-time authors. One also can search to see whether the author has published other monographs, but the process soon becomes circular: with whom has he or she published, and what reputations do those publishers have?

Whether an author, or work, is published by Knopf, Ballantine Books or Little Brown is of importance and notable. There are even awards for publishers (Batchelder Award)....17:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but we're writing an encyclopedia article about Heimerdinger, and because he's barely notable, we're making sure that we follow NPOV, OR, and BLP carefully so as to not make the article look like an advertisement anymore. --Ronz (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No offense Ronz, but just because you don't consider someone notable, that doesn't mean that they aren't. We are indeed trying to write an encyclopedic article, but that becomes very difficult when there is an individual or more who is unable to maintain any sort of neutrality concerning the subject and is ceaseless in finding fault with any type of change or "lesser known" information added to the article. The reasons encyclopedias come about is to provide information that is accurate and may not be always well-known or easily found. If things were easily found and common knowledge, then we would have no need for encyclopedias now would we?--FireandFlames17 (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

RONZ, Please explain which part of "NPOV, OR, and BLP" you believe listing a publisher violates? 76.202.249.62 (talk) 06:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comments in the above discussion. I am also in confusion as to what the issue is here after attempting to read through everything.--Pianoeagle1903 (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that the material is purely promotional in nature, not supported by any independent sources, and not related to Heimerdinger's notability. See WP:UNDUE, WP:PSTS, WP:NPF. --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ with Ronz on this one. Where there is a bibliography it is appropriate to add the dates and publishers of the works. If all are from the same publisher then it would be better to note that at the top or bottom of the bibliography section. Now I am going to make some minor edits of a wikification nature (the reason I came to this article in the first place). Itsmejudith (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The material is supported by Amazon, as well as any bookseller or library. The name of the Publisher will always be found in any dewey decimal system listing or bibliography. Your listing of multiple wiki policies has no bearing on this - and your inability or unwillingness to actually discuss your policy based objections in any substantive fashion is telling. The onus is on you to make an argument. Initials on a page are meaningless without the supporting argumentation.76.217.90.97 (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Properly wikified, the basic information about the publisher may be fine. The information currently in the article is far too much. Let's see what you come up with. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Better, but it still seems gratuitous. I've looked through other article on authors of book series and none of them give such prominence to publishers. --Ronz (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) We're back to listing more and more publication information. [2]. What's the solution here? --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As an inside note to those questioning the length and "prominence" to the publishers:

As an inside note to those questioning the length and "prominence" to the publishers: The LDS church is currently the fifth largest church in the United States. As such, there is a larger amount of followers and those people seeking information about some of its members who have grown to some prominence within society than many people realize. The publisher listed for Mr. Heimerdinger is about as prominent within the LDS culture as studios such as Paramount and LucasFilms are for other media across the country and throughout the world. As far as length goes, I don't believe that there is a relevant argument against it. Other authors, media, etc. could have longer articles on the Wiki, however, many editors have not chosen to add that information - either because of the difficultly asserting the validity of such information - due to it being published in a wide array of locations, or simply because they don't feel like taking the time to expand on certain things. The fact that there are editors that are willing to find the information, cite it, and publish it on a page such as this is testament that Mr. Heimerdinger is in touch with the public enough and prominent enough to be considered "interesting." My apologies to those that disagree, however I do have a fair amount of knowledge of this given my interaction with the public on his behalf. In short: I don't feel that "length" is a measurable standard, and my opinion is that as long as it can be properly cited, without controversy, and within said standards, then I see no reason for exclusion of such material.--Pianoeagle1903 (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

As I seem to be doing some of the more recent "heavy-lifting", allow me to address this comment just in case I am being implicitly referenced by it, "The fact that there are editors that are willing to find the information, cite it, and publish it on a page such as this is testament that Mr. Heimerdinger is in touch with the public enough and prominent enough to be considered "interesting."

I've never heard of the author or his books, and I don't believe I've ever even met a Mormon. The real fact that Editors are willing to be what, in this case, is probably the Devils Advocate has everything to do with the Wikipedia project and its goals. That the subject is interesting and notable is wholly separate from any subjective opinion on the quality of the work, it's merits or any personal opinions regarding the culture the people or ideas emanate from and is primarily directed at.76.217.90.97 (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Tags

Tags are added to articles to attract other editors to help with specified problems: --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of this was previously discussed above --Ronz (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

advert

See Talk:Chris_Heimerdinger#Advertisement, Talk:Chris_Heimerdinger#Advertisement_-_Continued, and Talk:Chris_Heimerdinger#Notable.3F. Additionally, I'd like to see someone actually identify what sources we have that demonstrate the article meets WP:BIO. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Chris_Heimerdinger#Noting_the_Publisher_of_an_Author as well. --Ronz (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we're making good progress on this as we're using secondary sources now. I'm concerned about an "Early life" section without anything further. I realize that there has been BLP concerns with the published information on his recent life. Given that his notability comes from him being LDS, I think we can justify keeping the relevant info in his early life.

I see no reason to keep "Heimerdinger's father was a professor in theatre at Indiana University. His parents divorced when he was four years old and his mother remarried. Heimerdinger has one older brother and two younger sisters." because it's unrelated to his notability and unsourced.

The info on his first two films needs a source or it should be trimmed down further.

For the new editors: My concerns here relate to WP:NPOV, especially WP:UNDUE. --Ronz (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Related policies/guidelines: Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles, WP:NOTADVERTISING, and WP:AUTOBIO --Ronz (talk) 05:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

peacock terms

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)

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)

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)

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)

See WP:PEACOCK --Ronz (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

wikify

See Talk:Chris_Heimerdinger#Citation_formatting --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

refimprove

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)

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)

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)

notability

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)

General discussion

Here's a copy of the current discussion from the section labeled "Content Tags" open above here. I tried to merge the two sections but Ronz reverted me. I'll just quote the ongoing discussion here:

Of the three content tags, can the two be removed? 76.202.249.62 (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Not until we get them resolved. --Ronz (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you list what still needs to be resolved? Thanks76.202.249.62 (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Besides everything already mentioned? As long as editors continue to restore poorly sourced and unsourced material, we're not making much progress. --Ronz (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can address your concerns without you specifying what needs to be resolved. I'd love to help but I do need to know what you object to. 76.202.249.62 (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Then read this talk page, get familiar with the policies and guidelines cited, and ask questions in response to the objections already given. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've read it all, and am familiar with the policies and guidelines and have already clearly indicated that I believe I've met them. I am unable to guess from here.

There are only a few sentences in the entire article:

• "Early Life" 6 sentences.
• "Tennis Shoe Adventure Series" also just 6 sentences.
• "Film" 4 sentences.

Which sentences do you feel are still in violation? Thanks.76.202.249.62 (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you please format the references properly, or list them here so they can be more easily reviewed? Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this your only objection? Format references to your standard and the tags can be removed? 76.202.249.62 (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope that helps, thanks76.217.90.97 (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

As a number of people have already stated on here they believe this article meets notability requirements and guidelines. The only "discussion" that is occurring on here is by one individual and it is direct opposition to everything anyone else is doing. There have been numerous sources already cited and will continue to be numerous sources cited, but it does not seem to be enough to please some individuals. I would suggest other editors seriously look at what is going on here and take note of the anti-bias that seems to be created by certain other editors!--FireandFlames17 (talk) 22:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It clearly meets the standards in the policy RONZ linked WP:BK. Specifically numbers, 1&3. He also meets the threshold standard and, as an indicator of notability, is rated by Amazon as a top 100 author in books in the category Mormonism, Top 10 Childrens author by the Mormon Times, Director and Writer of a major motion picture...etc. More than sufficient to meet Notability standards.76.217.90.97 (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

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) 17:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no requirement to use only sources posted online. At all. There are certain requirements as to reliability and verifiability. Please attach your supporting citations where you feel appropriate, or better yet, simply ask here if there are any doubts. I don't know who originally posted them but there were some supporting references that clearly did not meet Wikipedia's standards, but I will support any that are appropriate - as has Ronz, he is not questioning any of the current references as far as I know. The building of an entry, especially for those who are more aware of, or involved with, the subject is a difficult and stressful process. There will be deadends and insurmountable obstacles - I guarantee you the article will never be the one you or I might write individually. What it will be is a verifiable record using reliable sources (both on or off the internet) of something notable. 70.131.83.95 (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Tags

I intend to remove the tags on this article in 36 hours IF no one is willing or able to support the tags with specifics. It appears that all objections have been met - the article has been rewritten in it's entirety and whittled down to around 15+ sentences and 9 references.

If their are specific objections please note which tag, and the violating prose. All specific objections can and will be addressed. Thank you. 76.238.22.59 (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I fully support you on this one! You have my vote of approval. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FireandFlames17 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not a vote. See WP:POLLING. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 03:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion above on the tags. Please contribute to it. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ronz, would you be so kind as to specify your objections? I know that this current tag is not yours, but if you do feel any of these current tags apply it would be very helpful in resolving the issue.

If you want just name a tag - there are four currently on the article, Peacock Words, Verification, Advertisement and Notability please just couple it with one of the few sentences in the entire article:

• "Early Life" 6 sentences.
• "Books and Film" 11 sentences.
• "Novels" 1 sentence.

Which sentences do you feel are still in violation? Thanks.76.238.22.59 (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I've made myself clear. Please ask questions in the appropriate discussion above, specifying what you don't understand or would like to be more clear. --Ronz (talk) 04:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's what I don't understand and would like more clear: Which sentences do you feel are still in violation of what tag? Thank you. 76.238.22.59 (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Please comment above on the specific tag. Some tags can refer to specific sections or sentences, others don't. --Ronz (talk) 05:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's start with an easy one then. Peacock Words. Can you tell me which Peacock Words are being used? Thank You.76.238.22.59 (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ronz responded elsewhere, I've copied it here so that the discussion on closing out the tags can be focused and retain its continuity:

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)

Good. No peacock words exist. I believe we can now remove that tag, correct?76.238.22.59 (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we now try to tackle the tag: Advertisement? Which text do you find that requires the tag? Thank you.76.238.22.59 (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the rush to remove the tags? The tags are useful so that other editors, like me, can see there is a dispute in a certain areas and can lend a hand. No damage or problems will occur leaving the tags in for awhile until the problems come to a consensus. As for the links you supplied, I think Ronz gave you a good enough explanation as to how to fix them so I won't bore you with more. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The article has been utterly rewritten and no one seems able or willing to specify what exactly needs to be addressed. your comment, "I won't bore you with more" is unusual when nearly every post of mine and and several posts of other editors are direct questions as to What is so objectionable that it requires extraordinary tagging? Even something as seemingly easy as Peacock words. It sure looks like Ronz agreed, "I'm more concerned that they'll be reintroduced" and he certainly never gave an example - but he's already left a note saying that he thinks there still there. I'll tell you something, I approached this article absolutely neutral. Perhaps my desire to idealistically contribute to the Wikipedia project was naive - it doesn't appear that my contributions are being viewed positively and much time is being wasted here without at least a passing nod to intellectual reason. I apologize for any misunderstanding, it was never my intention to challenge the social fabric of Wikipedia - I just thought this project was about the encyclopedia. Sorry for any disruptions that my confusion led to. 76.238.22.59 (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Instead of generic "top of article" tags, it might be helpful to use inline tags to express the concerns in a more specific manner. I find the following tags to be useful:

• {{fact}} - Adds [citation needed]
• {{pov-statement}} - Adds [neutrality disputed]
• {{lopsided}} - Adds [opinion needs balancing]
• {{vc}} - Adds [unreliable source?]
• {{vs}} - Adds [verification needed]

--Elonka 20:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible Socking

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Promotional links

WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOTLINK cover what are and are not considered as appropriate external links. --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I realize there is discussions going on but I would like to bring to the attentions to everyone that in my opinion the latest groups of references are spam and add to the article as being an advertisement and should be removed. They were just added to the novel, CD, and films sections. [3], [4], [5], [6], and[7]. I did notice that some of these are now being discussed and some reverted though they were reverted to a different one. These are just a selection of references that I would personally remove because of WP:EL policy to name one reason. I would suggest finding refs that are less advertisements and spammy. Just my opinion to give as an outsider of this article. Hope this helps. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a public Library's card catalog and the New York Times, just to name some of the references you've listed above are possibly, arguably, and occasionally found to be just about almost kinda sorta acceptable. As are Amazon and the like commonly used for supporting basic facts such as existence. I guess just not here.76.238.22.59 (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out in my edit summary regarding verifying the Covenant Communications/Random House/Ballantine publication information, "make a note of the different isbn #s if you want to verify this, rather than with a promotional link." If someone wants to get the isbn's, I'll place them in as a note.

I don't have time to go through all the rest right now, but I hope this discussion will encourage other editors to fix any links that fail the policies and guidelines mentioned above. --Ronz (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I scanned through the list and updated information based on http://books.google.com . Another excellent resource is http://www.worldcat.org . --Elonka 20:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Are http://www.movierevie.ws and http://www.ldsfilm.com reliable sources? --Ronz (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with either one. If there's a dispute over whether they are or are not, I'd recommend starting a thread at WP:RSN. Or, use WP:ASF, meaning to quote the information from them: "According to ldsfilm.com, (whatever)". --Elonka 23:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone think they are? movierevie.ws is run by http://www.netindustries.us/ I'm unable to find any info from either website that indicates the information is reviewed for accuracy. ldsfilm.com is a compilation from many sources without review: http://www.ldsfilm.com/faq.html.

Anyone think this is worth taking to RSN? --Ronz (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Observations

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)

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)

Passage to Zarahemla movie

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)

External links modified

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/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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)