Talk:Chuck Negron

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Untitled

His... penis... exploded?

Seriously... his penis exploded?

EWWWW. Ouch. I sincerely hope for his sake this is vandalism... 80.6.97.53 12:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Through some google searching, this appears to be a story recounted in his autobiography. Still, I'm not sure it's an important encyclopedic fact. Eliz81 19:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, an editor on this page who actually did some verifying before deletion. OK, we'll leave it off for now. Maybe someone can place a Request for Comments entry to see what others think

Whoops. Well, you can see why I'd think it was vandalism. Drjayphd 03:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, this guy's dick exploded like a hot dog in the microwave according to Cracked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.215.122.10 (talk) 07:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

editor interaction

Hi, I'm interested in getting feedback from others on an interaction I had with another editor. The edits themselves are minor and not worth edit-warring over, but the editor's behavior comes across as capricious and dismissive, and this shouldn't be ignored.

Initially I made an edit to correct a few minor issues. FlightTime reverted the edit with the message "Was ok before". Fair enough: I hadn't provided an edit summary explaining my changes, so on casual reading they may have appeared unnecessary. I redid the edit with a summary explaining exactly why I had made the changes, and included a link to the MOS rule that the old text violated. FlightTime again reverted the change, and in the edit summary not only failed to address any of the points I made, but in fact merely rephrased his previous summary preceded by the condescending phrase "as I said".

At this point, it is difficult to continue to assume good faith on his part: he showed no willingness to engage in the substance of my rationale. I have no problem with disagreement or debate over edits (the punctuation errors, in particular, are subtle, but had he asked about them I could have explained), but his response contained none of that; it was purely dismissive.

Furthermore, he then appears to have followed my edit history and reverted, with no explanation at all, another edit I had made in an article he had never before touched in its entire edit history; this edit made a correction that frankly seems self-evident enough that its reversion borders on vandalism.

Thanks for any thoughts about this. (My IP address changes without warning, but I'll identify myself as "Wrizzo" in any future posts here.) 2605:A601:AADC:2100:411B:C5CF:B973:D075 (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Age

are we certain he was born in 1942? He doesn't look near 80 50.44.249.108 (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]