User talk:Chunk Champion/Archived Hilarity

Flavor Graveyard

To alleviate future issues with this title, perhaps you could add something to the article citing it from the webpage and also noting the graveyards at the factories. Seeing as it is an article you've been heavily working on, I figured you would be better at adding that to the page over myself. I like the article by-the-way, very informative. I used to live in Stowe which is quite near one of their factories, great place.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 17:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

I'm informing you that I've made a post on the Wikiquette alert page about our repeated discussions over at Ben & Jerry's flavors. You may view the post here. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 14:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Chunk Champion. I've responded to User:HelloAnnyong's Wikiquette concern with regards to your reversion of his section retitling. As you're aware, the third opinion agreed with Hello Annyong that "Discontinued flavors" was a more appropriate title than "Flavor graveyard". As it happens, I agree with both of them.

Three editors does not necessarily a consensus make, but I feel quite confident that if HelloAnnyong chooses to involve more editors, for example via a WP:RFC, "Discontinued flavors" will prevail as a section heading. In light of that, I'd encourage you to accept the change now. If you decline to do so, as is certainly your right, I'd like to hear confirmation from you that, if additional users' comments result in a clear consensus for "Discontinued flavors", you will accept it as a title in accordance with WP:CONSENSUS. Sarcasticidealist 19:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the email I just sent to Ben & Jerry's.

I know this may seem like a strange question, but I need to settle a dispute. In your professional opinion, under which heading would you categorize old flavors which the company no longer makes.

A)Discontinued

B)Flavor Graveyard

C)Dearly Departed

D)Other

Thank you very much for your help in this matter.

Hello - I'm afraid that you may be missing the point. Ben & Jerry's is not the authoritative source as to what category headings should be in Wikipedia articles about it and its products. Ben & Jerry's may respond in any way it likes, but the decision as to what the section will be called is still one to be made by a consensus of Wikipedia articles. Right now, the consensus (to the extent that it exists) is clearly pointing to "Discontinued flavors". One reason, I would think, is that this title is more descriptive and less promotional-sounding.

In any event, my initial question remains: if an RFC or similar mechanism leads to a clear consensus in favour of "Discontinued flavors", will you cease edit-warring on the question? Sarcasticidealist 19:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears that I recieved an answer already from the same employee that answered the last question I asked the company. This is the response:

Response (Lisa) - 09/07/2007 12:48 PM Can we choose E) All of the Above? We don't think there's actually a right or wrong answer here, so let's see if we can explain how we think of each term with A, B, and C.

A. Discontinued: When someone asks us about a flavor we no longer make, we tell them we're sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that flavor has been discontinued, meaning we no longer produce that flavor. B. Flavor Graveyard: The location where our discontinued flavors rest in peace with the hope of someday being resurrected. C. Dearly Departed: Another way of saying discontinued. When you visit our Flavor Graveyard, we refer to our discontinued flavors as "Dearly Departed".

SO, take from that what you will...we would choose A or C in our opinion since those refer directly to the flavors/products. Discontinued is more the technical term, but Dearly Departed just sounds a bit softer don't you think? We use them both.

We probably weren't much help there, but hopefully our rambling helps you make a decision.

Thanks for writing and inquiring!

Ben & Jerry's

So it appears that at least Lisa thinks Discontinued is more technical. But keep in mind, she couldnt tell me the difference between Chocolate Cointreau Fudge and Chocolate Cointreau Orange...so i'll accept "Discontinued" as being half right. And instead settle for the term "Retired". Im glad we all had this talk. :) --Chunk Champion 02:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, ChunkChampion.. I saw you deleted my inclusion about Triple Caramel Chunk having limited shelf ability, but it's true. I found a pint of it at a local Walgreen's (?) of all places and I even have the top (I collect flavor tops). It was quite surprising to me, as well. - MK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.86.149 (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, I recieved confirmation that this is true. --Chunk Champion (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing

I'm curious: when you move stuff around on the Ben & Jerry's pages, what are your sources? Do you get mail from the company or call them? Are there press releases? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes if I suspect something has changed but I am unsure I email them and they get back to me.--Chunk Champion 20:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It's purely on intuition? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Im a collector, I pay attention to what gets released. --Chunk Champion 20:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, okay. Side comment: I just saw you add "never" as a year for Chips 'n' Dip. If it was never released, why is it listed at all? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it was still a flavor that was made, it just wasnt released in pint form. gtg --Chunk Champion 20:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

See the Retired talk page about this issue. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

ANI Notification

Hello, Chunk Champion. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#List_of_Ben_.26_Jerry.27s_flavors. Exxolon (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Moving pages, consensus and titles formats.

Please read WP:MOVE - you cannot just copy the page to the new location as this breaks our licensing requirements, you MUST use the "Move" function. Regardless, moving pages without first establishing a consensus to do so is not a good idea. Wikipedia articles use "List of XXXX" title formats which the articles in question clearly are, you are unlikely to get them moved to the titles you have chosen. They will be moved back to fix the licensing issues, you are better off working on them at the titles they were originally located at once they are moved back. Exxolon (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You should also read our original research policies - personal knowledge or emails from B&J are not sources you can use here - we need reliable sources. Exxolon (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL apparently Ben & Jerry's is not a reliable source for info on Ben & Jerry's products. Ok.--Chunk Champion (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ben & Jerrys are what we call a "primary source" - encyclopedia's use secondary sources by preference. You can probably use a list of flavours at the official B&J website as a primary source for non-controversial info, but personal emails are no good, as is any personal experience - you'll need different sources. Exxolon (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The list of flavOrs at the Ben & Jerry's website is not kept current, nor is it all-inclusive. Furthermore, there has been no controversial info debated. Only misinformed and/or unreliable sources who try to vandalize the page. I can't, nor will I, babysit everyone. Every new flavOr that I add, I have personally seen and verified (which is btw how I know what the description is). And I assure you that, though I do wear glasses, my eyeballs are a reliable source. My emails and written letters, signed by Ben & Jerry's employees, are also indeed reliable. Everything is saved and can be proven. Regardless, I'm not the one who started the redundant "List of Ben & Jerry's Flavors" page in the first place. We already had a page for flavOrs. If you want to call the page "List of ..." then fine, call it that. But then I shouldn't have to hear any complaining about how the page is now a "list" and not an article blah blah blah. You can't have it both ways.--Chunk Champion (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually read our WP:OR policy? "Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences (emphasis mine), arguments, or conclusions." - this isn't negotiable. Otherwise there'd be nothing to stop someone adding completely bogus flavours and saying "I've got the packaging", "I've got an email from B&J confirming it was aborted just before test release" - we operate on a strict policy of verifiability not truth. Exxolon (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing I have ever posted on wiki has been opinion. It is all fact and all verifiable.--Chunk Champion (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of the name of the page, thank you for your invitation to revisit my decision. I stand by it. It's a list, so it's called "List of...". Quite simple, really. If you really want to escalate this further, and I really don't see the point of doing so, then by all means complain about me somewhere else such at WP:ANI, but I'd be very surprised if consensus was with you on this. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 16:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see, cool.--Chunk Champion (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of List of discontinued Ben & Jerry's flavors

I have nominated List of discontinued Ben & Jerry's flavors, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of discontinued Ben & Jerry's flavors. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

and yet the Haagen Dazs page still remains untouched. I'm amazed more than anything really. --Chunk Champion (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

its ok i fixed it for you --Chunk Champion (talk) 05:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Ben & Jerry's flavors

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of Ben & Jerry's flavors. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ben & Jerry's flavors. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

Please see the above statement where you said, "Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome."--Chunk Champion (talk) 05:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hammertime. This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ben & Jerry's flavors. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not welcome my opinion and ask me to comment on a page if in reality you want me to do the opposite. It makes everything very confusing. Thank you. --Chunk Champion (talk) 05:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion was welcome when the discussion was open. It is clearly marked closed, and your continuing attempts to modify a closed AfD is vandalism, as was your vandalizing the Ben & Jerry's article, and your pointed edit to Häagen-Dazs. Throwing a virtual temper tantrum is not appropriate behavior for an editor. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not receive an email notification that there even was a discussion. Being that I worked on the majority of the page, that would have been nice to know. I don't log on wiki every day. I just come on when I have something to contribute. Furthermore, I don't appreciate your "temper tantrum" accusations. You cannot possibly know my feelings/behavior through text. I have remained quite mild-mannered actually, but that is irrelevant. --Chunk Champion (talk) 05:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You are not entitled to an email notification. If you want notifications that someone posts to your talk page, that is something only YOU can do by setting it in your preferences. And you certainly didn't respond in any sort of mature fashion by running around vandalizing pages, leaving false remarks on your user page, editing a closed discussion, and acting in a pointy fashion. I don't particular care what your felings are about the page being deleted. It is still no excuse for such immature behavior and it is not an excuse for vandalizing. If you can't control your feelings, then get away from the computer for awhile. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It is set in my preferences. There are no false remarks on my user page. Ok, I may be 10 lbs overweight, but that is not fat. Please stop scolding me. --Chunk Champion (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:POINT

Just so you know, your edits to articles such as Graeter's, Dunkin Donuts, Ciao Bella and Baskin-Robbins are disruptive and violate WP:POINT. The policy states it pretty plainly: "When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, the temptation may arise to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, enforcing it consistently. This may even entail an attempt to incite widespread opposition to a policy by satirically applying it on various pages." And editing like that can get you blocked - so stop doing it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know WP:POINT does not apply to me as I am not violating it. As per the ruling I fixed the other ice cream pages. Until you can explain to me why it's ok to list Graeters flavors but not Ben & Jerry's flavors your claims do not have any merit. --Chunk Champion (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Graeter's. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not in an edit war. I am applying the rule as defined. There also is no content dispute. You have made the argument yourself many times that the flavor page was just a list. If you read the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ben & Jerry's flavors page you will see that the decision was made to delete this unnotable list. That decision is final and we both have to abide by it. Why you would want to apply it to one ice cream company but not another is proof that you are trying to violate WP:POINT. Also, Please stop your disruption of my user page. Three years worth of abuse is enough for me. Thank you.--Chunk Champion (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Easy does it

Will you stop reverting? Whatever has got you down, you need to stop edit warring. Will you agree to stop, or do your editing privileges need to be suspended? You may be entirely right in wanting to delete those other lists. However, you need to discuss this with other editors and convince them. You can't force things. Jehochman ^Brrr 19:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not the one that is edit warring. I don't see how it is even possible to have an honest discussion or convince other editors of anything (and i have tried) if those people have some kind of personal problem with me. I will remain silent and not say one more word IF anyone on wikipedia can answer one simple question which is...Why would one ice cream brand be allowed to list flavors while another cannot? It seems quite simple and straightforward to me. Unless anyone can come up with a reason, then I shall have no choice but to apply the rules of editing as decided by the community.--Chunk Champion (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no interest in ice cream flavours (I'm diabetic - can't eat the stuff) but its obvious to me that your two LIST articles were deleted because the consensus was that a complete list of every flavour ever made was not sufficiently notable - with a side order of concern that you didn't have any sources that met WP:RS standards, and a suspicion that in fact your list was based on original research. The other lists are part of articles not standalones, and are based on information from the company websites. If you can't see the difference, then perhaps you're not quite getting what Wikipedia is about. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with why they were deleted. If that is what the decision was then I honor that decision. I'm over that. Now I am merely applying the rule that everyone already asked for. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. The only difference between the ben & jerrys list and the haagen dazs list, beside detail, is length. It is because of that length that the flavors were moved to a separate page (which mind you, i did not do). If you delete 490 flavors for example and just have 10, then it wouldn't be a standalone because it would be included with the main article. So in reality there is zero difference. --Chunk Champion (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Chunk Champion, I am sorry, but I've now blocked you for 24 hours as you've continued edit warring.[1] (See also WP:AN3 report.) You need to discuss differences with other editors, not repeatedly repeat the same actions after others have objected. Please take this time to consider my advice, and leave me a message here (I am watching this page) if you'd like help. Regards, Jehochman ^Brrr 22:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have tried your advice. But unfortunately I can't force someone to like me when they have already decided they don't. You can read for yourself the merge discussion at the top of the main Ben & Jerry's page as it is the perfect example. I repeatedly attempt to discuss the matter with logic and reason and instead of explaining her thought process, Collectonian just scolds me again and archives the chat. All I tried to do was add my one vote. --Chunk Champion (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you did not attempt to discuss the matter "with logic and reason". You rejected the proposed merges based purely on the idea that all "500 flavors" should be merged, despite the lists being deleted. The discussion was closed and you were "scolded" because you continue being disruptive and seeming on a course to get "revenge" against other articles because your list was deleted. Your edits to the various ice cream articles were clearly not done with an intention to improve the articles. Multiple editors have point you to WP:POINT and warned you to step back and stop your edits, you continued acting in a disruptive fashion. I strongly encourage you to read the policies and guidelines you have been repeatedly pointed to and then decide if you wish to contribute constructively. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

False again. I reject the merge based purely on logic and reason. Allow me to explain. You have an ice cream company page. On that page it would naturally make sense to talk about the ice cream. So you attempt to do that. The list of flavors grows bigger as you add to it. It then reaches some mystery point where certain people decide it is too big to all be on the same page. Maybe these people don't like too scroll, or find it ugly or overpowering. I don't know. So those people then decide to move it to a separate page for aesthetics. Then, certain people decide the page is just a list. And so instead of contributing to the page to bring it up to mystery non-list standards it is decided that the page should not be named "Ice Cream Company Whatever Flavors" and instead be called "List of Ice Cream Company Whatever Flavors." Alright, that all seems reasonable, I can understand that. But then these people say, "Wait a minute, since we declared this a list and we made it standalone from the main article, and it doesn't have x number of sources that I like, we should delete it because it is not notable." Then you propose the idea that three flavors who have their own page, BECAUSE TIME WAS ALLOTED TO MAKE THOSE PAGES, be merged back into the original article. Again, not a problem in itself. But now what happens when I create separate pages for 10 or 50 or 500 flavors chock full of sourcey goodness and photographic evidence. Once again, this would be pushed out of the main company page. You see, you would just be going in circles. Someone would be able to convince three other 24/7 wiki-people that the Ice Cream Company Whatever website is the only source, that it is all-inclusive (even though they really are misinformed because, for example, it doesn't even list 2 of the 5 brand new flavors currently on store shelves), and that a wiki page/s on the subject is/are thus non-notable. So then more circular editing, deleting pages, and wasting of my time.

Your other statements are things you have made up in your head. In my personal opinion, deleting valuable information never improves and article. But, this is what you and a couple other people have decided you wanted so I am following the rule you guys came up with. Flashing the WP:POINT page is meaningless if I am not violating it. I have tried to heed all valid warnings and ignore all invalid ones. Just because you tell me I'm being disruptive, does not mean that I am. That is your opinion. My opinion is that you are disrupting me. I wasn't even replying to you.--Chunk Champion (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me try to help out a bit here. One of the big differences is between the requirements for a stand-alone list (which is what the List of Ben & Jerry's flavors article was) and one that's integrated into the article. Standalone lists have to abide by WP:SAL. In general, in order for an item to be listed on a standalone list, it has to fulfill the notability criteria in some capacity. The Ben & Jerry's list, by comparison, was just a huge list of every flavor that you compiled yourself. It was built almost entirely on your original research - you emailed them asking questions, or you went to the store and looked at the selection, or whatever else you did. And that's not allowed on Wikipedia. Now having said that, some flavors are notable enough on their own to have their own articles. They may have been covered extensively in the news or have some greater notability than just "oh, it's another flavor that B&J makes".

There are other policies here. There's one that says that "Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information", and that something "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." So even if there are other flavors out there, Wiki isn't necessarily the place to put them. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with following any of that.--Chunk Champion (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Honestly I think there are other options for you. I know you want to use Wikipedia as the place to get the word out about your beloved ice cream company, but you might want to look at places outside of Wikipedia. You could maybe go over to Wikia and start something there. Or you could build your own website with a full list of every flavor that they've ever made. I don't know, it's just an idea.

And just as a warning - if you do continue to make heavily disruptive edits and blank sections of articles, then the admins will further block you. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm wasn't allowed to make edits before so what difference does it make?--Chunk Champion (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)