Talk:Kitchen exhaust cleaning

A request for mediation has been made about this article. It can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Kitchen_exhaust_cleaning --Achim (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC) (The request for mediation was rejected.)[reply]

Request for comment

Involved parties

Ahering@cogeco.ca (talk · contribs), filing party
GreasePolice (talk · contribs)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

Issues to be resolved

Issue 1.GreasePolice has reverted my edits a number of times and has refused to communicate with me despite my attempt to do so on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GreasePolice#Kitchen_exhaust_cleaning_article .
Issue 2. I believe that the user is reverting edits about the hot pressure washing method of cleaning, including a picture that shows that procedure and a decidedly nonpartisan verbal description, as he is in that business and may not use that particular method. I used to be in that business and both chemicals and hot water pressure are routinely used. The trade associations he references clearly acknowledge using the method, there is photographic evidence of it and he just deletes the content without any explanation and ignores communication attempts. He has also placed a direct quote from a stakeholder in the article, which I believe does not pass muster in terms of Wiki style. If there were some legitimate reason to exclude the content I added, I would certainly be interested in finding out what it is. He also uses unsubstantiated statements, such as the comment about the reputation of the cleaning companies. Sez who?

Outside view: I looked at the talk pages mentioned above, as well as the latest diff [1] and I honestly don't see what the dispute is, since the two versions aren't really that different. I feel also that (1) content disputes should be discussed here rather than on user talk pages, that (2) the article can seriously use some sources, and (3) the article is actually a pretty good one as it now stands. Ngchen (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: actually it's a moot point right now because since the latest changes, GreasePolice has stopped reverting without comment. I guess he saw the light. I am no longer requesting comment, as the current version is OK, especially if the original author can find Wiki suitable back-up for his remaining unsourced statements. Since Kilmer San helped, looks like we're OK now. --Achim (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my opinion the present version is not yet OK, having unsourced statements about the negative reputation of firms doing this work. It also needs to be made clear from the start that the entire article is discussing cleaning of exhausts in commercial kitchens., not home kitchens. DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kitchen exhaust cleaning. 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/20140406143205/http://www.firetactics.com/NEWS1.htm to http://www.firetactics.com/NEWS1.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 21:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]