Talk:Chambers stove/Archive 1

Initial Dispute
Very interesting piece of equipment. The article has to be written more neutral, though. See WP:NPOV. JRHorse 01:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This article still reads like an advertisement or marketing brochure for Chambers Ranges. Many of the facts presented here have no references provided. Some of the claims are unverifiable.

There are at least two fan sites now on the internet. The question of copyright of the old materials (manuals and cookbooks) is still being settled via communication with the Whirlpool corporation. In any case, if freely distributing scans of the old materials violates copyright, then certainly *selling* xerox copies of the old materials for *profit* constitutes a copyright violation, unless written permission was given to do so, which is doubtful at best. Until the copyright question can be definitively settled, links to fan sites should not be placed in this article.

Undid the vandalism whereby John E. Chambers removed the entire article, claiming he owned it, and replaced it with something very much smaller and less informative. The article was placed on this site John E. Chambers doesn't own it anymore. I have reverted it. It still needs cleaning up and citations for sources.

Have placed a warning on the Talk page of John E. Chambers, who continues to Vandalize Wikipedia by blanking this article and attempting to link to his own personal website from it. On the next vandalism attempt I will report him to the administrator.

---I think this page looks too much like an ad for the website and chat group listed at the bottom, and would feel better if the article were listed without them. - Wallie

I agree with the last comment and have removed the link to the website. The forums and website remain un-named. A google search will turn them up readily. Also have had to undo the vandalism by the user John E. Chambers, who has been warned for the last time to stop blanking pages and sections. The last vandalism attempt removed the entire references section. This article is badly in need of verifiable references and to remove those was just malicious. His motive for doing so is to promote his own for-profit website by removing any references to the non-profit site that has recently sprung up. The next vandalism attempt will be reported to the admins and his account blocked from editing. Lowracer 00:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in promoting ANY website - the article should be website-neutral. The links at the bottom prevent that. Mr. Lowracer is attempting to promote HIS website using Wikipedia, soemthing that isn't supposed to happen, is it? John E. Chambers 01:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

We have found a neutral 3rd party to help with the dispute. Hope we can find a peaceful resolution so we can all get back to cooking on our Chambers ranges and away from these keyboards. Lowracer 04:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC) (BTW, it's not my website. I'm just a contributor to it.) Lowracer 14:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The newer forum was setup by Mr. Lowracer for a stated public purpose,and said purpose is still the avowal of the present owner/moderator. The newer website itself was set up by Mr. Lowracer through another party, but he is the major contributor to it. These facts notwithstanding, the article here on Wikipedia should be neutral - not promoting anyone's particular agenda. John E. Chambers 22:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's be factual here. The newer website was not set up by me through another party, it was set up by two other people, neither of whom I have ever met. I have contributed two original articles to the site, and one scan of some public domain material, period. Both currently existing discussion forums were set up personally by me for the furtherance of the discussion about these old ranges, and quickly handed off to third parties to manage/administer, including the one Mr. Chambers is currently administrator of. The second forum was set up because Mr. Chambers instituted such draconian censorship over the first forum that most of the active members of that forum fled to find a place where they could discuss the subject of Chambers ranges and any other matters they saw fit, without Mr. Chambers' heavy-handed moderation deleting their posts and attempting to control what they could speak about.

I currently neither own nor administer any Chambers-range-related websites. Mr Chambers however owns and administers both a forum (the very one I set up and later handed him) and a for-profit website, the profits of which would presumably be harmed should it become generally known that there is a non-profit site out there giving away information about these stoves for free, which is why he protests the link to that site so vehemently on this site, such that he would be willing to vandalize (by nearly blanking) the entire article if necessary (the edit record of this article speaks for itself here) to remove all mention thereof.

Still waiting to hear the judgement of this neutral third party... Lowracer 23:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion from RJASE1 - external links
I spent some time looking over the situation - these are points I'd like to raise to help resolve the situation.
 * 1) First, I believe this is a worthwhile article to have on Wikipedia. A bit obscure to a lot of people, but a Google search shows there is interest in this item - and I think this is exactly the sort of thing WP:PAPER was meant to cover.
 * 2) A problem is that, since this piece of equipment is relatively obscure, sources and neutral editors can be hard to come by. The two editors working on this article so far, Lowracer and John E. Chambers, both seem to be involved with websites that promote and/or discuss this particular product. Normally this would mean that they should not be editing this article per the conflict of interest guidelines - but I think that we're unlikely to find other editors to work on this article. So I think it's OK to for both to work on this so long as neither links to, or cites, his own website and are both are vigilant to maintain a neutral point of view.
 * 3) Some friction seems to exist because the two primary editors are, in essence, competitors off-wiki. I urge them to put their competitiveness aside, work together, and combine their resources in the interest of creating a great encyclopedia article.
 * 4) I spent some time looking at the proposed websites and references. First, I'm not a copyright expert by any stretch of the imagination, but from what I can find, I don't think we can link directly to the manuals, etc. on vintagechambers.com because it contains scanned material that is possibly in violation of copyright, per this policy. All material was produced after 1923 in the U.S., meaning it's not in the public domain. Also, as stated above, neither of the parties should be linking to their own website because this contravenes the WP:COI guidelines.

Suggestions

 * 1) For references, I suggest you return to the original printed material that was used as a resource to build your websites. For example, though we cannot link directly to the scanned product manuals, you can still cite the material in those manuals as a reference. WP:A, WP:FN, and WP:CITE provide the applicable guidance in doing this. The citation guidelines can be a little intimidating at first if you haven't dealt with them before, I'm willing to help. Books, magazine articles, etc. can also be cited as sources even if no online version exists.
 * 2) For external links, I suggest creating a category at the Open Directory Project and adding your websites there, then adding a link to DMOZ from this Wikipedia article (see the external links section of Chinese astrology for an example of this). There's not currently a category for antique or Chambers stoves at DMOZ (at least not that I could find) - but one could possibly be created in this category. Just an idea. This would provide a route for interested readers to find a way to these websites (and others, like antiquestoves.com) without the editors contravening the COI guidelines.

Thoughts? RJASE1 Talk  23:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments
Sounds good. We can put in references but not link to any sites. BTW the linked documents are in the public domain. Rutgers university Library maintains a database of copyright renewals and these copyrights were never renewed by their original owners.

I'm declaring a truce with Mr. Chambers in this conflict of interest, and I am hereby abandoning any further editing of this page. Lowracer 23:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good - like I said, I'm no copyright lawyer. I do urge you to continue contributing! Also, by conflict of interest, I don't mean a conflict with another editor, but the conflict between off-wiki interests and writing a neutral encyclopedia. We all write about things we care about, that's not problem so long as we don't fall prey to the temptation of the Dark Side. RJASE1 Talk  23:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. I have all of the documents necessary to provide the citations listed, and have access to other non-Chambers sources for additional information, such as television documentaries, magazine article, etc. I will be happy to begin working on revisions that will make for a more informative article, yet one that remains neutral.

With regards to copyrights and trademarks:

As best as can be determined, the documents produced by the Chambers Corporation were copyrighted, and are still protected under U.S. Copyright laws, the library at Rutgers University notwithstanding. The current owner is believed to be the Whirlpool Corporation, who have indicated that they do, in fact, believe that they own them. The owner of The Chambers Stove Lovers Website is producing copies of some of the older Chambers literature with the full knowledge of Whirlpool's Legal Department.

In addition, the owner of The Chambers Stove Lovers Website has written permission from the current owner of the CHAMBERS trademark to use it there, on his related discussion forum, and in conjunction with his activities on said sites. This includes use of the CHAMBERS name on literature, scans, etc.

I shall begin assembling the documentation next week and work on it as I can over the next several weeks.

Thank you for being even-handed. John E. Chambers 23:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Truce, "Mr Chambers?" Lowracer 00:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've got nothing against you, sir. Never have. John E. Chambers 00:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

A person with the IP address of 24.30.150.30 edited this article 04/19/07. This IP address belongs to Mr. Lowracer (see his comments regarding further editing of this article, above). John E. Chambers 20:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to log in. I've taken the advice of our neutral 3rd party arbitrator and am continuing to help with the article, if that's OK with you, Mr Chambers. The article lately has started to read like an advertisement for the Thor company. Remember it's an encyclopedia article... Also the reference to a private correspondence between an editor of this article and someone related to the original chambers company is not an acceptable citation. The source has to be a published and verifiable source. I think that is why someone flagged the article as original research. See WP:V The information that has been posted is great if it can be verified. It needs to be properly cited or it will likely be deleted (not by me, I'm thinking it's probably true and holding out to see if someone can provide a published source for it). Lowracer 23:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Without going into the login issue, I certainly don't mind the help - as long as the article remains neutral, like RJASE1 said it should. As far as it reading like an advert for Thor lately, I don't agree - Thor was only mentioned in one small section of the article, but the current version is acceptable. I revised the original posting about them to remove the negativity in it about their products, which has no place here any more than an advertisement for them does.

With reference to the original research issue, RJASE1 indicated that bona fide historians devoted exclusively to Chambers were not likely to be found, therefore those of us who have an interest in it were the most likely candidates to be contributors, as long as we make sure the article stays neutral.

I'm glad to work with you, sir, but I want this to be a positive experience and accurate article for the public that is free of personal bias or banter. Please: no more slamming of me, especially in public, to the Wikipedia hierarchy.John E. Chambers 12:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No slams here Mr. C, I just read somewhere on Wiki that if there's no verifiable published source for the info, it's better to just leave it out. I'll see if I can dig up the page that says this. Note I did not delete the info, but someone who is a wiki-expert likely will, sooner or later.

I wasn't referring to now - you did so before, though. Sorry for the misunderstanding there.

Thanks for the clarification, Mr. Lowracer. John E. Chambers 03:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Graphics
I think the big graphic in the middle of the page is a bit much. It's too big and it's very hard to read the tiny print. Also there is a link to its location on a for-profit website, that is unacceptable.

I also think the big CHAMBERS logo up at the top is an unfitting touch for an encyclopedia article. It doesn't belong. I'd like to get a neutral 3rd party in here so I'm contacting RJASE1.

Neutral third opinion: The big picture has to go. Maybe rewrite some of the things that it includes in the article. As for the logo, make it a standard thumbnail size, and put it at the top right of the article. Unrelated side note: This article has no lead paragraph... or even sentence? -  hmwith  talk   11:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've redacted the graphic and placed most of the text from it into the features section of the article. lowracer 14:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion on graphics
I am responding to the request for a third opinion. I am not User:RJASE1 but have read his/her previous comments.


 * As far as the large image demonstrating the features of the item, this is very interesting and would, I think, be an appropriate graphic. However I am concerned that it breaches copyright. The image page at [[Image:Chambers Features.jpg]] states that the originator of the image releases it for distribution. I think this is unlikely. The person who scanned the image may well be happy to release it, but they did not in fact produce the image: that person is the anonymous author of the catalogue from the ?1960s.


 * As for the company logo, there are good precedents for using analogous images to illustrate articles. As one example, see Ford Motor Company. However that article also shows a bit more restraint in the size and placing of the logo. A common convention is that these should be about 200 pixels wide, at the top right of a page. Often (as with Ford) at the head of an infobox. There is no problem with copyright as logos to illustrate an article are permitted.

This opinion is unsigned as per the policy on the WP:Third opinion page. 11:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Not trying to violate Wikipedia's rules, but let me offer an explanation on the Features image:

That image came from an piece of advertising literature printed by Chambers Corp. in the middle 1950's. It is, as indicated, a scan of same. However, it was published before 1964, and the copyright on this item was not renewed. Therefore, according to my discussion with the U.S. Copyright Office, it is in the public domain.

As for the way to place the logo - I'll work on revising it per your suggestion.

Thanks! John E. Chambers 16:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I think I will make a new image using an actual photograph, add the graphics, then post it. That way, there will be no problems about who owns the copyright, and it can be made a thumbnail image which, when enlarged, will be more readable. John E. Chambers 19:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you require assistance with converting, editing or otherwise making a new free-use image I'd be more than glad to help you. I found this talk through the third option page posting, and I would wholeheartedly agree that if an image can be created that satisfies the concerns of both users that would solve the problem amicably it would be best for all involved.  Wintermut3 06:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Original Research
With regard to the addition of original research on this article, I offer the following:

When we discussed this before, RJASE1 indicated that bona fide historians devoted exclusively to Chambers were not likely to be found, therefore those of us who have an interest in it were the most likely candidates to be contributors, as long as we make sure the article stays neutral. I think this is wise and also very fair, so I included this eye-witness account because no published history of the Chambers Corporation exists at this time. Leaving it out leaves a 30+ year hole in the history section, which, in my estimation, is not beneficial to the reader.

I have been able to locate the son of one of the Flato brothers that bought the Chambers Corp. He is attempting to provide information - such a SEC documents - that would substantiate the dates in question.

I would hope this inclusion will be allowed until we can find additional documentation. John E. Chambers 16:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

-- Maybe we can scan a copy of the personal letter and post on this site? That way it would be open to verification by all. But that might be considered original research... I agree this leaves a big hole, but the sources have to be verifiable. Otherwise anyone could make anything up, for any article in Wikipedia, not just this one. 24.30.150.30 22:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Crap, forgot to sign in again... lowracer 22:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC) There, that's more like it.

I wonder if an affadavit from him attesting to the facts would suffice here Not sure about it - going to research on Wiki about this some more. I'll have to do the same thing when we get the accounts of the Flato family. There has to be more than one article with this problem - after all, much of history comes from eyewitness accounts of the actual events. John E. Chambers 00:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, a letter from the son of a sales manager wouldn't be considered an eyewitness account. This would be considered hearsay and original research. I am wondering how you made this post for a future date and time, (0:22, 4 May 2007)... fschimmel 20:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure it would, Frank - the guy was THERE: he moved with his family to Shelbyville when his dad was hired by the Flato brothers; he knew Alma Chambers as his "Aunt Alma"; he moved with his family every time the Company moved it's headquarters; he grew up with all the experimental models of the Chambers products; he knew the owners and many of the employees; and he was at the factory numerous times. I'd hardly call that hearsay. Certainly all we know, for example, of the Holocost, was from such eyewitness accounts. John E. Chambers 02:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we're going to need a neutral 3rd party with lots of wikipedia experience here to decide this one. BY all means keep gathering the references, while I summon the neutral 3rd parties... lowracer 06:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've come here from the Wikipedia 3rd Opinion page to offer an outside perspective on this issue. To quote the Neutral Emporor from Futurama "All I know is my gut says "maybe"". My initial reaction was that it could be allowable in this particular instance, but then again citable information should be either from reliable and verifiable published material or reliable and verifiable material that is linked to directly on the web. Receiving a letter, getting permission to scan the page and scanning it in then publishing it on the web counts as original research. Quite simply it goes against wikipedia guidelines and policies. Whilst I don't doubt the honesty of all involved in this particular case there are good reasons for not allowing such evidence into wikipedia. To give an example, if someone said that the moon is made of cheese and provided a scanned in letter purporting to be from Buzz Aldrin then there would be no way to check that the scan of the letter is indeed a scan of a letter from Buzz Aldrin. I see the problem that this poses however, this is quite an arcane and obscure area of knowledge and finding sources not requiring original research will be tricky. Checking wikipedia's guidelines for Original Research yields the following. ''There is no firm definition of "reliable," although most of us have a good intuition about the meaning of the word. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by university presses; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals published by known publishing houses. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analysing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable but also Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications.'' Therefore, after deliberation I have come to the following definate conclusion: "maybe". If you are a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field and your work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications (and you have the relavent permissions from the letter writer) then I'd say "Yes", otherwise "No".ASH1977LAW 10:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

-

So - let me get this right: If a person is a researcher who has been previously published by a recognized third-party publisher, his contributions of the same materials would be considered valid, while the very same resource - even if it has been totally substantiated and verified - cannot stand on it's own merit and is, therefore, not considered reliable in Wikipedia standards. Is that right? John E. Chambers 14:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That is certainly my reading of the wikipedia policies. Normally such materials would not be allowed, but the policies recognise that in certain cases such materials are the only evidence available. In such extreme cases certain individuals may use such materials. This is to avoid the moon-is-made-of-cheese letter senario (if I scanned in a letter from Buzz Aldrin saying that the moon was made of cheese then it's unverifiable, but if Carl Sagan scanned it in then it would be acceptable). I don't doubt anyone's honesty here, but as you can see it's an exception to a policy with very tight guidelines on when the No Original Research policy can be ignored.ASH1977LAW 15:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

-- Could we get the letter published somewhere, say as part of an article in a print (not online) periodical dedicated to antiques or antique appliances? If it were so published, could it then be used as a source? lowracer 14:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with this. Provided the article (in print) was not written by a contributer to the Chambers Stove wikipedia article then it's all good. It is certainly something to consider. I would suggest both parties involved contact magasines and publications, though not to submit articles themselvesASH1977LAW 15:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeated reverts
Please do not revert each other's edits repeatedly. If there is a conflict, work it out on this talk page. Thank you. Chick Bowen 22:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Keeping This Article Website Neutral
Lowracer:

In keeping with the earlier instructions given by more than one outside Wikipedia editor, I suggest that the text in the article referring to websites, forums, etc., read as follows:

"Websites for fans of vintage Chambers products have been developed in order to provide general information about them to those on the internet. Links to service technicians and sources for repair and operational literature may also be found there."

This wording keeps the article "website neutral" - no promotion or attempts to garner visitors to any particular website or forum, which is what we were instructed - and agreed to - do.

It is a simple statement of the situation at hand, with no references to the outside.

John E. Chambers 23:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

____________________________


 * In an effort to be cooperative and stay within Wikipedia guidelines, and in keeping with the instructions given by Wikipedia editor, Chick Bowen, I have revised the article to read as shown above.


 * My reasons for doing so are:


 * 1. This wording keeps the article "website neutral" - there is no promotion or attempts to garner visitors to any particular website or forum by using this language.


 * 2. This action follows instructions given previously by Wiki editors.


 * 3. Both I and the other person who has performed most of the major editing of this article have already publicly agreed to work together and within Wikipedia guidelines - and the instructions by the aforementioned editors - in order to keep this article "website neutral." This is my way of following through on my promise to do so.


 * 4. There is no place for personal vendetta's on Wikipedia. Continued editing and undoing of edits, coupled with impolite and/or accusatory comments, don't do anything to further the quality of this - or any other - Wikipedia article.


 * 5. Hopefully, this method of editing and discussing things here in a dignified manner will lend to the article's sense of genuineness - continued fighting does nothing, in my view, but denigrate the veracity of the article, and of Wikipedia itself.


 * It is my hope that all those who have or might edit this article will choose to agree to follow the instructions of the various editors who have given guidance on how present it in a neutral, proper, and dignified manner.

John E. Chambers 17:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

_________________________

I'm calling for a 3rd party opinion on this. By rewriting this article, you are trying to further your own BUSINESS of selling the manuals at your website, when they are freely available on the internet. It is YOU who are using Wikipedia for the furtherance of your own ends. I do not own or maintain any Chambers websites nor do I belong to any Chambers related internet forums, period. The fact is, there are free copies of the manuals available online at at least one website. What have you got to gain by removing this information from wikipedia? The answer is that you sell xerox copies of these manuals for a profit. It is in your own interest to have this information suppressed, by removing it from the wikipedia article. Removing the information does not keep it neutral. Removing it presents only one side of the story, your side. A more neutral wording would be, "There are websites that offer the manuals for sale, and there are websites that offer the information for free." I'm calling for 3rd party arbitration. When the facts are brought to the light of day, your edits will not stand, sir. 24.30.145.63 19:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Forgot to log in... lowracer 19:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)  There, that's better.

--


 * Mr. Lowracer:


 * I was hoping it wouldn't revert to the ad hoc accusatory tone you have demonstrated, but the sad fact is that it has. Therefore, I am compelled to deal with your public accusations thusly:


 * 1. First, I must state that I have deleted the links to outside websites for Chambers stoves you placed in your initial response, above. Putting them in your text, in my view, shows a complete disregard for the idea of keeping this article (and the discussion of it) website neutral, as well as the spirit in which this discussion should be conducted.


 * 2. I do not see how it is possible to further someone's business by making sure the article is website neutral - that's nonsensical to me. Please explain this.


 * 3.  Unless you have deleted your membership in the very recent past, you do, sir, belong to at least one internet forum for Chambers stoves. Do you deny this?


 * 4. While it IS true that you do not own or maintain any Chambers-related websites NOW, you were, in the very least, the instigator of the creation of one of them, and, while it is technically owned by someone else NOW, you did, for all practical purposes, design it. In fact, I believe that you even set up the account for said forum, did you not?


 * 5. Further, the publicly expressed purpose for the creation of said site - as stated by you - was to shut down the website and forum from whence you had recently left. I believe this anger is what is driving your antagonistic behavior - Again, Wikipedia is not the place for such vitriol.


 * 6. Your insistence on changing the references in the article, and now your response here with the actual web addresses, are proof, in my estimation, that you are on a vendetta and are bent on carrying out the exact harm you publicly stated you wished to cause.


 * 7. I've already called in third parties on this - I have no axe to grind with you, sir - I just want the article to be informative and NOT promote ANY website or forum of any kind, as we AGREED to do.


 * Sincerely,


 * John E. Chambers 20:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

- Todd, stop with your lies and accusations. FACT: You profit from a website selling chambers literature. FACT: You run a chambers internet forum. FACT: I don't profit from nor run nor own nor design nor belong to any Chambers internet forum or website in any way. By removing mention of sites that have free literature, you hope to increase your profit from the sale of literature. That's not website neutral. You CANNOT be neutral in this, you have a vested financial interest in shutting down all mention of sites that have free literature. You should recuse yourself from further editing of this article as you are biased. -Mark (aka lowracer) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowracer (talk • contribs) 22:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

--- Ah you know what Todd, on second thought, you go ahead and write here whatever you like, build your own little Chambers stove empire if that's what floats your boat. I have got bigger fish to fry. I don't even own a freaking chambers range anymore. I'm cancelling my Wikipedia account, if such a thing is possible, this place is the biggest freaking time-sink. If this is what it comes to, editors who have financial interests posing as "neutral" editors, and the Wikipedia community turning a blind eye to it, I want no part of it. -Mark (aka lowracer). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowracer (talk • contribs) 22:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

______________


 * Mr. Lowracer:


 * Please state specifically what I have written previously that are lies.


 * John E. Chambers 00:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

______________

Third Opinion
A third opinion had previously been requested on this matter in May of 2007 (see above), and failed to resolve this dispute. I seriously doubt another third opinion will help in this case. The request has been removed from WP:3o, and I suggest perhaps an RFC instead.

Also, as a minor point of order, what is with you guys and the horizontal lines? Please don't, it makes the discussion much harder to follow. Please just use colon-indents when replying to each other, as described in the Layout section of WP:TALK. --Darkwind (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks - will look into it.


 * And - no more horizontal lines.


 * Regards,


 * John E. Chambers 20:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

{talkarchive}}