User talk:GreasePolice

Image copyright problem with Image:Greasepolice.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Greasepolice.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 08:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Cleaning lateral duct.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Cleaning lateral duct.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 08:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Foamed hood.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Foamed hood.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI 08:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Dirty kitchen flue.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Dirty kitchen flue.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 08:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Clean kitchen flue.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Clean kitchen flue.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI 08:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Kitchen exhaust cleaning article
Hello! I noticed you just deleted my edits without any comments as to why, even subject related pictures from Wikimedia Commons. When you do that, you invite an edit war and conflict resolution unless the other person simply gives in. The idea here is that anyone can edit and if you remove something or add something, you need to be able to defend it and if two editors cannot agree, there is a whole dispute resolution regime on here where others will mediate or arbitrate. Your article has a number of items that are unsubstantiated and don't fit Wikipedia rules and regs. I did not edit all that should be edited in here. I suggest you provide your rationale for simply deleting my edits because otherwise you will get to explain it in dispute resolution. --Achim (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for Mediation of Kitchen exhaust cleaning article.
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Kitchen_exhaust_cleaning has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Kitchen_exhaust_cleaning and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Achim (talk)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Your message to me
Hey Ahering,

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner but I rarely log in and I didn't receive any emails that there was a problem.

It looks like you guys took out a lot of pertinent information on the current state of the industry. Anything that was removed that referenced Phil Ackland should be put back as he is considered the foremost authority on kitchen exhaust cleaning around the world.

Saying that there are only two processes to clean exhaust system is also incorrect. With current advancements in the industry there are several processes that can be used including downstream chemical injection, upstream chemical injection, foaming, spray tanks, garden type sprayers etc.

The reason I took you pictures off is they looked like they were taken with a poloroid and scanned in and I didn't feel like they fit well with the article.

Taking links out to Phil Ackland and The Grease Police is also incorrect, these are both organizations that have helped to further this industry. I saw somewhere that they were labeled as spam but thats like saying that a link on a software webpage to Microsoft's site is spam.

You guys do whatever you feel is right but the page that was up had no links to any spam, and the Boston Fire link that was removed was a huge occurrence in our industry and it was directly related to shoddy workmanship in the kitchen exhaust cleaning field and has even led to strict enforcement of kitchen exhaust cleaners in Boston. http://www.ikeca-boston.org/

Take care and sorry if I didnt follow the right guidelines.

GreasePolice (talk) 05:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)GreasePolice

My answer to you
Thanks for your response. You might also look here: further comments.

A few points:
 * Stating that you did not know there was a problem because you received no e-mails does not pass the smell test. You repeatedly went in and simply deleted my edits. When you did that, you first logged in. That means necessarily that you saw the big red warning message that you had a message from me. You also saw postings through the mediation cabal. You logged in, you and I BOTH know, because your edits are credited to your handle. That can only mean one thing and one thing alone, which is that you knowingly ignored the messages and simply reverted edits to your version, which makes it abundantly clear, that what you are running is a Single-purpose_account.
 * "Furthering the industry?" Sez who? In Wikipedia, you need to have back-up for your statements. Just how do you, for example, quantify "advancing the industry"? Writing in quotes from yourself, somebody in the business, without external back-up is very likely to get deleted, as it did here and not by me I might add. I learned a lot here too about how things work and got ticked off. But it never even occurred to me to put in a personal quote of mine. What were you thinking?
 * If there are more methods than two for cleaning, there is nothing wrong with having you mention each of them, especially with subject-related images. It does not, however, explain why you only wanted one method shown and why you repeatedly removed hot water pressure as a method and then purposely and knowingly refused to comment on it.
 * The pictures weren't good? Are you kidding? Look at the size of the pictures I put in compared to yours. Just click on them and see how big they get. For the most part, they are so many dorts per inch they run off your screen and you have to scroll up and down and left and right to see it all. You had some little wee tiny ones in there.

Look, this industry is not difficult to understand and I was active in it. I also know it from another angle, which is the research and development, selling and fire testing of the ductwork, which you may not know. The fact is that when you act in the way of a Single-purpose_account, you are not furthering your industry, you are taking away from your own credibility - needlessly. I am no more a fan of the restaurant owners or cleaners who cut corners, undercut pricing and falsify records to enable insurance fraud than you are. Those people are the ones who need to be sorted out. Having an article that matches Wikipedia guidelines and policy helps that a lot more than unsubstantiated prose where there is one author who puts in his own quotes and reverts edits without comment.

Regards, --Achim (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)