Talk:Doug Drexler

Correction requested
Moved from User talk:31dot.

Hi 31Dot,

I would like to please have a discussion about information edited into Doug Drexler's profile that is either flat out wrong or leads the reader to get a very, very biased and untrue explanation of why Drex files was taken down and the very simple request we made to a collegue and, we thought, old friend. It is unfair that only one side of the story is being told and that side favors his perceived victimization while he gets job offers from assumptions of him having done all that work and no one has heard of the people who actually did. This needs to be corrected and all parties should get a chance to explain, not just the perpetrator of his own problems. OR, in place of this, all comments towards this issue in his profile should be removed. We all should get a say, or non of us should and we should not be discussing this in the public forum of everyone's bias.

Thank you and hope to get a private response and in dealing fairly with this issue,

Robert Bonchune Senior CG Supervisor for the Star Trek TV franchise for 12 years. Pierre Drolet Senior Model builder, Star Trek Franchise for 7 years.

rbonchune@gmail.com


 * This should be moved to Talk:Doug Drexler and discussed there, not with a single (and seemingly uninvolved so far) contributor. 31dot, I think you will move it there later, so for the time being: Information about the Drex Files takedown is presented as a quote and has a citation, so I don't see how MA does anything wrong. If other parties involved want to "get a say", they can do so on by any means citeable (that means some public space where we can be sure of the authors' identity, for example his own web page or blog), and we can add their quote as well. It should be the decision of each party involved whether they want to wash dirty laundry in public, not ours.
 * For what it's worth, though, the remainder of the Drex Files section reads like an advertisment, and should probably be rewritten to sound somewhat more neutral. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 16:40, June 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry for another addendum: It seems as if Drexler himself never mentioned who is "responsible" for the takedown of his blog - at least I couldn't find any names in the early discussions about this. So, since this message was added by an anonymous contributor here, we shouldn't take it for a fact that the two people mentioned in the above message are the responsible ones. It is at least possible that someone wants to bring some names into the running discussion. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 17:31, June 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * I know very little of this issue, but I agree with Cid that any information that is cited can be added regarding any opposing views on this matter. 31dot (talk) 21:00, June 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree as well with Cid about any information that is cited can be added to the page be it an opposing, supporting or neutral view. I will say though that I believe the section on the Drex Files should be reworded. Such wording like "Happy as Drexler was" being including, especially without citation shouldn't be on the page. --BorgKnight (talk) 21:08, June 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * I have removed some (but most probably not enough) of the subjective terminology from the section. Feel free to also give it a hand. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 21:36, June 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * Judging from the email address provided, it appears that the anonymous contributor, is Robert Bonchune, a bonafide Trek production staffer, himself...--Sennim (talk) 11:01, June 3, 2013 (UTC)


 * You can contact me at mr.president@whitehouse.gov - see what I did there? :) Perhaps it really is Robert Bonchune, but as I said above, if I just wanted to imply that Bonchune is involved, this is how I would try to do it. We shouldn't assume that this really is Bonchune just because an anonymous user posted his mail address - and it isn't necessary to contact him via that address, because nothing "article-worthy" would be the result. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 16:28, June 3, 2013 (UTC)


 * Ha, Ha, hilarious. But you're right of course. I agree with you that Bonchune, if it is he, should post his grievances on a publicly accessible, verifiable (and thus for us an "article-worthy" addendum), forum, website or the like...--Sennim (talk) 09:36, June 4, 2013 (UTC)