Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:32, 14 January 2008

A response to your comments are on my talk page — BQZip01 —  21:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Using my user page.....

First,
I am a newcomer to Wiki. You folks here have more acronyms and more ways of interpreting guidelines than does the IRS (US residents will understand the reference). For my recent anger, I apologize. If not myself blocked, I will be spending time trying to learn more about Wiki and it's strange ways.
Second,
Yes... my own user account as MichaelQSchmidt is new. After the events of the last week or two, I felt it neccessary to come on board to see if I could myself get to the roots of this contention. My account being new, and my own interest in tracing the history of these events should in no way have me tagged or flagged as a sockpupput of myself or of anyone. If one tracks my user history, one will see my only responses to an editor whom I felt to be contentious and involved in vendetta.
Third,
After discovering a link placed on this user page that pointed directly at my home and family, I was absolutely incensed. The disagreements that led to its being placed here had already been soundly won by the editor who placed it here and its inclusion was overkill at the least, and criminal at best. If the editor had not meant malice, malice was how it was percieved, and malice was how it could have been used. Its placement here was inappropriate in the extreme.
Fourth,
With my frustration at the entire incident, and how I felt it was being handled, I did a Google search and found the email address to Wiki oversite. They concurred with my concerns and immediately deleted everything on my user page. They have been most professional and considerate. The infromation was here... It was simply removed by cooler heads.
Fifth,
I do not micro-manage the works of subordinants, nor their employees. There are not enough hours in a day to do my job and someone else's as well. The statement "Schmidt said he paid King to promote him on Wiki", is a misquote re-phrased in a way to make it appear in the worst possible light to Wiki editors and Wiki administrators. I wrote that King and his firm are paid to promote me. I do not tell them how or where to do their job. I do not tell him how or where. I just expect him to do a good job.
Sixth,
King and compamy made many contributions to Wiki in good faith, beyond just writing about me... in their creating several articles and in their improving dozens of others. While flawed in their methods or use of Wiki guidelines, their actual works and contrubutions have not been too bad (I say this because I have read other articles so as to make comparisons between the King works and those of more established Wiki editors). Please take no offense, for absolutely none is meant... but there is some really bad stuff up here simply begging for improvement.
Seventh,
I wish to direct specific thanks to BQZip01, UsaSatsui, Alison, and all those others who have used temperance and courtesy in the face of what must have seemed like a schoolyard brawl. I hope to learn by your own example.
Eigth,
I wish to ask if the contributions from the computer network in King's building are continuing to be flagged as sockpuppets? Will this continue? If so, how long? And how long will improvements to anything eo which I was associated cause a tag and block by editors? I ask because in my travels I noticed that a very new user Godhead01 had shown interest in improving informations to 2 shows in which I had roles and had been subsequently blocked as a King sockpuppet. Even a newbie like myself can figure that it could have been either because this user was using the same IP network as the King people and that was what caused a block (though this is suppostion because I cannot find any request for a checkuser for this user), or because this user was disgreeing with Cumulus Clouds in any project with which I had a part, however small.
Ninth,
And to Cumulus Clouds.. yes... this is another in a long diatribe from me. It is how I discuss. It is how I write. It is how I wish to avoid misinterpretation and miscommunication. Nearly everyone in my professional circle is this way... and it does not mean they are the same person or that they do the same things in the same ways for the same reasons, as my associates and I sometimes have some wonderful disagreements. It only means that they, like myself, have been educated to speak and write in a logical and consistent manner. I am sorry for any actions of mine that caused you grief. Anything I said about you or your editing habits was only a voicing of opinion. No matter how I reached that opinion, opinion has no place on Wiki. My behavior was intemperate and wrong. I apologize. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• I appreciate your response, Mr. Schmidt. Let me first start by reiterating that I did not mean you any harm or insult in my actions. At the worst of our disagreement, it was difficult to maintain civility, so I hope you will forgive me if I was rude.

I feel it may also be useful to clear up some things here. First, my goal is not eliminate information in articles connected to you or your work. I know it may have appeared this way, but I assure it was not a personal vendetta. One of my strongest beliefs is that if Misplaced Pages is to become a reliable source of information, a very hard line must be taken for verifiable and referenced information. You have no doubt seen in my history the tagging and elimination of unsourced statements. I do this because I believe it holds other people accountable for what they write and, in requiring sources for all statements, improves the overall quality of articles and thereby makes them more reliable.

When I discovered that User:L.L.King and a number of similar users were making similar edits to similar articles, this struck me as being suspicious, which triggered the sockpuppet case. Since Cinemapress appears as a promotion and publicity company in Google searches, I treated all of their edits with extreme scrutiny. Since this company is paid to promote different people and organizations, it means that all their edits to Misplaced Pages are biased, thus violating Misplaced Pages's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy and Misplaced Pages's policy against advertisements. It is for these reasons I have sought the removal of that information. In the course of my investigation, I turned up material which I felt was relevant to the case and I presented it to you for your response. In hindsight, the information from the DNS entry should have been handled with greater care and I apologize for this oversight. It was absolutely not meant to harass or threaten you. Privacy is very important to me and I am embarassed that I made such a stupid mistake in this case. Again, I hope you will forgive me.

The article at Michael Q. Schmidt (actor) will require a significant rewrite (in my opinion) to bring it inline with some of the policies I have cited earlier. I believe you meet Misplaced Pages's notability requirement, since you have recieved a significant amount of coverage for your work in Tom Goes To The Mayor and Let's Paint TV. If you will allow a rewrite of your article without inserting your own POV or disputing significant amounts of the content there, I will withdraw the AfD. I do not believe that Omovies or its works are notable enough to have articles, so I won't be withdrawing those nominations, but you are free to add your opinion at the AfD discussion.

I would encourage you to get more involved in other articles pertaining to things you are knowledgeable in. I understand that Misplaced Pages may seem at times to be very bureaucratic, but those rules are there to insure reliable information is passed on to the reader. I will gladly answer any questions you may have about any of the policies here.

I appreciate your time and again I apologize for our lengthy and unfortunate misunderstanding here. Yours, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. It shows in well written prose that editors do not always have to write using the all-too-uncountable acronyms of Wiki-speak. That "shorthand" may be fine for you guys, but to those of us out here in the world, it a totally foreign language. And having just spent 10 minutes tracking down a certain Wikism... I also appreciate your willingness to withdraw the AfD. But wasn't it put there by user:UsaSatsui after you tagged it non-notable? Are you allowed to undo his putting it in AfD?

Stays up or is removed... that choice is really way out of my hands. The longer it stays up, the more it is being pared down to a meaningless collection of bits and pieces that make no sense to anyone.. even me (chuckle). I do not wish to be made to appear a fool... as you can see that would be an instance where something on Wiki could have direct to my life and career in the real world. My current (though limited) understanding of the Wiki world means that as a person who might be written about, I might address any concerns about the content to the writer/editor of the information, and hope they understand my opinion or point of view... but that I can not and should take a more active hand in an article that concerns me or my carrer. And goodness... having just looked at what is currently left of that article, I had to laugh out loud. What you have left makes little sense...

Perhaps your method of de-constructing an article is just a step you personaly take before putting up something else. But to a simple and uneducated outsider like myself, it simply appears that you call something 'X, wait a bit, and then take it apart to make it X. And again, to a simpleton like me, unversed as I am in all the rules and guidelines of Wiki, using a de-construction method to make something into what it might not have actually been in order to support a conviction that is something it might not otherwise have been, seems like it might be considered a conflict of interest that does not maintain a neutral point of view. If one makes a claim of non-notability, would it not be more appropriate to then stand back and let those you've asked, decide on the evidence in front of them and not cloudy the waters or remove the evidence?

I am not going to go back and do a history search of the article now... but I recall it had external links to articles about me and an actual list of projects I'd been in. I recently did a spot for Jimmy Kimel Live that was a total blast... I've worked with Bill Pullman and learned that he is real and not phoney.. I was toe-to-toe in a scene with Peter Mayhew (Chewbaca) and found him personally to be the kindness and gentlest giant on God's earth... I've been in some dumb stuff and some serious stuff... hell, I even got to run around in a graveyard as a Zombie for The History Channel... but that is all gone. And the only thing left about my television career is my time with Let's Paint TV. It all looks pretty non-notable to me as it now sits... and not at all worth being on Wiki. Anyone looking at it now would wonder why the heck it is there and vote for deletion without hesitation.

As gracious as your offer to support it staying is, my own though on the matter is toask you to simply return the information you have been snipping out of the article over the last week or so... all the information about my early life and career... all the supportive links to outside resources and verifications... all the important milestones of my life that have a notability (at least to my family and friends) and then step away from the article. It seems that neither of us has a neutral point of view. And since you have made your assertion that I am non-notable, let the article stay or go based upon the evidence of what my life is... on the evidence of the article itself... as it was, and not the stripped and emaciated version you have made it. If it stays and gets re-written... fine... if it gets tossed out... fine. But wouldn't it be just a little more prudent to leave the evidence of what it is or isn't right where it was and wait for the consensus you requested?

Again, I am an outsider struggling to understand a confusing process... but I think to pre-emptively delete any article one piece at a time is at total odds to what the Afd was created for in the first place. Can your fellow Wiki editors judge the evidence of the article if you have removed everything of relevance or potential notability? How likely is it that any will actually trudge through the article's history to discover that the article they think have been asked to judge is very much different from they stripped down they currently see? I am unversed... and there may be no such compatible term in Wiki, but in the real world it is called "tampering with evidence". I don't know how Wiki considers this behavior... indeed, this may be standard practice and a required protocol... but is in my opinion that if an editor makes a claim of non-notability, for him to do anything to an article after-the-fact to make it support the initial claim might be considered a severe Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest.

Look... since User:UsaSatsui put it on the Afd, why not simply leave it right there... but please leave it there just as you found it.. as it was when you made your claim... and not as the non-notable piece nothing that it is now. If it goes, fine. If it stays, fine. I hope you will find my suggestion sensiable, logical, and within the spirit of Wiki. If I am wrong, please tell me how in the simplest terms possible.

• MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• The information about your life may be put back in the article as long as it is referenced with a verifiable source, the qualifications of which are listed at Misplaced Pages:Reliable Sources. The most important thing to look for in a source is that it is independent and has editorial oversight. This usually includes magazines, newspapers, journals, books and the like. This very specifically excludes sources like blogs. This is designed to prevent people from creating their own source, then adding a derogatory or POV statement on a Misplaced Pages article and referencing it with their own blog. This guideline is very important for ensuring that articles are reliable and verifiable.

If a magazine has done a story on you or if your name appeared in a newspaper or a federal register somewhere, all of these things may be used to write about your life. Unsourced statements are unverifiable and, because of serious concerns about the biographies of living persons, Misplaced Pages requires very stringent sourcing for articles about people. On the one hand it may make it difficult to include material that is relevant because you can't find sources for it, but on the other hand it prevents people from inserting negative information into your article since it can be removed immediately under that guideline.

Again, I wasn't attempting to remove relevant information that I disagreed with, instead I was following the guideline as I understand it. If you have any questions, please let me know. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 08:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point, and thank you. Please go ahead then and put the items back as you have offerd. The complete history of your actions is on the history page of the Michael Q. Schmidt (actor) article, or at least it will until it gets deleted. The Misplaced Pages:Reliable Sources you need are all the ones you deleted. And the information to put back is the informations you had then subsequently deleted as being unsourced. Wow.. what a crazy catch 22. I appreciate your offering to do so, as you know it is something that under wiki guidelines I cannnot do myself. I am grateful that the intent of AfD is to put such matters into other's hands. I was concerned because the article about me that is currently in AfD right now is not the article that was sent there, having so well cut to pieces. Outsiders, or even a few Wiki administrators, may look at this de-construction and think you were only doing it to prove a point... and they migh erringly think you were not acting in good faith when continuing to de-construct an article after it has been sent to AfD. Whew... it was almost appearing that you were doing so rather than take a risk on others at AfD... or that you were simply making certain that the article is not worth saving. I am so glad you can help. Wiki will not crumble if the article is put back to its original condition for AfD review. And of course, if you are proven correct in all your assertions, it will be deleted and your world will be as before. I am glad you do not feel that you have to stack the deck to make sure only your view prevails. Thank you again... I am glad you are willing to wait for consensus. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 09:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break to separate comments —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cumulus Clouds (talk • contribs) 08:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to both your comments are on my user talk page. I would also like to point out that the following statement is not true: "Since this company is paid to promote different people and organizations, it means that all their edits to Misplaced Pages are biased, thus violating Misplaced Pages's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy and Misplaced Pages's policy against advertisements." WP:NPOV is a matter of the presentation of the article, not the source of its information. While there certainly is a conflict of interest with the publicists and this user specifically, it does not mean that they cannot contribute, provided they follow Misplaced Pages guidelines. If Harrison Ford's publicist wrote something in here, his contributions would be suspect and he should be as open as possible about contributions to avoid any possible influence. As a recommendation, Mr. King should probably post on his own user page that he regrets such a situation and recants his previous actions. He should demonstrate a basic knowledge of the rules (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SOCK WP:CIVIL, WP:ADVERT, WP:NOTE, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:BLP specifically come to mind. After doing so, I would recommend requesting an unblock after a few days.

As I stated on my user talk page, cooler heads almost always prevail on Misplaced Pages. Everyone would be smart to heed such advice and keep all discussions civil. If everyone did this, I doubt we would be in the situation we all find ourselves in. — BQZip01 —  06:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to both of your comments, WP:AUTO does not prohibit Mr. Schmidt from writing in his own article, but such edits should be limited; remember WP:IAR and WP:BRD when making such edits. Furthermore, if you have a problem with this, then please contact Misplaced Pages accordingly.

As for Mr. King, I would still support his return if, and only if, he renounces prior behavior. I think everyone should support such a change if he so desires. As for his return, I recommend reading WP:NAM. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)