Talk:Michael Q. Schmidt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 11 January 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

[edit] WP:COI

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)


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)


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)
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 Wiki:COI is itself a COI. Truth and fact are never a COI. And all have maintained Wiki: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)

[edit] Making it better

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)

[edit] deletion objection

"...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)

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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
  • Honestly, there's no use bickering over a prod. I've nominated the article for WP:AFD. It's here. Chime in there. --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I concur, thank you for following the next step in the process. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)