User talk:MichaelQSchmidt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] A Unusual Perspective

I am not aware of any other actor with the time or inclination to be concerned with an article about them that is up on Wiki.... or at least I can't find any who are willing to be publically identified as themselves. I will do my utmost to observe NPOV and avoid anything that might be construed as COI. And, unlike my contemporaries in entertainment, I invite personal inquiry. If anyone has a question about my past or future, I will answer. I will keep an eye on this page and promise to respond to any comment or question to the best of my ability.... and I will tred very lightly where the article about me is concerned, only wishing to ensure accuracy... even if negative. Who knows... maybe the fact my being here will itself be the subject of an article in the future... as it has certainly been an interesting ride so far. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Well... I just learned that actress Kelly Taylor edited an article about herself some 9 month back. Shame on her. I also learned that wiser and more experienced editors had later cleaned up her article and made it much better. Sadly, the improved article has fallen under the eye of a vigilantee perhaps overzealous editor. I do hope the good works of those editors who have been improving the article since last April do not have their good works sullied just because of a few very minor edits done by 2 later found guilty of being sockpuppets. If one removes only their edits, the article is pretty good. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Michael, I think CC's deletions are in good faith, to a certain extent (he is trying to clean up unwarranted articles), but the way he does it is not making him many friends. While I agree with CC that this article needs to go (I don't see anything in there passing WP:N, but the prose and references seem ok), his treatment of you is still out of line and his misrepresentations (misdirections? unfounded allegations? rehashes of the past) are getting on my nerves. Take the high ground on this one and don't call him names (like vigilante...just strike it out like this). IMHO, showing that you make mistakes and that you correct them and that you aren't trying to hide anything, does wonders here...maybe not in politics, but here anyway... — BQZip01 — talk 03:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • High ground it is. The term I used was one usually applied to those who "take the law (read Wiki guidelines and policies) into their own hands believing whole-heartedly and faithfully in the righteousness of their actions"... but sadly that definition could just as easily be placed on a suicide bomber. Each is right in their own minds and all who disagree are to be chastised. My thinking here is that if one editor does not wait for consensus and moves too quickly, the next editor might follow that as an example and go just a bit further believing the given example is the correct one. And again, if every article ever touched by inappropriate edits were summarily removed from Wiki, it would be a very empty place. I will practice restraint and only hope this other editor does the same. As it is, these actions may simply be calculated taunts intended to goad me into rash action or response. Thanks for again being the wiser voice. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response

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

[edit] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia are biased, thus violating Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy and Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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.

  • 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia are biased, thus violating Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy and Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 — talk 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 Wikipedia 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)

[edit] Image:Michael Q. Schmidt at wrap party for Yesterday Was A Lie.jpg

On the IFD discussion for this image you stated "For these reasons, I would wish to have that image removed, as well as the article about me." and "Please remove the article about me and that picture of me... taken by a friend for me. . ." I don't see how I made an error. The image was nominated for deletion and those two sentences make it sound like you endorse the deletion. -Nv8200p talk 05:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The image is restored and placed back in Michael Q. Schmidt (actor). -Regards Nv8200p talk 19:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assistance

Hi, I got your message on my talk page and responded there. The short version is: "I'll see what I can do to help." Torc2 (talk) 11:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Warning

Do not comment on my talk page any further. Your repeated canvassing and personal attacks against me have damaged any helpful dialogue that we may have on this issue. I don't want to discuss or debate it with you any further. This is your only warning. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, this is not in line with WP policy. He can post on your page if he wishes ("An encyclopedia that anyone can edit" includes your user talk pages), BUT he shouldn't if you ask. Furthermore, an accusation of personal attacks needs to have a reference to be valid. Ironically, an unwarranted accusation of a personal attack could be considered a personal attack.
I recommend you both refrain from using each other's talk pages for the time being. I also recommend not responding to each other's comments in an attempt to keep the peace. Let's let the AfD sort itself out and we can move on from there. — BQZip01 — talk 21:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adoption

In getting a brief overlook of your time here so far, it appears you are interested in learning to contribute in accordance with Wikipedia policy, which can be overwhelming to learn. You may be interested in our adoption program. It's an easier way to get into the various areas of the project and learn each one step at a time. It would also put you in touch with one person to mentor you so as to alleviate the need to post inquiries on multiple users talk pages. Speaking of that, please don't post negative comments about editors on others talk pages. It can make for an uncomfortable situation for all involved and may be viewed by some as disruptive. Let me know if you have any questions. Best regards, Lara❤Love 20:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

  • A grateful response is on your talk page. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    • My classroom can be found here. What are you interested in working on? Lara❤Love 21:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Currently I need to get on the road to shoot a film this evening. I will respond when I return. Thank you being so gracious.MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Your classroom is just the spot on WIki I had hoped to find. Thank you for asking me to participate. I can see that I will be spending time simply trying to learn how to learn. I will try not to burden you with questions, and will limit those to only that which may have me totally baffled. With appreciation, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Resp to my BQZip01's talk page

There is no need to be worried. People who see the article can certainly see whether or not Cumulus Clouds' contributions are either disruptive or not. I personally believe him to be editing in good faith, BUT his aims are not entirely in line with Wikipedia (but that is my opinion. In this instance, I think it would behoove you not to throw "bad faith" accusations around. While it could be true, I don't see anything that proves it conclusively. If anything, it may simply be out of ignorance of WP policy. CC seems to be a contributor who views Wikipedia as an exclusive entity ("Is there any reason that should be in there?") versus an inclusive entity ("Is there a reason we should delete it"). This has been a debate on Wikipedia since its inception and has no firm conclusion beyond explicit items that can be included (all others are up for debate).

I concur that some relevant information was deleted that shouldn't have been, but the reasons may not have been malice. One of the absolutely hardest things to do on Wikipedia is to assume good faith. Realize that even though user ABC may make inappropriate comments, bad edits, malicious edits, vandalism and then make one good edit, you can't assume his last edit was bad. You have to assume it was a good edit unless you can prove otherwise. I've found that this also applies (in a general sense) in life. Some yay-hoo bagging stuff at Wal-mart might put that new weight collection on top of the eggs and glass figurines. He might repeat that mistake, but he might get it the next time. Given enough time and incentive even the worst performers generally reform and improve (though maybe not as much as we want) or give up.

In short, I don't expect this AfD to succeed. A subsequent nomination by the same user would be in bad faith (and he knows this). To prevent the deletion of such information, I highly suggest you copy all of this information and put it on a user subpage: User:MichaelQSchmidt/Bio, though, feel free to name it something else. Who knows? Maybe the article will get deleted (and it would be very bad for you to immediately put it back in) and 3 years later you appear in CC's favorite movie of all time and win Best Supporting Actor for the action movie of the year! Keeping a backup isn't bad faith and prevents the loss of the information, even if it isn't in the ideal place.

Anyway, there's my two cents. — BQZip01 — talk 21:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want, you can just respond here and I'll check it periodically. — BQZip01 — talk 21:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The AFD failed. There shouldn't be worries, but if it were to be deleted in the future, I can retrieve the contents. Lara❤Love 04:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the support

It's appreciated. — BQZip01 — talk 20:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I feel your frustration. You are showing far more restraint than I might have (or did) in a similar set of editorial disagreements. Good luck in the RfA, as your temperance and calming demeanor would do much to improve everything Wiki has to offer. If you are ever in SoCal, the beers on on me. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I've replied to your inquiry on my talk page. Sorry it took so long. Lara❤Love 14:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)