419:
of Wiki in the strongest way possible, he kept editing the article, even though he was sure it would be deleted anyway, and unfortunately turned the article something which would be a total embarrasment to Wiki. We both agreed that editors trying to confirm any possible worth would have had to check the edit hitory of the article itself and then spend all kinds of time trying to compare earlier and later versions... and it would be quite time-consuming. I am grateful that he has agreed to restore the article to what it was the day it was introduced to AfD as an aid to editors here. I have concurred with him that if editors here at AfD feel the original article was non-notable, that I would be happy to have it go.. and if editors here felt the original version did have some worth, I was willing to have it stay. I do not know when the article will be restored (however tenperary). Thank you.
578:, in the subsection "Identification and solutions", I found a comparison of 2 samples of editorial contribution... the first as being an unsourced flat statement that had been added and deleted several times as being vandalism, and the second showing that same information being returned, in proper context and with with proper cites so as to remain unquestioned. This example seemed strangely familar... something I had read earlier... so if anyone wants to have a really good chuckle at the strange twists of the universe... imagine my own surprise when I tracked it down and learned that the "good" edit was one made by someone from the L.L.King group on December 20. It does tend to put things in perspective... in that the good people do might sometimes survive the bad done by others...
546:
this mean if the article says I am an
American, he has to have a copy of my passport or birth certificate? Or when the article states that I modeled for numerous facilities throughout Southern California or that I worked with artists at Disney and DreamWorks and Sony, that each sentence has to be accompanied by notarized paystubs? The fact that I appeared in a number of television shows was documeted and linked to these works at IMDb, but they had been removed (but now replaced) as well. I admit a great deal of confusion. If someone promises to remove anything that is unsourced... and has themselves shown a prior history of
809:. I contend this simple fact is not controversial and Mr. Schmidt would have little incentive to lie. As such the resource can stay (furthermore, simply stating "he claims more than 200 credits..." might be more accurate then anyway. Also, IMDB may not have a complete listing. There are plenty of reasons. As for the IMDB with the "most votes", that just means the most people voted on it, not that most people liked it (IMDB is a repository of information, not a fan site, per se). As for your delete, that is your opinion and you are welcome to it. Thanks for the feedback.
718:- What I know of this leads me to agree with the above. I think the first priority is to settle this AfD and then figure out how to work on the article. At the very least, the roles Schmidt seems notable enough that there is no doubt we should keep some form of the article on him. Even when entirely NPOV and sourced, the article will not look much different than it does now, so we should keep it and address the problems as content issues instead of keep/delete article issues.
622:... and many, many others... all have their filmology and television projects listed in their artcles on Knowledge (XXG), even though that same information is also on IMDB. It is included so as to be useful to Knowledge (XXG) readers. Having their informations here adds to the informative quality of their articles and acts to further the readers understanding. You removed all filmology and television from the article about me. I believe this was a
737:. And also keep in mind that the article will change, possibly in ways you don't like, and so long as there's no libel or invasion of privacy involved, there's not much you can do except what we can all do: work towards consensus and come up with a solution (something a certain involved party seems hell-bent on not doing, for the record). --
787:, with 78 votes, where he plays "The Very Indignant Jogger", again, apparently not a major role. (Though it may be his most major part, as 78 votes is pre-release.) He was a model for the Mountain Troll in Harry Potter and in the background of Because I Said So, and played a bit part in a number of minor movies; I don't see it as notable.--
826:
It's not a simple fact; counts of things like that can vary greatly depending on what you count. I'm not accusing him of lying, but he certainly has motivation to be generous in what he counts. Yes, the vote count means that the most people voted on it; that's likely to correlate between films of the
653:
As someone who has no interest in this article at all (I have never heard of
Michael Q. Schmidt or user Cumulus Clouds, rarely watch films, have no tv, and live on a different continent) let me just suggest the truth is probably somewhere in between. The actions of Cumulus Clouds do not look to me as
631:
with the spirit of
Knowledge (XXG)... and yet one more attempt to de-construct the atrticle to make it as non-notable as you keep wanting it to be. Why are you so interested in making me a laughing stock here? In light of all the other articles on Wiki about actors, and the informations thet include,
626:
edit. I ask that you undo your deletion and so reflect the true editorial policies of
Knowledge (XXG) in this instance... and return the informations you removed from the article about me. The information was proper. The information was sourced. And it was informative.. all the things Knowledge (XXG)
529:
Thank you for allowing me to comment. I am in the unfortunate positon of having the full attention of one very centered and extremely determined editor. Certainly there must be more important issues to deal with on Wiki than me. I fail to understand his continued interest in wishing to reduce my life
451:
I said those portions could be restored with references for each of the statements being made. This is the only way to prevent it from violating any of the guidelines I cited. I see that much of the unsourced information has been returned and it is my intention to remove anything without a source in
418:
and I have been having a very reasonable discussion on my talk page (feel free to visit) where he has granted that I may be notable enough to have an article on me remain on Wiki and that the article now being considered for deletion is not the same article he sent here. In his supporting the tenets
545:
I am not the one who can answer this question... as the article he promises to continue de-constructing, even should it survive his having it placed in AfD in the first place, is of me ("...it is my intention to remove anything without a source in this article if it survives this AfD")... but does
658:
filmography. So an editor who is in a hurry may be justified to remove an extremely long filmography altogether, when it's not easy to establish what is actually relevant. It is also true that there is a general problem with references to self-published sources. Cumulus Clouds removed them, citing
385:
That's sad, but kind of irrelevant. Whatever conflict occurred in the past needs to stay there. At the absolute minimum, we know that
Schmidt is notable, and that's enough reason to keep an article on him. The contents can be worked out on the article itself. Hopefully editors will treat the
530:
to 2 or 3 disjointed or humilating sentences... in his creating a singular reality where, when he first declares something as non-notable or trivial, he may then de-construct it to make it appear to be excatly what he first claimed. I found a definition on wiki... dealing with the falseness of
506:
There's 11 citations, but some of them don't even mention
Schmidt; having glanced through half of them, besides the IMDB link, the most information on Schmidt we have is a sentence in "Let's Paint TV celebrates its sixth anniversary!" That's the type of pointless citations that almost prove
683:
However, it also seems clear that
Cumulus Clouds is much more interested in deleting this article in retaliation for spamming than in communicating with its subject. In a sense that's a COI for this article. The best procedure would be to handle it as such. I think (s)he should also reread
554:
removing the (now) unsourced informations... where does it end? Again, and dispite protestations to the contrary or quoting of wiki guidelines in a self-serving manner to support his actions... the continued actions themselves speak even much loudly and more pointedly. I am learning...
346:- Played regular characters on several TV shows, Appeared on Jimmy Kimmel live, Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, and Distraction. Many minor roles in movies. Why is this even up for AfD? If there is a problem with the tone of the article, fix it, but there's no question this is notable.
732:
Some good advice here, Mike. That section was way too long anyways. As I mentioned on my talk page, I was probably gonna chainsaw it down myself (I've been holding off on it because I want to see if we pass AFD first). Calm down a bit.
233:. This is one of a number of spam articles created by these accounts to promote this actor and it should be deleted first as spam and second to discourage others from using Knowledge (XXG) as a marketing vehicle for their acting resume.
307:
Many articles about an object have sources that are from a personal website. As long as they are not controversial or inaccurate, the basic facts are certainly citable from that source. It certainly could use more sources to make it
654:
if they are necessarily wrong when seen in isolation. I don't know about our usual practice in this area, but it seems logical that only a very small minority of actors are sufficiently notable that
Knowledge (XXG) should have an
48:. An interesting discourse - and certainly somewhat novel in that it incorporates the comments of the subject (whose opinion I also welcomed during establishing my view of the consensus - welcome aboard)--
466:
Why don't you calm down and let sources come to the article when they're ready? This one is already in better shape than many other articles. Honestly, you can't go 5 words without a citation, which at
534:.... where one may state fact "A" and then remove all items that are not fact "A" in order to prove only fact "A". Is this not just the least bit self-serving and contrary to the wiki principles of
163:
unless primary claim to notability, playing the
Mountain Troll in the Harry Potter series, can be confirmed by independent coverage. The rest of this is just puffery for minor and fleeting roles. --
406:
I do not belong here on this page, but feel I need to make a progress report. Please keep in mind that since the article is about me, my every word is suspect. I can not be expected to have
437:
can edit, remember? Don't worry about expressing your opinions (you're more than welcome), and don't worry about us not taking into account that you're the article's subject (we will). --
675:, and here they were used to substantiate the kind of claim that would be easy to spin (meeting with artists) or to fake (200) with impunity even by a relatively well-known person.
112:
285:
This information is entirely promotional in nature. You have not yet provided a reason for keeping this article other than your belief that the article isn't inaccurate
775:; the claim that he's been in over 200 film and TV projects isn't backed up by IMDB; they list 105 appearances, or about 60 if you list each TV series as just one. The
751:
Excellent advice UsaSatsui! How about putting his filmography in a collapsable box? That way it is available for anyone interested, but it doesn't clutter up the page?
198:
85:
80:
89:
201:
to bolster his claims of notability. Article was being maintained solely with promotional material using almost entirely original research in violation of
72:
263:
262:, but that doesn't make the information inaccurate. Additionally, subsequent edits have made put this article IAW WP policy and guidelines.
575:
17:
320:
to duplicate that information here, so I gave a reference. It is that simple. Please try not to read too much into my disagreement.
560:
251:
76:
568:
254:
for further information (no need to put it all here). I concur this article was initially added and updated by a registered
854:
836:
821:
796:
763:
746:
727:
709:
641:
587:
516:
501:
480:
461:
446:
428:
395:
376:
355:
332:
298:
271:
242:
188:
171:
155:
128:
54:
564:
873:
36:
386:
material with some dignity, since minor wikicrimes shouldn't prejudice Wiki's article about somebody against them.
68:
60:
637:
583:
424:
827:
same era and country to gross popularity and hence notability. Virtually nobody has seen most of these movies.--
872:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
457:
372:
294:
267:
238:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
632:
your deletion can in no way be defended as reflective of policy or guideline. Please return it. Thank you.
780:
593:
556:
453:
415:
368:
290:
234:
148:
734:
697:
486:
140:
and seems to backed up by references. Appeared in numerous notable films. Can't see the problem here.
832:
792:
705:
701:
633:
579:
512:
420:
850:
742:
476:
442:
184:
124:
810:
752:
679:
applies here, especially the subsection "Primacy of basic content policies" and its last sentence.
490:
363:- Schmidt has said he hired a publicity company to write this article and now requests that it be
321:
275:
259:
214:
603:
168:
719:
685:
387:
347:
317:
784:
49:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
693:
660:
255:
210:
202:
364:
143:
842:
689:
676:
672:
664:
313:
828:
788:
783:, with 288 votes, in which he is "Buttcrack Guy", apparently not a major role. Next up is
723:
508:
489:
and the article's neutrality (despite its beginnings) seems to be improving dramatically.
391:
351:
806:
230:
206:
805:
I'll be happy to double check, but I think his website lists more, but was removed as a
846:
738:
531:
472:
438:
316:. Furthermore, I did provide other reasons on the talk page of the article and felt it
286:
180:
120:
226:
619:
164:
607:
106:
627:
stives to be. I believe your removal is really a bit of a quibble... not keeping
471:
shows a good faith effort is being made. I think you need a break from this. --
433:
Sheesh, man, you have as much right to be here as anyone. It's the encyclopedia
119:
Disputed prod, questions about this actor's notability. Procedural nomination.
671:
be used but is generally discouraged. Using these sources is far from being a
628:
615:
611:
623:
179:, seems to be nothing more than a moderately successful bit-part actor.
663:
as a reason, which is sort of justified when read in conjunction with
563:. No pointed malice in these actions....? I would like to be able to
218:
250:
Somewhat notable actor with reprising roles in several shows. See
866:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
535:
407:
222:
539:
411:
217:. Information in article is almost identical to that on his
197:- Vanity page was created by Schmidt and edited by his
102:
98:
94:
574:
Here's a real hoot.... In reading the related article
138:
He has been in over 200 film and television projects
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
876:). No further edits should be made to this page.
841:The exact number of films he has appeared in
8:
677:WP:COI#How to handle conflicts of interest
221:and most of the references cited are to
550:removing sources and then waiting and
452:this article if it survives this AfD.
779:appearance with the most votes is in
576:Knowledge (XXG):Vandals versus Trolls
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
561:Knowledge (XXG):No personal attacks
312:, but that is not a requirement of
24:
565:Knowledge (XXG): Deny recognition
569:Knowledge (XXG):What is a troll?
287:because it hasn't been proven so
567:but it has become too blatant
1:
487:There is no need to rush this
855:22:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
837:21:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
822:21:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
797:20:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
764:21:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
747:13:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
728:11:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
710:11:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
642:08:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
588:23:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
517:21:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
502:21:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
481:19:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
462:18:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
447:16:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
429:09:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
396:13:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
377:12:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
356:21:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
333:21:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
299:15:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
272:15:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
243:14:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
189:11:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
172:10:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
156:09:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
129:08:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
55:22:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
893:
602:My friends and associates
69:Michael Q. Schmidt (actor)
61:Michael Q. Schmidt (actor)
557:Knowledge (XXG):Vandalism
869:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
485:Concur with UsaSatsui.
673:non-controversial edit
667:. This kind of source
843:doesn't really matter
258:and in violation of
223:his personal website
807:non-reliable source
781:18 Fingers of Death
252:article's talk page
52:
785:Skid Marks (film)
507:non-notability.--
50:
884:
871:
819:
761:
696:. And of course
499:
330:
225:in violation of
153:
151:
146:
110:
92:
34:
892:
891:
887:
886:
885:
883:
882:
881:
880:
874:deletion review
867:
811:
753:
735:There's no rush
634:MichaelQSchmidt
580:MichaelQSchmidt
491:
421:MichaelQSchmidt
322:
149:
144:
142:
83:
67:
64:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
890:
888:
879:
878:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
824:
800:
799:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
681:
680:
647:
646:
645:
644:
599:
598:
597:
594:Cumulus Clouds
590:
572:
543:
532:circular logic
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
504:
454:Cumulus Clouds
416:Cumulus Clouds
401:
400:
399:
398:
380:
379:
369:Cumulus Clouds
358:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
302:
301:
291:Cumulus Clouds
280:
279:
264:131.44.121.252
245:
235:Cumulus Clouds
192:
174:
158:
117:
116:
63:
58:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
889:
877:
875:
870:
864:
863:
856:
852:
848:
844:
840:
839:
838:
834:
830:
825:
823:
820:
818:
816:
808:
804:
803:
802:
801:
798:
794:
790:
786:
782:
778:
774:
771:
765:
762:
760:
758:
750:
749:
748:
744:
740:
736:
731:
730:
729:
725:
721:
717:
714:
713:
712:
711:
707:
703:
699:
695:
691:
687:
678:
674:
670:
666:
662:
657:
652:
649:
648:
643:
639:
635:
630:
625:
621:
620:Patton Oswalt
617:
613:
609:
605:
601:
600:
595:
591:
589:
585:
581:
577:
573:
570:
566:
562:
558:
553:
549:
544:
541:
537:
533:
528:
518:
514:
510:
505:
503:
500:
498:
496:
488:
484:
483:
482:
478:
474:
470:
465:
464:
463:
459:
455:
450:
449:
448:
444:
440:
436:
432:
431:
430:
426:
422:
417:
413:
409:
405:
404:
403:
402:
397:
393:
389:
384:
383:
382:
381:
378:
374:
370:
366:
362:
359:
357:
353:
349:
345:
342:
341:
334:
331:
329:
327:
319:
315:
311:
306:
305:
304:
303:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
283:
282:
281:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
246:
244:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
200:
196:
193:
190:
186:
182:
178:
175:
173:
170:
166:
162:
159:
157:
154:
152:
147:
139:
136:
133:
132:
131:
130:
126:
122:
114:
108:
104:
100:
96:
91:
87:
82:
78:
74:
70:
66:
65:
62:
59:
57:
56:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
868:
865:
814:
812:
776:
772:
756:
754:
715:
682:
668:
655:
650:
608:John Goodman
551:
547:
494:
492:
468:
434:
360:
343:
325:
323:
309:
247:
194:
176:
160:
141:
137:
134:
118:
45:
43:
31:
28:
698:WP:MASTODON
414:. However,
410:because of
344:Strong Keep
318:very pointy
199:sockpuppets
177:Weak Delete
161:Weak delete
829:Prosfilaes
789:Prosfilaes
702:Hans Adler
629:good faith
616:Jack Black
612:Dan Akroyd
604:Tom Arnold
509:Prosfilaes
847:UsaSatsui
739:UsaSatsui
656:extensive
624:bad faith
473:UsaSatsui
439:UsaSatsui
260:WP:ADVERT
219:IMDB page
215:WP:ADVERT
181:Lankiveil
121:UsaSatsui
777:credited
686:WP:POINT
651:Comment.
165:Dhartung
113:View log
815:BQZip01
757:BQZip01
716:comment
694:WP:BITE
661:WP:AUTO
495:BQZip01
365:deleted
361:Comment
326:BQZip01
276:BQZip01
211:WP:SPAM
203:WP:AUTO
145:M♠ssing
86:protect
81:history
773:Delete
690:WP:AGF
665:WP:COI
435:anyone
314:WP:DEL
310:better
195:Delete
90:delete
845:. --
720:Torc2
548:first
469:least
388:Torc2
348:Torc2
231:WP:RS
207:WP:OR
107:views
99:watch
95:links
16:<
851:talk
833:talk
793:talk
743:talk
724:talk
706:talk
700:. --
692:and
638:talk
584:talk
552:then
538:and
536:NPOV
513:talk
477:talk
458:talk
443:talk
425:talk
408:NPOV
392:talk
373:talk
352:talk
295:talk
268:talk
256:sock
248:Keep
239:talk
229:and
227:WP:V
213:and
185:talk
169:Talk
135:Keep
125:talk
103:logs
77:talk
73:edit
46:Keep
669:may
592:To
540:COI
412:COI
150:Ace
111:– (
853:)
835:)
813:—
795:)
755:—
745:)
726:)
708:)
688:,
640:)
618:,
614:,
610:,
606:,
586:)
559:,
515:)
493:—
479:)
460:)
445:)
427:)
394:)
375:)
367:.
354:)
324:—
297:)
289:.
270:)
241:)
209:,
205:,
187:)
167:|
127:)
105:|
101:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
79:|
75:|
51:VS
849:(
831:(
817:—
791:(
759:—
741:(
722:(
704:(
636:(
596::
582:(
571:.
542:?
511:(
497:—
475:(
456:(
441:(
423:(
390:(
371:(
350:(
328:—
293:(
278:)
274:(
266:(
237:(
191:.
183:(
123:(
115:)
109:)
71:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.