Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:17, 14 January 2008

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

Using my user page.....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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