User talk:SERSeanCrane

Archives

Your GA nomination of Earl Mindell

The article Earl Mindell you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:Earl Mindell for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment.

There were several points raised in the GA nomination last year which did not seem to have been resolved. Anyway, thanks for nominating and good luck tackling those few minor points. MSGJ (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brownmark Films

Went to the article first. Did some cleanup and further sourcing. Then went to the AfD and opined. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were the nom, so I don't know if my "keep" opinion was what was hoped for, but it now just squeeks past WP:GNG. Thanks for asking for my input. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had not looked into the other article... seeing if I could get it to stand on its own legs with independent coverage. As for the question you posed at the AfD, IMDB can be used to verify non-contentious facts which might themselves be supportive of otherwise established notability, but being on IMDB does not in and of itself create notability. See Wikipedia:Citing IMDb... which is why I moved the IMDB ref out of the article and down to external links. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And a quick search seems to show Brownmark as having more sourcable notability than does Special Entertainment. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To throw in with MQS and to answer your question, no, nothing prevents you from editing an article about something with which you are actively involved. However, I caution you to restrict editing to correcting factual inaccuracies and/or adding clarity as much as possible. Make sure you use verifiable, reliable sources from third parties. This may mean spending more time on a talk page than in the article itself. Refrain from automatically reverting any changes and use the talk page first. Once consensus is reached on the talk page, then implement changes. Anyway, there's my two cents. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Actually, I was making a point with regard to Brownmark/Special Entertainment. Thanks for the refresher, though. SERSeanCrane (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read (behavioral guideline) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest very carefully. Now read it again. Wiki strongly discourages editor's writing about themselves or their works because of the incredible problem with maintaining a neutral point of view. Read (Policy) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Twice. Read both twice? Good. Now if an article is written by a party with an obvious COI, that will be the first scream of foul at an inevitable AfD... and usualy the deathknell for such an article. However, once on mainspace the article belongs to Wiki... and every so often, if it is otherwise suitable for Wiki, an editor might research the article during the AfD and decide to take it under their wing... ignoring its authorship to remove POV... but there is no guarante that that would happen. If the creator and president of "The John Smith Company" were to write a very carefully neutral article about his company, it would likely never be questioned unless he either wrote it as "User:JohnSmithCompany" or he claimed on his user page to be somehow affiliated with the company if he were using an anonymous username. Of course, if the author creates an account and uses it to only create an edit that article, and has no record of other or few contributions to Wiki, that bring the user and article under scrutiny as being a SPA. (Read WP:SPA). So, no.... it's not against policy. But it is a very slippery slope. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I ask this question because I think its clear that Shatner1 has a COI. Here's hoping you take his articles under your wing. SERSeanCrane (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I ask that you take a look at the improved article The Magic Voyage, and in addressing your AfD comment of no "wide" distribution, I wish to send you here where you can see it was released from 1992 through 1994 throughout Western Europe and the United States. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So this goes back to my issue with imdb which you addressed earlier. I'll strike the comment. SERSeanCrane (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated. Verifcation is different fron notability. And point of fact, had I been better versed in German, I could have likely sent you several different sites with several different release dates. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 14:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVASS

Dude, these kinds of requests don't help your case and violate canvassing, IMO. The only way I've found that you can ask for opinions is to ask everyone involved on a certain talk page. You seem like a sensible guy, but this goes against the "rules". This is not to say I haven't done the exact same thing, but I also got my pee-pee shwacked for it. If I were you, I'd put a notice on the page stating what I'd done. This way, they can't really say you're "canvassing" for votes when you just asked for opinions and then stated that you asked for opinions. That way the admin reviewing the discussion will be able to properly assess opinion. Once again, I'm assuming good faith here and am just offering a bit of advice to help you avoid future headaches. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]