User talk:MichaelQSchmidt/Running Waters discussion

Kriss Perras Running Waters /Deletion

Ongoing discussion

Hi, Michael. I am new to Wiki editing and to the rescue team. Can you please help me do a better job of trying to rescue this page in particular. I have posted on other pages and tried to contribute and nobody seems to say anything mean. But when I post on this page, the discussion from one user in particular gets sort of mean and he is dead set on saying everybody is just wrong. Being a new person, I think I need some more expert Rescue Team people to help me because I'm not doing a good job there. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment Also would you have some time to sponsor me? I think I need some help because I don't see somethings the way this other user does, but I also read the guidelines thing that said new users might not see the guidelines the way Wiki does. So maybe I just need a sponsor. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I would be honored to help you. I fully understand that Wiki can be a very confusing place for a beginner. The keep arguments at the AfD were very well made, but a closing Admin might tend toward weight-of-numbers saying the same things... and in that event the articles will be deleted. I have asked that in that instance, they be userfied to you (that is, put in a special workspace) so that they can continue to be improved without the worry of the ticking clock of AfD. Feel free to ask questions and I will be as helpful in sharing knowledge as possible. With best regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Schmidty is a deletionist in sheep's clothing. Don't trust him!!! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What a mean thing to say, specially after correcting my spelling. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

REPLY - ROFLMAO!!!!! I love you two! Where have you been all my life??!! Thank you Mike. I have a second page on a woman I want to help rescue. It is on the list. WOW- I just looked again and it is no longer on the list. So I guess it was rescued. It was the woman who just died and was the wife of a political figure. I did not write it down because I had to leave last night for work. so anyway my questions on that article were it had so many citations and the person seemed to have so much to speak about for accomplishments that I wondered why did it get tagged and who does the deletion tagging? In other words, how does that whole process work? Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can tag and anyone can untag (generally speaking) except in the case of an article's creator who isn't allowed to remove speedy deletion tags (they are seen as having a vested interest and should use a {{holdon}} tag instead and make their case on the article's talk page). Communicating a reason for tag removal is appropriate and can done communicated via edit summary, talk page discussion, or a note to the tagger, as is appropriate. It sounds like a recipe for anarchy to be sure, and sometimes it gets a bit crazy. But somehow, in an outcome that is beyond my limited capacity for comprehension of unexplainable outcomes, things seem to work out okay. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply - I noticed the deletion discussions can at times be chaotic and sort of nearly warrior-like, but somehow it is all really good in the end. So if you're moving along and someone has tagged a page as no sources and you see it has sources, anyone can just untag it? I saw something like this with the Hollywood Reporter page. It was tagged as no third party sources, but it did have third party sources. So I could've untagged it at that moment? Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the discussions can have more testosterone flying around than the Superbowl. If a nominator feels too stringly that something should GO, occasionally reason leaves. If the 3rd-party sources meet criteria and are set as proper in-line citations, then its always best to add a couple more before removing a tag. Showing an efffort to address a tag should always precede its removal. ANd its proper to state what you did and why on the article's talk page. Never let anyone misinterpret your actions. Be clear. Be thorough. Always feel that you can ask for input from the tagger or another editor. Helps avoid misunderstandingsSchmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes. Make sure to always include an edit summary communicating why you are doing something, and if you're unsure you can be proactive and ask the person who tagged it why they did so or leave a note on the talk page and wait to see if anyone replies. I presume you know how to use the watchlist to see the most recent changes for articles you're watching? If a change you make gets reverted back you would communicate with the other editor either courteously on their talk page or use the article discussion page. I apologize if I'm being too simplistic or not detailed enough. It took me a long time to figure out basic things about "diffs" and that pressing enter after typing in a search term defaults to "go" but that clicking search gives related results (seems obvious now). There are a lot of little intricacies and protocols, I think. Only MQS knows them all and is the true Jedi Master. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You give me far too much credit. Had I been wiser, I would have found and looked at the blanked comments at that AfD yesterday and run as fast as I could in the opposite direction. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply - you're really cool Mike! Just your tone in the way you talk and treat people is really nice and welcoming. Thanks! And boy did I notice the swinging dicks kind of thing in the deletion discussions! :-) Somebody even called feminism "mumbo jumbo" which sort of made me laugh but also sort of ticked me off - I didn't want to give it any negative attention so it would not get worse. And yeppers ChildofMidnight, I know hwo to do the watchlist thing. Got lots of those to date. And not too simplistic. I'm asking about a billion questions so I can get good at this. That deletion discussion that just ended got my dander up - funny I made friends with DarkAudit who got me all wound up that I was not good at it yet...lol. Turns out he is really nice too. I also noticed it is sort of hard to find all the rules unless I find a shortcut tag on it. Mike you are so funny!!!! cool. Speaking of blanked - when it says blanked the page in the history that means someone tried to delete all the content onthat page a.k.a. vandalism? Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 04:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. And again, feel free to ask for input if at all in doubt. PAge blanking can mean many things... and vandalism is one. Do you have a specific example you wish to share? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply - You're very welcome. yes on the page blanking. I was in the history for the Kriss Perras Running Waters page which right now can be accessed from my talk page. It says a couple of times in there blanked page. Is there a Wiki resource on page history? Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I also have another question. An unregistered user posted a whole bunch of unverified claims about the subject. When the page goes back into the main section at some later date, Gogo Dodo said I'm suppose to also move the talk page back into the main section too. When I do, is it appropriate to cite claim by claim why the unverified claims made by the unregistered user about the subject are not correct (cause some of them are exceptionally easy to prove the unregistered user was wrong - They were really rude comments actually)? Or is that edit warring? Also, do we HAVE to re-post the unverified claims on the talk page, or can the talk pave go back into the main space as a clean page? Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Also from what I've read to date, the comments on the subject's talk page violate WP NOR, WP NPOV, WPV - like the basic pillars stuff, so if a page does all those things, do I report it or tag it? Or, like now since it is a sub page on my pages, what is the procedure to correct those violations? Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 05:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I read that the page guidelines state, "Editors should remove any negative material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources or is a conjectural interpretation of a source."so I am thinking that means I can just delete that content that violates the rules, but want to be sure first. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

So many questions. I was looking up the answer to the page blanking diff. Apparently an anonymous WP:SPA (Single-pupose account) IP address was unhappy with the article and blanked the page out of spite diff. It was returned and the anonymous IP was eventualy blocked for vandalism diff.

If the article being (eventually) returned to mainspace includes works by other editors, the talk page must accompany it per GFDL, so as to preserve its history... and yes, even of the negative things said. And you may most certainly add a section to the talk page refuting the incorrect informations. Keep in mind that once back in main space, your comments will themselves be open to deep scrutiny. However, if some of the comments were insulting or uncivil toward you, you might make an inquiry of an admin if they might themselves remove the insults. Once userfied, you have the luxury of time to bring it into line, but it should still be an admin that removes anything from the talk page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

And tell me just what you wish to delete. Specifics. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me while I talk out like and use you as a sounding board - I think I found the answer here on the BLP page: "We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Is this the correct answer to my question about the unverified and rude claims on the talk page for the subject? On that page there were rude comments made that cited no sources and claimed the subject had written a vanity page. I found nothing to support this claim in the history of the page, plus claims were made that the person was seeking the attention of a famous actor and some other stuff about the subject's magazine being vanity, which that one I know it was not, as I saw many articles online and they are not about the subject but rather artists the subject interviewed (thanks for your patience too - I sometimes need to talk out a new and complicated subject that is this big in nature. Plus I got really confused in the deletion discussion) Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 06:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

NOTE - I think what I'm saying is referred to as malicious content in the BLP guidelines. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC) 2nd Note - I think this also applies to just flat out deleting the content that made this un-sourced claims? "Administrators encountering BLPs that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no neutral version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details)." (taken form the BLP guidelines). Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you show me the specific instances? I'd hate to say yes and then get us both yelled at. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

And to be clear, mis-information on talk pages is discussion and may be counterered, but should have an admin remove if contentious or libelous. Mis-information in an article itself is to what the BLP guidelines refer. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Break 001

Yeppers - the specifics are long so here it goes - here is one example - the editor accuses the subject of stalking a celebrity and only cites a Wiki rule, which is a recent addition to the talk page and was not there yesterday but it is also only a reference to a Wiki rule and not an independent source where there is any reference to the subject: "This appears to be a vanity entry, possibly something more disconcerting involving a well known actor. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking_by_proxy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking" which in no way is the actor mentioned in this Wiki article, so this seems malicious - and this one here there is now way for them to cite this definitvely as I called the WGA and the reply there is no public access to membership either online or in print "This person has no affiliation in the past thirty years with an actors union, guild," and this one here "She emerges in fan sites about actor Viggo Mortensen" is about how the fan site actually posted articles she'd written that reviewed the actor's CD's and books and in no instance have I found a posting on any fan site that was made by the subject; and this one here, "Ms. Perras' historically created vanity electronic magazines presenting vanity claims about her vocations that mirror those of the actor, as well as referring incessantly to Mortensen and his interests in the arts in the local Los Angeles Area; using these e-magazines for reviewing his music, exhibitions, film openings, while portraying herself as artistic fellow as well as his local neighbor." Multiple things on this one - the magazine had so many artists in it and it appears there were about five reviews from Mortensen in comparison to so many others, I only could go and search on Google for the magazine and came up with quite a number of other articles on other subjects ranging from black and white photographers to a not so well known filmmaker about a project he filmed to a lot of others, not just on this actor - and on the neighbor thing and also on this one here "Note: NO public records that Perras maintained any legal residence in the Malibu area while publishing her e-magazine centering on Mortensen's city of residence, available on the internet)." there was a posting already made by another editor that I am also going to request their remarks be deleted for civility violations (WLAccount) regarding the subject's address which was shown to be a false claim by the citation used, it did in fact show the subject is living in Topanga, but in addition we probably should not be putting people's address into Wiki who are not well-known public figures, as the rules on living people state; and this one here "Her Malibu Arts Journal does not list the Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) at all. This is one problem with Perras' portrayal of her e-magazines as legitimate journalism. Her portraying herself as his kindred in these vehicles is unusual, as well as her claims to be his local neighbor." simply opinion, so I am not sure about this one as far as MOCA goes, and the same as the feelings on the magazine; this one here is very much opinion in one respect but also no citation nor is it correct as I founf many poems on the Internet by the subject ""Kriss has also previously been the publisher and editor of a business magazine. And, she is a veteran of the United States Navy. Kriss is an Internationally published poet. (vanity claim of Ms. Perras, not even self published, only one poem by Perras could even be located on the internet in the form of a recorded recitation laughably mimicking the style Mr. Mortensen uses on his poetry and music albums). The poem, "First Canyon Rain" contains such lines as "dirt of neglected driveway" and presents as an excercise in hack poetic imitation of Mr. Mortensen's recorded works. A recording can be heard on You Tube at the channel "kjiggy"." it just appears the person has a dislike for the subject's poetry which is OK in itself but should delete the reference to Moretensen's work as there is no citation; this one here "Perras self report continues: "And, she had a short stint as a teen model but has since pursued other interests. She's a writer, director, producer, photographer, artist, musician, actress and is Spokane and Okanogan Indian, Lebanese and of the Kennedy clan." My point exactly OpEdNews Member http://www.opednews.com/author/author3996.html is a reference to another site that posted something about the subject and once again not an article the subject wrote; this one here claims the subject is simply writing journalism articles to attract the actor,another malicious claim with no citation and ignores the other articles written by the subject "I motion that this is a vanity page and that this person lacks sufficient relevance as a recognizable public entity. However, I am more concerned about her unusual interest in a public figure and the extensive creation of vocational persona and vanity e-publications aimed at eliciting the attentions of actor Mortensen." also this one here appears as though this person has some kind of something to do with the subject because how would they know her family is there in the same place,but maybe I did not research this one enough either "Please investigate: Kriss Michelle Perras of the Perras family of Hesperia, California." Also again the editor claims no Topanga residence when the other citation showed otherwise "Also previously listed in Spokane, Washington, Nebraska (no Malibu or Topanga residence at any time available in public and postal records)." Thsi one here flat out accuses the subject of posting the articles on fan sites, which it appears from the postings that the site reference themselves that they posted the articles on Mortensen, alongside a number of ither articles posted on the actor because it is a fan site and this is also very obviously malicious in intenet "See actor Viggo Mortensen fan websites to learn about Mortensen and observe where Perras is posting her reviews of his work and referencing her e-magazines and her personal talents reflecting the interests of Mortensen as an artist." Thse two references to IMDb are inaccurate in a couple of ways, "She has worked as a Script Supervisor on a handfull of short films." and "IMDb reference to Ms. Perras acting work as an extra in one short film is available on IMDb.com. Credits as "Script Supervisor" on three shorts" it says she only was involve in shorts, which there is a feature where she was continuity supervisor, as far as credits go for films she has not written, in addition to other projects that seem to be developing; this one here "See runningwatersproductions.com, listed vanity projects in "pre-production" as a Film Director, despite relative scarcity of history of work in the area of film direction." makes the claim of vanity when the site is not about the person but about film projects, which seems more advertisement for the projects than anything else, but that is not so uncommon in independent film, in addition the subject's name as referenced to the films is not on every page/film on that site and there are little to no references as to who is writing and directing those films not only on the subject's company site but also on the Web period, so there is no way to verify about half of the projects on the subject's company site as far as who is directing and writing - so this seems malicious too, almost like this editor is angry about this person for something due to the tone of the uncited claims and how they are speaking in general - there are a few references in this ranting that are not on the Web that make it seem like first hand knowledge, like her family in Hesperia - I did not find anything to support that claim, only that the subject had earlier lived in Hesperia; I did find a High School alumni thing online for Colorado but education records are private and this person would not have public way to verify college education of the subject, "Perras attended High School In Colorado State. No College listings could be found" - In general there did not seem to be a point to this work other than to say the person was stalking an actor, which is a malicious and uncited claim. There appears to be things this person has done that while they may not make Wiki are projects that have only somewhat referenced the actor, but that actor along with many other artists that this editor did not mention and a wick search on Google or Malibu Arts Juurnal showed otherwise. So what is to be done correctly here? As there seems to be a number of problems as far as Wiki rules go with this posting. The talk pages guidelines in a number of respects were violated with this posting. The talk page guidelines state that Wiki rules still must be followed especially WP NOR, WP NPOV, WPV and the talk page states "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." which this seems to be an editors personal view on the subject without any citations to support the claims that seem quite sensational with no media sources to back them up." Merely writing on an actor does not make a person a stalker, maybe a razzi but not a stalker lol...the talk page states "The prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy and consideration." and this does not seem so courteous and neither does the WLAccount comments which I'm gong to go over next after I do these comments, it takes a some time to research so I'm going one set of comments at a time; Wiki talk page guidelines also talk about biographies of living person rules as applying to talk pages so that is why I cited the BLP rules; Wiki talk page rules also state there should be no attacks, "No personal attacks: A personal attack is saying something negative about another person." and "Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context." - that is what I have researched on this part of the talk page so far. The other comments on the page seem to be just comments, other than WLAccount, and in fact I use the other comments (other than WLAccount) as comparison. The tone of the comments at the bottom are "normal" not ranting like both the unregistered user and the WLAccount. Neither user made any notable citations except on the address. They both were making attacks, one at the subject and the other at another editor. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

ALSO ONE LAST THING - the user 207.145.127.242 who posted the comments has a history of being told by admin to stop making disruptive comments Admin stated things like "The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article ... you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia" I am not sure how to tell if the user has been blocked already but I don't think so on this one yet. Can you tell me? And also I was wrong the stalking edit I guess was there and I just did not see it - it was posted in August 2008 by the user 207.145.127.242 Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

NOTE - just for FYI, I just heard back in writing from the WGA West. This is their comment on whether or not WGA Guild memberships are posted online or in print: "The Guild does not currently post its membership online." Patrick Cannon, Assistant Administrator, Membership Department. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A20anna (talk • contribs) 18:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Break 002

To User:A20anna, due to the length of your response, I am going to go over it sentence by sentence and respond to each as best I am able. And you will note that I have moved this monster discussion to a talk sub-page, to facilitate ease of communication.

Yeppers - the specifics are long so here it goes - here is one example - the editor accuses the subject of stalking a celebrity and only cites a Wiki rule, which is a recent addition to the talk page and was not there yesterday but it is also only a reference to a Wiki rule and not an independent source where there is any reference to the subject: "This appears to be a vanity entry, possibly something more disconcerting involving a well known actor. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking_by_proxy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking" which in no way is the actor mentioned in this Wiki article, so this seems malicious

Looking at the talk page history, it actually was there yesterday diff and had been there since August 15, 2008 diff. However, it was a comment from an anonymous IP and placed an a talk page and not the article. All that is needed on the talk page is a polite response "The above information is inaccurate, and here is why: (list of suppotive informations).

and this one here there is now way for them to cite this definitvely as I called the WGA and the reply there is no public access to membership either online or in print "This person has no affiliation in the past thirty years with an actors union, guild," and this one here "She emerges in fan sites about actor Viggo Mortensen" is about how the fan site actually posted articles she'd written that reviewed the actor's CD's and books and in no instance have I found a posting on any fan site that was made by the subject;

All that is needed on the talk page is a polite response "The above information is inaccurate, and here is why: (list of suppotive informations).

and this one here, "Ms. Perras' historically created vanity electronic magazines presenting vanity claims about her vocations that mirror those of the actor, as well as referring incessantly to Mortensen and his interests in the arts in the local Los Angeles Area; using these e-magazines for reviewing his music, exhibitions, film openings, while portraying herself as artistic fellow as well as his local neighbor." Multiple things on this one - the magazine had so many artists in it and it appears there were about five reviews from Mortensen in comparison to so many others, I only could go and search on Google for the magazine and came up with quite a number of other articles on other subjects ranging from black and white photographers to a not so well known filmmaker about a project he filmed to a lot of others, not just on this actor -

All that is needed on the talk page is a polite response "The above information is inaccurate or inappropriate, and here is why: (list of suppotive informations).

and on the neighbor thing and also on this one here "Note: NO public records that Perras maintained any legal residence in the Malibu area while publishing her e-magazine centering on Mortensen's city of residence, available on the internet)."

All an article need accurately state is that she is a California resident. Living in Malibu, Topanga, or Yermo is not something notable and need not be included.

there was a posting already made by another editor that I am also going to request their remarks be deleted for civility violations (WLAccount)

Careful, User:WLAccount actually seemed to be rather supportive of the article at first and pointed out the flaws in the claims of the anonymous IP. diff His point is well made though that posting by the subject fall under promary source and not secondary.

regarding the subject's address which was shown to be a false claim by the citation used, it did in fact show the subject is living in Topanga, but in addition we probably should not be putting people's address into Wiki who are not well-known public figures, as the rules on living people state;

Again, if any information cannot be properly WP:Verified, and is contradictory, it does not belong in the article.

and this one here "Her Malibu Arts Journal does not list the Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) at all. This is one problem with Perras' portrayal of her e-magazines as legitimate journalism. Her portraying herself as his kindred in these vehicles is unusual, as well as her claims to be his local neighbor." simply opinion, so I am not sure about this one as far as MOCA goes, and the same as the feelings on the magazine; this one here is very much opinion in one respect but also no citation nor is it correct as I founf many poems on the Internet by the subject ""Kriss has also previously been the publisher and editor of a business magazine. And, she is a veteran of the United States Navy. Kriss is an Internationally published poet. (vanity claim of Ms. Perras, not even self published, only one poem by Perras could even be located on the internet in the form of a recorded recitation laughably mimicking the style Mr. Mortensen uses on his poetry and music albums). The poem, "First Canyon Rain" contains such lines as "dirt of neglected driveway" and presents as an excercise in hack poetic imitation of Mr. Mortensen's recorded works. A recording can be heard on You Tube at the channel "kjiggy"." it just appears the person has a dislike for the subject's poetry which is OK in itself but should delete the reference to Moretensen's work as there is no citation; this one here "Perras self report continues: "And, she had a short stint as a teen model but has since pursued other interests. She's a writer, director, producer, photographer, artist, musician, actress and is Spokane and Okanogan Indian, Lebanese and of the Kennedy clan." My point exactly OpEdNews Member http://www.opednews.com/author/author3996.html is a reference to another site that posted something about the subject and once again not an article the subject wrote; this one here claims the subject is simply writing journalism articles to attract the actor,another malicious claim with no citation and ignores the other articles written by the subject "I motion that this is a vanity page and that this person lacks sufficient relevance as a recognizable public entity. However, I am more concerned about her unusual interest in a public figure and the extensive creation of vocational persona and vanity e-publications aimed at eliciting the attentions of actor Mortensen." also this one here appears as though this person has some kind of something to do with the subject because how would they know her family is there in the same place,but maybe I did not research this one enough either "Please investigate: Kriss Michelle Perras of the Perras family of Hesperia, California." Also again the editor claims no Topanga residence when the other citation showed otherwise "Also previously listed in Spokane, Washington, Nebraska (no Malibu or Topanga residence at any time available in public and postal records)." Thsi one here flat out accuses the subject of posting the articles on fan sites, which it appears from the postings that the site reference themselves that they posted the articles on Mortensen, alongside a number of ither articles posted on the actor because it is a fan site and this is also very obviously malicious in intenet "See actor Viggo Mortensen fan websites to learn about Mortensen and observe where Perras is posting her reviews of his work and referencing her e-magazines and her personal talents reflecting the interests of Mortensen as an artist." Thse two references to IMDb are inaccurate in a couple of ways, "She has worked as a Script Supervisor on a handfull of short films." and "IMDb reference to Ms. Perras acting work as an extra in one short film is available on IMDb.com. Credits as "Script Supervisor" on three shorts" it says she only was involve in shorts, which there is a feature where she was continuity supervisor, as far as credits go for films she has not written, in addition to other projects that seem to be developing; this one here "See runningwatersproductions.com, listed vanity projects in "pre-production" as a Film Director, despite relative scarcity of history of work in the area of film direction." makes the claim of vanity when the site is not about the person but about film projects, which seems more advertisement for the projects than anything else, but that is not so uncommon in independent film, in addition the subject's name as referenced to the films is not on every page/film on that site and there are little to no references as to who is writing and directing those films not only on the subject's company site but also on the Web period, so there is no way to verify about half of the projects on the subject's company site as far as who is directing and writing - so this seems malicious too, almost like this editor is angry about this person for something due to the tone of the uncited claims and how they are speaking in general - there are a few references in this ranting that are not on the Web that make it seem like first hand knowledge, like her family in Hesperia - I did not find anything to support that claim, only that the subject had earlier lived in Hesperia; I did find a High School alumni thing online for Colorado but education records are private and this person would not have public way to verify college education of the subject, "Perras attended High School In Colorado State. No College listings could be found" - In general there did not seem to be a point to this work other than to say the person was stalking an actor, which is a malicious and uncited claim. There appears to be things this person has done that while they may not make Wiki are projects that have only somewhat referenced the actor, but that actor along with many other artists that this editor did not mention and a wick search on Google or Malibu Arts Juurnal showed otherwise. So what is to be done correctly here? As there seems to be a number of problems as far as Wiki rules go with this posting. The talk pages guidelines in a number of respects were violated with this posting. The talk page guidelines state that Wiki rules still must be followed especially WP NOR, WP NPOV, WPV and the talk page states "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." which this seems to be an editors personal view on the subject without any citations to support the claims that seem quite sensational with no media sources to back them up." Merely writing on an actor does not make a person a stalker, maybe a razzi but not a stalker lol...the talk page states "The prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy and consideration." and this does not seem so courteous and neither does the WLAccount comments which I'm gong to go over next after I do these comments, it takes a some time to research so I'm going one set of comments at a time; Wiki talk page guidelines also talk about biographies of living person rules as applying to talk pages so that is why I cited the BLP rules; Wiki talk page rules also state there should be no attacks, "No personal attacks: A personal attack is saying something negative about another person." and "Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context." - that is what I have researched on this part of the talk page so far. The other comments on the page seem to be just comments, other than WLAccount, and in fact I use the other comments (other than WLAccount) as comparison. The tone of the comments at the bottom are "normal" not ranting like both the unregistered user and the WLAccount. Neither user made any notable citations except on the address. They both were making attacks, one at the subject and the other at another editor. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

ALSO ONE LAST THING - the user 207.145.127.242 who posted the comments has a history of being told by admin to stop making disruptive comments Admin stated things like "The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article ... you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia" I am not sure how to tell if the user has been blocked already but I don't think so on this one yet. Can you tell me? And also I was wrong the stalking edit I guess was there and I just did not see it - it was posted in August 2008 by the user 207.145.127.242 Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

NOTE - just for FYI, I just heard back in writing from the WGA West. This is their comment on whether or not WGA Guild memberships are posted online or in print: "The Guild does not currently post its membership online." Patrick Cannon, Assistant Administrator, Membership Department. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A20anna (talk • contribs) 18:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Arrrgggghhhh Was going through the rest and had to stop. Too much. You have to understand that you're referring to opinions on a "talk page", which is set up specifically so editors can iron out differences without getting into edit wars on the article page itself. For any statement made that you can show as incorrect, you may simply say so and cite your evidence. However, you may request the page deletion or blanking at Miscellany for deletion, as the page itself has been now userfied and the information itself is full of too much contradiction or error. HOWEVER... consider this... if you begin a new workspace at User:A20anna/Workspace/Kriss Perras Running Waters new article and slowly create a new article, one that addresses concerns and combines the and sourced notability from the three deleted articles, instead of having three weaker articles, you may have one much stronger. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Break 003

Reply - you bet that was long and I don't blame you at all for getting frustrated. The more I researched what the unreg IP said the longer it got with sources that said otherwise. Thank you, I think I will make a new page with all three in one page. It does seem much stronger and they're all about the subject anywho. Thank you much! What do I do with the old three pages, just request deletion since they info is moved to the new single page. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Help on the new page - I did create the new page but I have this absolutely gigantic image of the film poster on it. How do I change that. I only just copied the information there and have not as yet done any organizing etc. Just put the info in a new space. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep the three pages for a bit, just in case. Then after you have more suitable brought all the different informations together into one coherent and sourced article, simply write the admin who userfied the informations, explain what you have done and why, and request he delete the articles as no longer needed. That follows the original consensus of delete and leaves you with a decent core from which to continue working. As for the image... I'll have a look and see what can be done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much Mike! I appreciate all of this advice. It is hard to learn your way around this site because it is so big. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

As you have noticed, I did a bit of copyedit on the page, and can do more if you wish. The biggest deal with wikipedia is "perception". The mostnotable subject will be deleted repeatedly if the page itself is confusing or simply looks bad without ever getting fixed. If this is ever to return, it has to absolutely shine. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree - I'm happy to find a few resources. Research is difficult though as so many high profile people were written about by her that it is drowned out by the fan sites for a couple if actors and musicians. Let me get a rough idea of a few more things, and I can put it up there and would love the edits. You made it look so pretty. Thank you! Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - OK I have some things up, at least what I've been able to find to date. If you feel like editing you can as I will not have much more time tonight to do anymore research. But at least I found some things! Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in the middle of the conversation, but I think starting from scratch and then deleting the three moved pages is a bad idea, therefore I will not be deleting them. If a delete were to happen, the article edit history will be lost. Especially since most of the content you are using is derived from the original article, a delete would remove attribution of how the article evolved. Instead, you should just overwrite her biography article with whatever content that you create. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You jumping in is fine... I believe what will probably transpire is the "fourth" article being strengthened to full maturity and then grafted onto one of the existing ones, so that history is preserved. Any suggestions as to how to combine three different histories? One thought is to create a unique name for the new and set the three older as redirects to the new with their own unique histories intact. And I do believe the new will eventually bear little resemblance to the old before its ready again for mainspace. And I will not reccommend it for mainspace until I feel it has a real chance to survive. This will not be happening overnight and your input will be welcome. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree on all points - please do give us your thoughts on how to proceed. Happy Editing! Love, Anna (talk) 06:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Since there is relatively little content and history for the film and production company articles, I think you can merge the content from those two articles without merging the histories. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Understood Happy Editing! Love, Anna (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mike, yes please do edit, etc. on the Running Waters page. Let me know how you think it is going so far. Happy Editing! Love, Anna (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)