User talk:SERSeanCrane/Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Well, I took a look at Shatner's conribution history... and he's green but no SPA. It is not COI for an author to defend an article he had written if it goes to AfD, nor his working from the AfD's input to improve it. And between you and me and whoever else reads this, improving worthy articles that have found themselves sent to AfD is a great way to learn and grow here on Wiki. I like to think I have had more successes than failures in saving articles that might otherwise be deleted, but I try to pick the battles that can be won.... and I have opined "delete" as many times as "keep". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MKE (tabloid)

Thanks for your useful participation in this discussion. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Aryana farshad

Well, I am gratified that you grant this person now passes WP:CREATIVE, but do not know why you included those portons you feel she failed, as it is only required that she pass one of the qualifiers. She also does not pass WP:CORP or WP:POLITICIAN, but stating what she does not pass non-related attributes simply confuses the issue. That you feel she squeeks by should be enough... and any concerns at which sources are weak can be addressed in article improvement after a possible keep. And as for my sourcing the heck out of it... in an AfD it is far better to show extreme coverage in reliable sources than only "barely enough"... as things can definitely be fixed after a "keep" and not after a "delete". Yes? No? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Glad I could help with the gratification =) With regard to your take on my including a breakdown of WP:CREATIVE for the afd subject, I disagree; it clarifies rather than confuses. Also, if you're trying to save an article with bad sources, the closer should be aware of it. That's all. SERSeanCrane (talk) 06:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

And I am paying attentions... as you might note from my incorporating your suggestions to the article after responding here. Arab.com id now in "additional sources" where the resader may decide for themselves, and no longer used as a ref. I think I pushed her over the bar when I learned that she received funding directly from Prince Charles for her latest film.[1][2] Surprised that she got the attention of the royals. Kinda pushes her "notability" ouitside the Iranian community. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. SERSeanCrane (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit war on Van Morrison songs notability

I noticed your comment on User:Cloonmore's talk page. Cloonmore is claiming that many notable Van Morrison song articles are not notable. Cloonmore is the only person to have picked up on this, despite some of these articles being some of the best written song articles on wikipedia. The truth of the matter is Cloonmore has no taste for Van Morrison songs released in the past 20 years, because there are less well written Morrison song pages from earlier in his career that Cloonmore hasn't questioned. User:Agadant and I have spent a lot of our free time editing these pages, and because Cloonmore doesn't like the songs he/she wants them deleted. I hope you understand Kitchen roll (talk) 13:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I do. Agadant explained the situation with T.B. Sheets and it's seems like an obvious retaliation. That said, I noted on Agadant's talk page ...The article I noticed from Recent Changes was 'In the Garden' and, though it'd be great if there was at least one other 3rd party source to reference the article, I think that's significant enough coverage to establish notability. Perhaps you should take Cloonmore to conflict dispute. I hope one of you can address that issue. Thanks for your dedicated writing. Happy Holidays! SERSeanCrane (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks SERSeanCrane, it's good to know there are good people on wikipedia.Kitchen roll (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Likewise and Happy Holidays to you both!!! Agadant (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Steve Somers

Hi. Sorry for being so brusque in my edit summaries. You are doing an absolutely brilliant job at the article. I am feeling kind of ashamed of myself that I could not do what you are doing instead of deleting the whole article. Although there are plenty of fully-sourced articles that I created, I felt that this would really be tough because of most of the article was just stuff that people heard vaguely on the radio one day and decided to add it to the article a few months when they happened across the WP article. I thought it was just a lost cause. Anyway, thanks a lot for the work that you're putting into the article. If you need any help let me know. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Dr earl mindell.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Dr earl mindell.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello SERSeanCrane! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 677 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Mary Ellen Iskenderian - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)