Talk:Rick Schmidlin

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Untitled

See

Francs2000 | Talk

02:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Suggest removal of CV info

It looks like an anonymous user dropped by and inserted a large chunk of this person's CV into the article. Frankly, I think the article would be better off if that edit was surgically removed (retaining valid edits to the original article since then). -Miskaton (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to salvage article

The article has problems. I think it can be fixed as it does appear that Rick Schmidlin is notable but it's going to end up being drastically reduced most likely. One thing, "interview with Rick Schmidlin" is not a proper reference. It needs to be a recorded interview (in some kind of accessible medium) conducted by a notable organization and even then it's problematical. What we really need are 2nd party sources for the claims as done by reliable sources (see

Truth vs. Verifiability. Finally, user 199.175.219.1, since you clearly have an interest in this article it would make things much easier if you would get an account on Wikipedia, it's easy, free, respects your privacy, and does not require an email address. This way others could communicate with you more easily. SQGibbon (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I removed the footnotes that referred to "RS interview", etc and also tagged the article unrefBLP. Maybe I can find some reliable sources. PDCook (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've set up a sub-page here if you'd like to contribute there. May not be necessary, but it looks the article needs to be rewritten from scratch. SQGibbon (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I tried looking back in the history for something to revert to, but I can't really find anything very good. If I get some time maybe I'll work on it. PDCook (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New version

OK, I've created a new version of the article. It's a stub but it does hit the highlights of his career and is pretty well sourced. You can see it here. If anyone has anything to add or change by all means jump on it. Otherwise, and if there are no objections, I'll copy it over here as the new article. There's information in the current article that can be useful in expanding my proposed article so I think it would be helpful to preserve it but I'm not sure where. Should I copy it to this discussion page or maybe just to the sandbox I set up?. SQGibbon (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say sandbox. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, your subpage is fine, but you might consider copying a version before the IP editor went crazy with it. PDCook (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the new version looks good. Nice and clean! PDCook (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor is back

The article is again being edited by an IP editor who keeps adding improperly referenced (and unreliable) sources. Are you ready to put that new page up? PDCook (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done (old copy saved to the sandbox I set up). As I said, there's a good bit of potentially useful information in the old version it just needs to be verified and added into this one. SQGibbon (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! PDCook (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkable work, both of you — and so fast! This is now a proper, neutral, non-promotional Wikipedia article, with extensive footnoting. I can see, however, we need to stay vigilant, since Schmidlin, evidently, has resorted to yet another anonymous IP to make uncited claims (with remarkably poor punctuation). -- Tenebrae (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SQGibbon deserves most of the credit; I just cleaned up a few things and found a couple sources. The article is on my watchlist, so I keep an eye on it when possible. Thanks for your help as well! PDCook (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was hoping that once Schmidlin saw how articles are supposed to work that he'd add material back in following the same form. For instance according to Turner Classic Movies and AICN he did work on the reconstruction of London After Midnight and the film did win an award for that from Rondo (have never heard of them but they give out awards in the horror genre [1]). At the least he could put his additions on the talk page and hopefully a source and the rest of us could add it in. Like I said in his ANI, I do think he's working in good faith but just doesn't get how Wikipedia works. SQGibbon (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure. He's supposed to be an adjunct professor. That means he should already be familiar with scholarly research and footnoting. I'm not sure he wants to do it right, but simply sees this as an opportunity for personal promotion. I hope I'm wrong. -- Tenebrae (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]