Talk:Rick Schwartz

Removed 'resume' tag posted by anonymous user who placed in retaliation for edits on another page. User placed same tag on five pages I have contributed to without explanation.Wintertanager (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Tag was not retaliatory. Tag is to do with issues on the page. The explanation is contained within the tag: Namely, the article is written like a resumé. I am less anonymous than you are. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I disagree. Can you cite specific issues with the page?Wintertanager (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

RFC
Does this article read too much like a résumé, and should it be tagged as such until it is brought up to standard? 79.97.226.247 (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Summoned by bot - Meh not really. There's some "name-dropping" going on - why does the Machete Kills mention list EVERYONE in the film? ("Machete Kills is a sequel to the 2010 genre movie Machete (inspired by the fake trailer to the film Grindhouse) and stars Danny Trejo, Mel Gibson, Jessica Alba, Amber Heard, Michelle Rodriguez, Sofia Vergara, Demian Bichir, Antonio Banderas, Zoe Saldana, Edward James Olmos, Vanessa Hudgens, Cuba Gooding Jr., Alexa Vega, William Sadler, Lady Gaga, Marko Zaror, and Charlie Sheen" - seriously??) but it's not outrageous. Personally I think it would be better to have just fixed what you didn't like rather than tag it and do an RfC. FYI RfC is mainly to bring in people to resolve edit wars or a long-term disagreement only when you are unable to come to a compromise. Looking at the earlier conversation, this should have been discussed more. It wouldn't have hurt to respond to Wintertanager's question. —Мандичка YO 😜 00:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In fairness to 79.97.226.247, this RFC included several pages I had originally contributed to after quite a bit of back and forth; he was justified in adding.  Of the pages he tagged, I think the state of this particular one was the worst at the time of the RFC (it had gone through much editing since I originally created - or contributed to, I can't remember).  Since the RFC there have been quite a few edits that have reduced the issues (I hope), but it was pretty bad. Wintertanager (talk) 02:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry 72, I didn't even look at the date of the RfC and see the previous versions. Since I just got the request and saw no other comments, I spaced out and thought it was new. Really the only issue was all the name dropping with associated people. And of course I'm not a fan of "tenure" for non-professors, unless it's something like president of notable company or organization. Glad you have worked it out - if you need any opinions hit me up. —Мандичка YO 😜 03:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Article looks pretty good. It is a little short and could use some more content but I wouldn't say it reads like a resume. Meatsgains (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Summoned by bot per, I don't see a major issue with the article. I see no need for any tags whatsoever. - -   Cwobeel   (talk)  00:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Summoned by bot I feel as if this is once again, not a resume'. Just because theres companies and what they do doesn't make it a resume'. What matters the most is, is it significant enough for the companies to be there? That's another question. I feel as if the misconception of what resume''s are for, and the other side of the importance of it. I feel like it could be edited a little more, just like any other article. Nick2crosby (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Career section
I have an issue with listing every company the subject works for as a subheading. Its not necessary to break down the career to this level and it has a promotional ring to it. I'd appreciate other thoughts on this. Flat Out  '' talk to me 00:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)