User talk:A20anna/Archive 2

 A20anna's talk Other means of contact: Email #wikipedia

Welcome!
Welcome...

Hello, A20anna, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Help How to write a great article Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there.

Resources on Articles and Talk Pages
Help:Archiving a talk page Refactoring talk pages talk page guidelines

Resources on Biographies on Living Persons
Biographies on Living Persons

Helpful Resources on Film Articles
'''Hello all visitors to Anna's Talk page! Here are some other pages you might find useful if you are into film articles:''' Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Films
 * reliable sources
 * Citing IMDb
 * WP:NFF
 * WP:CREATIVE
 * movie notability guideliness
 * WikiProject Films/Future films
 * WikiProject Films/Coordinators
 * WikiProject Films
 * WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers
 * WikiProject Horror

Wikinews film portal

*Other things you can do:
 * Upcoming events
 * Film awards
 * Upcoming films
 * Add to the See also section of film-related articles.
 * Tag the talk pages of film related articles with the Film banner.
 * Check tasks and announcements at WPFILMS Announcements.
 * Collaborate with other participants at WikiProject Films.
 * Join one of the task forces at Template:WP Film Sidebar.

Userfied Pages
I have "adopted" the following pages as part of my efforts with the Rescue Squad:


 * User:A20anna/Workspace/Kriss Perras Running Waters new article

WP Film project coordinator
Hi A20anna

Have you read WikiProject Films/Coordinators? It would appear to me that for someone to be effective in that role, that person would need to have a considerable amount of exposure to WP process, policies, and guidelines generally, as well as a sense of the activities at WikiProject Films&mdash;none of which you would appear to have.

My advice (not that you asked) would be for you to build your editorial chops here at WP, developing a better understanding of the ways of the project overall (as well as WP Films), starting with noncontroversial edits in article space, before you seek any sort of oversight role.

Rgds Bongo matic  04:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Bongo


 * First, not to worry - I really do appreciate all the mentorship. Please feel free to talk to me here at any time on anything. Thank you I will likely delete my stuff from the page because today sort of showed me anyway at work that I cannot split my time too far right now. I think I would need more time for that project than I can spare right now, and as everybody knows with the economy I cannot afford to loose my job for anything, not even Wiki! Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 04:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Coordinator nominations
Coordinator nominations The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process has recently begun! We are aiming to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on March 14! Happy editing! Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Kriss Perras Running Waters, Running Waters Productions, First Canyon Rain
About your question of including statistics in the article, the problem is that you are trying to use them as a basis to establish her notability and that will not work. Like I said, she needs actually do something, not just be a part of a minority group. Another editor had mentioned that she is not in the same league as Penny Marshall. If you read Penny Marshall's article, you will see no mention of industry demographic statistics in the article because that is not what makes her notable. What makes Penny Marshall notable is her work, not her demographics.

Since you asked me a question and then immediately archived the topic, I had to start a new thread on your talk page so that you would notice that I responded to you. Usual practice is to archive threads on your talk page after the conversation has ended, not in the middle of the conversation. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply - thanks for the answer - and sorry about the Archive. I noticed I did that after I archived. It was the first time I archived and I was not paying enough attention to what was on my page. After thinking about it too, it may be better for women anyway not to mention them in a minority status way anyhow, as in stats. Removing the stats puts them on the same level as everybody else. it's good to talk stuff out. Thanks! Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Women may be discriminated against, but they are not a minority, at least in the US. Bongo  matic  06:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL!!! That thought occurred to me too! Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 06:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently since there seems to be a joke at my expense. When I said "minority" I was referring not to all women in the world, but your statistics on women in the film industry. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh not at all - I'm so sorry if it appeared that way. I was laughing because women are suualy referred to as minority when the statistical facts say otherwise like Bongomatic said - it was just an instance of I was thinking the exact same thing not a joke on what you said. I am so sorry that hurt you. I did not intend that at all. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 06:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - also on the minority thing, I was referring to my use of minority. I suppose that's what happens when a person is not clear in their writing. I really feel bad - I never intended to upset you. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk)


 * While you are here Gogo Dodo, I have a question. One of the first things I've been researching on Wiki rules is for the Kriss Perras Running Waters talk page. I'm not yet sure how to do it other than the advice I got from MICHAEL Q. that I should run it by an Admin person even though the rules say I can delete right away without discussion. Based on the following multiple set of rules I'm requesting the unregistered users comments on the talk page be deleted by Admin based on the following:
 * The unregistered users comments on the subject's talk page violate WP NOR, WP NPOV, WPV, the BLP page guideline, "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." I also think what I'm saying is referred to as malicious content in the BLP guidelines, and also that "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). Please advise if this is the correct course of action for this situation regarding the 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 Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 07:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind, that the talk page is not the article itself, and is the place where editors bat ideas and opinions back and forth about a subject. If anything there can be considered an attack or libel, an admin might remove it. As far as WP:BLP goes, just remember it is about the article itself, and not the talk page.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - Hi Mike! I posted the specifics on your talk page - they are very long and why I did not post them to begin with - I am researching both the unregistered user and the WLAccount comments but since both user's comments are so long I can only go one user comments at a time. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I had to move the discussion and my reply to a subpage, as it was just getting tooo ling. The discussion is ongoing at User talk:MichaelQSchmidt/Running Waters discussion. In a nutshell, you are speaking with concerns over opinions posted on an article talk page... and whether right or wrong, good or bad, true or false...that article talk page is exactly where such discussions are intended to take place so editors can iron out differences. Please take a look at WP:Talk Page and Talk page guidelines. There are a different set of rules than what goven article content.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply - thank you! I guess I was boiling it down to trying to say the person is accusing the subject of committing a crime, because stalking is a crime. And that was why I was so thoroughly researching. Let me read up on your reply and the guidelines you showed me - thanks so much for your mentorship!!! Also this is the talk page guidelines I was reading when I quoted violations of talk page usage talk page guidelines which seems to be different than the resources you just showed me. I think I am becoming a Wikiholic! Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MichaelQSchmidt/Running_Waters_discussion#Break_003  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just keep your eye on that discussion on my talk sub-page, so I do not have to keep jumping back here to tell you to look there. Cool?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply - absolutely - thanks! I am finding some resources to post with the article, so it is getting fun! Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Gogo Dodo - I've created one new page for the Kriss Perras Running Waters, First Canyon Rain and Running Waters Productions pages - one page for all three as per a conversation with MICHAEL Q. that they would combined make a stronger article. I'm by now means finished with the page, but am requesting the three pages Kriss Perras Running Waters, First Canyon Rain and Running Waters Productions be deleted as the articles are no longer needed. Per Mike, that follows the original consensus of delete and leaves me with a decent core from which to continue working, which I am doing. Please let me know if and when you delete so I can edit this page referencing just the one page and take off the three pages in the userifed pages section. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk)

Page History

 * I hope you realize that you are yourself accusing someone wrongly without any evidence, only a hunch at a conspiracy. And this is hardly the first accusation of bias or malice you have made in attempting to keep a unnotable article.  I suggest, instead of looking for conspiracy theories for why someone nominated an article which needed deleting, you provide some shred of evidence that this person is notable.  And no, calling the WGA on the phone is not a reliable source. The359 (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply - Hi The359, I appreciate your mentorship in the comments here - on the WGA: what I was trying to say about the WGA is that there is no public source to verify union membership. I called the WGA, and that is how I found out they do not publish their membership anywhere in anyway. The IMDb WGA credit reference is put there by the person posting the film into IMDb and not by the WGA, at least according to the credits person I spoke to at the WGA. As a result, I was trying to say that the people who were claiming that the article should be deleted due to lack of union membership would not have had any idea whether or not the subject of the article would've had union membership because there was no public database to verify one way or the other, only I did not say it very well at that time. On the political thing: yes, I know. I was trying to understand what was happening in the history section of the page. I'm not the only one who felt a weird sense of villifying, as Mike (Rescue Squad) put it, and I think sort of just weirdness in general compared to the discussions on other deletion pages. So that was all. Just weird feelings being passed around on that discussion page. I also did notice some other things and am compiling some stuff to ask some questions. I do realize I had not yet made a full case of it but am investigating some stuff before I post my question on how to handle it. I again thank you for the comment to help me get better at Wiki. Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)