Talk:Archer MacMackin

message: I've removed quite a bit of what appears to be original research and unencyclopedic content from the article. A lot of what was written seemed to veer off into MacMackin's family (which I'm sure is interesting and all) when what should be focused on is what made MacMackin notable: his career. There was also some POV wording and what I can only assume is someone's personal reflections on the subjects life and what they found in their while doing their research (e.g "One of the first records I have found of Archer's connection with the movies is an article he wrote for a December 1909 magazine entitled "How Moving Picture Plays are Written."). I attempted to wade through the content and salvage the points that need to be addressed. Any other content removed simply didn't belong in the context of Wikipedia. Pinkadelica Say it... 08:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is in fact erroneous content, feel free to correct it. As for the supposed erroneous Mormon claim, there was no mention of MacMackin previous religion in the version of the article I worked on. Same goes for the content about MacMackin's wife. I can't deduce how many times he was married or what religion he previously associated himself with if the content isn't there. The only sources I could find on MacMackin was on IMDb and that states he was married twice. Again, I can't mention a wife that I don't know he had and since there were no reliable sources to go on, all I could go on is the content presented. That said, this isn't "your" article (see WP:OWN). Once anyone releases the content to Wikipedia, it can and will be changed (hence the note at the bottom of the screen that clearly states If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.). The fact of the matter remains that there was too much unencyclopedic content in the article that read like a personal essay and went off-topic. As I stated previously, that is not acceptable which is why I removed the content. I'd also like to remind you to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. If you take issue with any edit someone does, the collegial thing to do is to express your opinion clearly on the talk page, provide reliable sources to back up your claims and leave your personal feelings out of it. Further, if you have an issue with the name of the article, I suggest you contact whomever created the article and discuss a possible move. I've found nothing to support that this wasn't his name and don't see the need for a page move at this time. Pinkadelica Say it... 18:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

text: And you make that by promoting your vanity press books in the middle of a Wikipedia article?  Too cool. However, that isn't how things are done here, dear. Buy an ad. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you choose not to bother with Wikipedia anymore, that's your choice. It's not for everyone. As for making six-figures for your writing, good for you. That means very little in the context of Wikipedia, but if you felt you needed to get that out there, great. Pinkadelica Say it... 04:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up