This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

		The WikiProject Films Award
		In recognition of your awesome Movie-Star qualities and All-Star contributions, I ChildofMidnight ( talk), hereby award MichaelQSchmidt the WikiProject Films Award for your valued contibutions to WikiProject Films. Great job! 05:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have moved this ongoing discussion to User talk:MichaelQSchmidt/Running Waters discussion as it is getting a bit unwieldy. Contributors are welcome to continue our discussions there. No slight is intended, and the link is not an archive.

Cite this diff if you need it later: once you have a citation that indicates that filming has begun, coupled with the sources that indicate notability, you may return the article to article space and the article should not be deleted under WP:CSD#G4 since it will be substantially different to the deleted article. I may not be around to defend the move when you do this, so if you get any aggravation, cite this diff. Fritzpoll ( talk) 09:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I had planned to make a note on the talk page something like:

"This article was deleted on March 18, with a consensus to wait for filming to begin befire returning it. Filming has now begun and with respects, I have returned the article... now sourced to show just that. Thank you"

However, I will most definitely refer back to this diff. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For outstanding guidance provided to less experienced Wikipedians, and serving as an example for their future part of the project! You have my sincere thanks! Ks64q2 ( talk) 02:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey good work finding those additional references, that articles in much better shape now, glad wecould save it, its nice to be able to keep the independent films on Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 09:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Good work on Turtles Are Surprisingly Fast Swimmers and TOMS Shoes, two great rescue jobs!

Fair play mate, did a good job with both of those. Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 23:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey bro, just read your comment on the above AfD - where did you find the other translations for the film title? I remember you did the same when rescuing the Turtles Are Surprisingly Fast Swimmers article, it's a pretty useful skill :-) Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 03:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I supose it comes from being a bit tenacious in my hunts. But this search: "Tiger Love, Film, Hong Kong", got me Hong Kong Cinemagic, Hong Kong Movie databse, HK Flix, et al... and they all listed the alternate names for further searches. It always important to remember the problems with translations... they're never exact. So, I suppose it's determination and perseverance. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Two ingredients for making great wikipedians, keep it up bud :-) Dylanfromthenorth ( talk) 03:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I take WP:AFTER very seriously. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have it sourced now, and slightly expanded. Care to reconsider your delete, and have a go at whittling down the plot section? Take a look at the various synopsis online and see what can go and what should stay? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I have just been reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billa 2, in the course of db-repost-ing another attempt to bring it back. Though I too got confused among all the different Billas, I think I can answer your question: Billa (2009 film) is a Telugu remake of the Tamil Billa (2007 film), while "Billa 2" is a proposed Tamil sequel, some way off meeting WP:NFF, to the 2007 film. Why are people so keen to rush in an article on the first rumour, I wonder? it's the same with albums. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 21:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And until it does get released and gets its own coverage, the 'rumors" can find a hapy home in the parent article. You catching up on old correspondence? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I saw Billa The Next Generation come in earlier today in while doing NPP, thought it might be a hoax, and my researches led me back that AfD and left me knowing more than I wish to know about films called "Billa". JohnCD ( talk) 21:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that is worth a chuckle. Thank you for getting back to me... even in a round-about fashion. Beast wishes, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Message, message, wherefore art thou? This is strange... Mike, I thought you left me a message here you want to talk about? Might that have something to do with Nora Samosir? -- Dave1185 ( talk) 22:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Have copied your comment and my response to your talk page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm REALLY glad I didn't give up on you. <SNIFF> They grow up so fast...

Any chance you can stop by and give some help to User:BQZip01/RfA4? — BQZip01 —  ^talk 02:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your participation in my recent Request for adminship. I don't know if you are interested in D&D or comics, but we have GA-drives going on for both. Otherwise, hey, hang out and keep helping out where you can. :) BOZ ( talk) 02:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I thought the nominator had a pretty weak 1 sentence proposal as well. TomCat4680 ( talk) 05:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

So how are you improving it? Looks like you put the in use tag up then took it down without doing anything...I appreciate the help. TomCat4680 ( talk) 07:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Did not mean to be a tease. Was about to begin, and then noticed the time. 12:21 AM here. Need to get up early for a job. Will look back in tomorrow. Naturally I removed thr tag since I was not going to be actively editing for a while. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I added the newspaper article and 2 books to Jim Brandstatter. Please format the refs properly, I'm not sure how. Thanks. TomCat4680 ( talk) 19:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Recovery
		Thanks for the help rescuing and improving Jim Brandstatter TomCat4680 ( talk) 21:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.ctsstudies.org/accredit.html Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea how accreditation works in the USA; I was relying on DGG's assessment. Stifle ( talk) 20:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll put the question to him. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Accreditation for what? It's not listed here [1] so I kinda doubt any classes would be able to be transfered to another US college/university... —  raeky ^{( talk |  edits)} 13:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

But may likely be transfearable to another theologic seminary, as they are definitely a specialized school. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not educational accreditation. The state approval is permission to operate as a legal educational business in the state, the approval by the Commission of Theological Education of the Reformed Episcopal Church is apparently a theological approval, and the Oxford Educational Network is apparently a membership in an organization. -- Orlady ( talk) 16:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Understood... but they're not teaching physics or microbiology or medicine or literature or writing or geo-politics. It might seem then, that receiving an approval from the Commission of Theological Education to teach exactly what they do and how they do it, might matter. They are not in competition with Yale, Harvard, or any of the State Universities, after all. Just a thought... that it should be considered in context to what is being offered. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting this again to see what your progress/plans are? I'm leaning towards an AfD. —  raeky ^{( talk |  edits)} 12:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Working on the sandblasting now. May be enough left when I am done removing all the hype, fluff, and notability by relationship. Even if most of the stuff (to be removed) is grandeous, her record career may squeek her in. I am now back to it... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

"Notability by association" has been removed. I gave it a copyedit and major rewrite and sandblasting. It's still not strong, and if it goes to AfD, it may survive if Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians comes forward to support through based upon WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NALBUMS, WP:COMPOSERS, WP:ENTERTAINER, or WP:CREATIVE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there any evidence she ever got a recording deal? I'm not sure being on two failed very low viewership tv shows is enough. I not AfD it but if someone else does I don't think I can offer much support. :P —  raeky ^{( talk |  edits)} 01:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll tag it for additional sources, and set a [fact] tag on the recording deal. If nothing else, it looks better since the sandblasting. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

another one! HJ Mitchell ( talk) 21:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

and another! HJ Mitchell ( talk) 22:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

and another, though, unfortunately, this will have to be my last, at least for this evening as it is getting on for midnight here and I have real world commitments to which to attend (damn!). HJ Mitchell ( talk) 22:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Good evening, did you find anything of note amongst the AfD nominations on that user talk page? HJ Mitchell ( talk) 22:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes (chuckle)... that you made a number of good faith nominations. I belive that by letting them be improved through the AfD process is probably best for now. Most of my own "keep per AfD is not for cleanup" were made before you and I began our conversations, and I believe that more editors are looking now into sourcing and notability... which is a god thing. If such are found at the various AfDs, it will best serve to acknowledge them and request that they be added to the articles. And as I am able, I will be adding such myself, and encouraging others to join in. And with respects, I will be tagging the more deserving for "rescue". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Lurker speaking: Having seen this in other cases, I have to say that I am strongly opposed to the tactic of nominating for deletion in order to "force" an article to be improved. There are many other ways to get an article improved. One is to do it yourself. Another is to draw on your network of wiki-acquaintances. Yet another is to pester people you find at various wiki-projects. I personally think that making the decision "I'll nominate it for deletion, then someone else will be forced to fix it up" is an abuse both of the process and the good-faith of all the other editors here. Of course, that's just my opinion. :) Franamax ( talk) 23:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello "lurker" :) In this case, the noms were in good faith for "apparently" non-notable sunjects... not in an attempt to force an improvement. However, now that the deed is done, there's no sense in crying over spilt milk... or to mix in another metaphor... we have lemons, and can now make lemonade. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I should clarify that I wasn't commenting on the OP's actions (since I'm possessed of sufficient laziness to not have even looked at them :) I was meta-commenting on your own comment. You MQS are far beyond me in sufficient skill to advise individual AfD editors. HJM should read nothing into my post here beyond the general statement I made, it's not applicable to themself at all (except just the general opinion)! Franamax ( talk) 01:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Franamax, as you will see from the links I provided here or fromc hecking my contributions, I made several nominations of these articles which returned very little on google searches and, in may cases, were a mere sentence long, citing no references. Now that someone has taken an interest in the articles, I would galdly advocate their "keep" if sufficient material can be found to improve them. Indeed, I pointed out to my friend here that there were articles other than the original one in which he was interested and that he might like to scrutinise some of them because I am not infallible, nor am I knowledgable on the subjects. As such, I nominated several for deletion, and exercised my due dilligence by notifying the auhtors and major contributors, as well as later bringing further articles to the attention of MQS. Also, while we're having this discussion, I would express my admiration for the work done by MQS, both on these articles and in a broader context! HJ Mitchell ( talk) 09:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Further to that, Franamax is quite welcome to kill time by helping to improve these articles, it might prove more rewarding, thoguh possibly less amusing, than lurking on talk pages.

And to Mr Schmidt, why on earth aren't you an administrator? If you find yourself running in future, drop me a line and I'll fight for you! HJ Mitchell ( talk) 09:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Now now :) Franamax is well-occupied killing lots of time on Wikipedia, but he does a bit of lurking on the side. :) He doesn't have any great expertise in the areas you mention, so he prefers to egg on those like MQS who excel in those areas. Franamax also took some pains above to explain that he was not commenting on your own actions, but was responding to MQS's comments - and did that eight hours before your last posts here. Franamax has also discussed that admin issue with MQS in the past, in a definitely positive sense - but doesn't necessarily agree that having someone "fight for you" on the RFA pages is a good approach. 'Tis all good, we're doing well here! :) Franamax ( talk) 22:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Michael. I've deleted the reference that you dropped into the TOMS Shoes article today. A PR piece in the Amherst Bee (a tiny free local weekly of ~25000 circ.) is a poor reference when sourcing an international organization. It wasn't needed either -- the already existing Time magazine and Associated Press references provide enough weight. But it's simply not a good idea to add promotional fluff to an article when other editors have already accused it of being self-promotional spam. It only adds fuel to their concerns and obscures the good references. So I reverted your edit. Just wanted to explain why. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I came across John Brancato and Michael Ferris earlier. I've given it a touch up n removed a couple of links that were little more than spam, but I'm struggling to find solid information for it. There's good material there, and I've referenced most of it but it seems to be having something of an identity crisis! I was tempted to move it to "List of films by...", but it seems to be an (albeit half- arsed) attempt at at a biography, so I'm not entirely sure what to do with it. If you'd take a look... Cheers, HJ Mitchell ( talk) 18:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

you might find [ [2]][ [3]][ [4]][ [5]] of some use. HJ Mitchell ( talk) 18:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to kibbitz -- I was passing overhead and couldn't help butting in. My advice is to first break the article into two separate bios -- they'll each been mentioned in the other's bio page as part of a writing team -- but trying to combine two bios with separate filmographies and infoboxes will get pretty messy. Also, in this book there is ten separate pages for each of Brancato and Ferris. That should provide a nice boost for their bios. Good luck. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Cw makes good sense. When I have time later this evening (you'll probably be asleep), I'll take a crack and creating a new bio for man 2 and trimming and renaming for man 1 using the sources you and CW provided. Each lede might be like "Man 1 is an Amerccan screenwriter besy known for his partnership with man 2" and "Man 2 is an American screenwriter best known for his work with Man 1" Or something in the vein. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds sensible to me. I haven't yet checked out CW's source, but I struggled to find so much as a DOB for the second bloke. There's definite notability by his association with the former, though I'm not sure it's enough for an article in his own right. As for the former, there should be no difficulty there. If you do what you will, I'll have a look tomorrow at finishing it off. I'd be bold and do it now, but it is getting late here and I'm just working on some (badly written and very boring) baseball articles, but I promised my services so...! HJ Mitchell ( talk) 22:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello. There's a debate going on at the username policy about how to treat users that initially come here with a promotional purpose and whether they should be immediately blocked - I've mentioned you as an example of one who originally came here (with your publicist, if I've understood correctly) and made promotional and somewhat frustrated edits (confused by our byzantine bureaucracy, no doubt), but then has turned out to be a great editor and user.

I thought it only fair that I mention I've used you as an example, so you can correct any inaccuracies :) henrik• talk 13:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I did just comment diff and without belaboring the details, addressed an inaccuracy that could lead to terrible misimpressions. The publicist was here to promote his clients and set up a net of puppets. And though I was one of the clients he promoted, I never ever told or instructed or directed that he use Wiki. Nope. That choice/decision was his and his alone. Unhelpful to your argument in that discussion, the spamming publicist was speedily blocked from editing wiki. Perhaps not the best example, as the spammer was blocked and the NOT-spammer became a decent editor. Schmidt,' ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I was not involved at the time and only gleamed it second-hand through a few diffs. Oh well, better my argument be weakened than it being uncorrected and inaccurate. I was certainly not trying to implicate you in any impropriety; rather the opposite. Thank you for explaining. henrik• talk 20:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I have most of the discussions from that time archived, as a continued lesson and reminder. If you'd like, I can send the links... but again, I do not think it will be helpful to the point you were trying to make. A problem with anonymous user names is that they can often reflect something relevent to the user, or can represent a special interest of the user. So the only way to determine if "User:SpecialOutletStore" actualy works for the store, would be to have a pre-emptive checkuser determin if the user is logging in from that store's IP... and that would fail if he were the store but was logging in from home. Pretty much I think wiki must take the high road and allow edits and simply keep an eye open to see if such edits result in or reflect a COI. If not, then the user name is no consequence than any of the thousands of of other random user names. Like wih me... being User:MichaelQSchmidt, I refrain from editing Michael Q. Schmidt... though I will speak up if the BLP about me is vandalized or filled with unsourced or incorrect informations and then allow others to investigate. I am quite aware of COI. Many newcomers are not... but if given the opportunity to learn and be mentored, they and wiki can benefit from their being part of the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For going the extra mile to save a charity related article from deletion by uncovering sources only available by library visit or pay per view. A wikki hero! FeydHuxtable ( talk) 16:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Schmidty my man, you're one of my favorite Wikipedians. I hope everything's going well for you. Thanks for your good work and for always being gracious and willing to help. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 01:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The occasional smile and good word go far in making this a pleasent place to spend a few hours. Things are indeed well. I have three films scheduled, and 2 currently in production. And on top of that, a celebrity actor has asked that I consider assisting him in an actor's workshop he is putting together. Busy and fun. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. :) Enjoy. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 19:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Michael

The Last Gangster could use some additional references and looks up your alley.

Bongo matic 05:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask why I was not notified of this deletion discussion. I was the creator of the page and made substantial edits, yet I was not informed of this. I am really questioning right now those who edit the site if they don't even bother to notify those who created the page in the first place so that they have a better chance of winning. I know that you did not nominate the page but this is keeping me from blowing up on the nominator. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 02:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've already found some really good links to justify the page. So i'm way ahead in that. Thanks for the suggestions. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 02:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed all the work you've done on The Witches Hammer, which has clearly improved it massively. However, I am still unsure that it meets the notability requirements. I noticed in your comment about the AfD of Solstice (film) that "unreliable looking" sources have been discussed at length in AfDs. I haven't seen these discussions so wasn't aware there was a consensus about how to treat these sources. In nominating I tried to follow WP:NF but if there has been other discussion about this sort of issue it would be good to know. Thanks. Quantpole ( talk) 16:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussions have been across numerous AfDs for low-budget, independent, horror films. The general concensus has been that even though the sources cover a niche genre, their having editorial oversite, a staff whose work is checked for accuracy, and being respected as experts in their particular genre allow them to meet WP:RS. Where a nominator in good faith states that he was unable to find high profile sources (IE: New York Times) it has been generally accepted that such low profile RS suffice in context to what id being sourced. This may be a qustion best answered by Project Films, but I will do a bit or reserach and find links to some of these AfDs. These will follow later today. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. If there is some sort of consensus on how to treat these sort of films, then I'll try to spend some time getting them better than AfDing! Quantpole ( talk) 17:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Not complaining here, as you brought an unsourced article to life and alloed it to be made stronger. The trick in looking at these niche sources is to find their "about us" pages to learn their history and editorial policies... as many are one-man SPS. But if they have a staff and a history and expertise... they squeek in. Again, I'll do the digging and send you a talkback. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Part of an answer

Some wider known horror genre sites actually have their own wikiarticles: Bloody-Disgusting, Fearnet, Fangoria and are considered genre-specific RS. Other such sites without their own wikiarticles, and which may even have started as fansites, are generally accepted as reliable sources by the community (ie: Twitchfilm, Evildread, Beyondhollywood, Eatmybrains, etal) as long as they meet the WP:RS requirements of having editorial oversite: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context." and "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made." WP:RS does not demand nor expect a source to be large and world-reknowned (though that naturally helps). I have found it best in rescues to gather as wide a field of genre recognition as possible, as it is unreallistic to expect Rotten Tomatoes or New York Times or Roger Ebert to review every film ever made. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hi MQS, thanks for dropping me a line. Without wanting (or being able to go) into the detail of every site you mention--since I neither have the expertise nor the time to do so--I think that I agree with the basic setup. That is, I agree that there are RS outside the usual suspects, and I agree that some websites can play that kind of role, esp. in niche genres such as horror (or death metal, or literature). As you suggested above, a lot depends on the individual site under review; if your list of sites would receive some substantive support from some other editors then I think you're well on your way. Does that help? Let me know if there's more (on a general level) that I can help with. I say 'general,' because the last horror movie I saw (at the pictures, that's how long ago) was The Ring, and I still unplug the TV set every night. Drmies ( talk) 02:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you think this fellow is notable? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 21:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Award winner in muliple festivals? Yup. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I note that you posted a query on User talk: Esasus. Per User:Esasus, Esasus is a sockpuppet and has been blocked indefinitely. Bongo matic 23:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Did not know. I must have missed the newsletter. Thanks for the update. And no sarcasm intended... just a bemused shrug and a wistful smile. Too many puppets... too many puppets. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes they redirect the talk pages so people are more likely to notice. I had no idea the account was a sock—I'd always found the uncommented removals of {{ prod}}s quite disruptive, but didn't suspect anything else. Bongo matic 03:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{ talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.

Appreciate the heads-up. I have redacted my query. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey MQS, I did kind of a rough job on this salesperson, so I figured it was only fair if I would ask you for a second opinion on his notability... Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 19:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Well, nevermind then! ;) Drmies ( talk) 19:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you seem to be the resident expert on article rescue, so I wonder what you make of Argentina–Pakistan relations. There seems to be a movement nominating such articles for deletion based on whether or not the nominator knows of any relationship! Anyway, this one seems perfectly notable to me, I've given it something of an overhaul, which, I hope, should scrape it through AfD, though any tips you could lend me on polishing it up would be greatly appreciated! Kind regards, HJMitchell You rang? 21:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		The Barnstar of Diligence is hereby awarded for extraordinary scrutiny, precision, and community service, especially in regard to article improvement. Awarded by PhilKnight ( talk) 22:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The April 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 07:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I wanted to cross out one of these requests; the redirect was clearly the smarter way. -- an odd name 00:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the redirect was to a far better sourced article. Thanks again. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's best left as an essay. You could just do the same as User:Uncle G (his essays rock!) by spreading the link as oft as you reasonably can. I'm not a proponent of overcomplicating guidelines. A few well-explained mentions of the essay in deletion debates should make it clear that current rules accept these sources without the need for exceptions or expansions. I'm afraid I can't lend a hand. I need to finish GA reviews first. - Mgm| ^(talk) 11:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking in. Keep checking back... as I'm getting closer. Rarely have I spent so much time in researching the background of a potential source. Whew. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Good work if you can find enough on him. I'm not sure an award for short film at a minor film festival is enough (though as you see I did suggest that more non-English sources may exist!) Black Kite 23:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well... since WP:NF states that "standards have not yet been established to define a major award" I will dig more. Regional notability is notability (usually) and receiving awards for his very first film ever is itself of note. My biggest concern was that the page seemed an immediate copyvio of this online CV... but I addressed it through cleanup before anyone could call foul. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

Whoops - I'm usually quite good at picking up copyvios. If you can find more on him I'd be happy to withdraw the AfD. Black Kite 23:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Still digging. Am now going through his films to see if he is mentioned in reviews. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what this is. But it seems to have some connection to filmaking, so I thought it might be of interest if it isn't speedy deleted before you get a chance to have a look... I hope all is well. The horror movie page looks like a good resource for sources and AfD discussions. Cheers. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 03:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a person and process for creating videos for youtube? Or mabye some sort of game creating program? Did some checking. Did not find much. It might be something that is just now spreading and may show notability in a few months. Maybe. Did some cleanup and added an EL, but I do not think this one is salvagable... though I did offer the author some advice on its talk page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

I was initially skeptical, after yet another appearance at AN/I, but i found this section impressive. David D. (Talk) 02:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I list some of them as examples of what a little perseverance can deliver, and hope to set a good example. Thanks for looking in. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• You may note that I never did post an opinion on this one, even after I found about the banned user. It may well be that this is a proper topic for an article, but I firmly agree with it being deleted. This particular banned user is... (I don't know how else to say it) a deranged lunatic. This page [6] will give some idea of the scope of this problem, and those are just the confirmed socks. Beeblebrox ( talk) 05:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely somone with a lot of pent-up frustration. Pity that he does not have abetter understanding of what makes wiki a community. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi MQS

Have a look at I Love Trouble (1948 film). IMDB doesn't have any external reviews—can you find good references? Bongo matic 13:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Initially was able to "historic notability" inre "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release." [7] Its a start. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Classic film noir. Seen in dozens of retrospectives 50 years after initial release. Received a lot of press way back when [8]. Just gave the article a few tweaks. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That's why I asked you. Bongo matic 22:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{ talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.

Haha, everyone asks you. Bongo, can you make a template, {{MQS}}, that automatically places a notice on his talk page with a call for help? Drmies ( talk) 03:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea (even better if I could type my name right) Bongo matic 03:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Even better would be a new "Friendly" tab "MQS" with a non-optional parameter for the article needing assistance. Bongo matic 03:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Fun stuff when I roll a hot 7 or 11. Hate snake eyes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Whenever I ask you for help, you know what time it is--AfD time! Please have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mia Rose. Thanks! Drmies ( talk) 21:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Just got in and had a look. A very nicely written article, meeting requirements of notability per WP:ENTERTAINER. You did some fine work. All I might be able to do is add additional reliable sources... and perhaps a reception section adding a few cogent remarks from the press. Very nice save. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks--is it safe yet? I reckon so, with the help of kelapstick, for instance, who made a good point that I missed. You know, I always go for the Google News stuff, and in these cases I turn to you because I have the feeling that you can separate the wheat from the chaff in the many sites that don't show up in such a search, and that reception stuff you always do really, really well. So thanks again for your help and your kind words! Greetings, from an absolutely drenched Deep South, Drmies ( talk) 14:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Michael, your horror specific source page gave me the idea for User:A_Nobody/Inclusion_guidelines#Table_of_notable_fictional_universes, i.e. what fictional universes really are those for which fictional elements meet a common sense standard of notability. Best, -- A Nobody ^{My talk} 00:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI, it's finally been submitted. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 01:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I am just starting this page: User:Ikip/p, to create an ARS straw poll.

I welcome your comments and contributions. Ikip ( talk) 21:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi MQS

You may see a redlink at Martha Mason (writer) for The Final Inch, an Oscar-nominated (and possibly DYK-worthy) 2000 documentary (trailer available at YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kM30mAEz5bA). Worth a moment to create?

Regards, Bongo matic 09:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It will take perhaps more than a moment, but with the coverage of the film, I'd say it won't be tossed to AfD too soon. OSCAR 1, OSCAR 2, CNN, HBO, UNICEF, BBC 1, G NEWS. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

another one! Last one for tonight though, I'm afraid! HJMitchell You rang? 00:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The AfD closed as no consensus; I'd have thought a relist would've been better, but now you've got the chance to expand and source the article. Fences and windows ( talk) 05:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and I understand. Its on my list. So much to do. Yikes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

(Getting people to reconsider their narrow ideas could be complicated, though)

I've had a bit of a longer look at the article and just tidied it up a little, fiddled with bits of grammar I didn't like and sent links to the right places- eg you don't want Ireland linking to the piece of rock in the Irish Sea, but to the country (I would have thought, anyway!) and star now goes to "movie star" rather than "luminous comsmotic body"! I must say, you did a good job with it! He's still lacking a date of birth though- any suggestions on where I can go dredging for that kind of info? Regards, HJMitchell You rang? 08:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I will begin a search. Nice tweaks to the article. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I added some more sources to Pushed to the Limit - while not all of the ones on Google News panned out as worthwhile, one did, and the Black Belt article was ok. It isn't exactly an incredibly notable movie, but it seems to meet the requirements, and it may be relevant in terms of the star's career. I also had to remove your plot summary from the article, I'm afraid, as the wording was too close to the original source and suffered from copyright problems. I've noticed that this is a common problem with plot summaries, so it is probably worth looking out for. - Bilby ( talk) 13:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Schmidty. I hope all is well with you. I thought this subject might be something you know about. Also has a fictional beer mixed in. Cheers. Also Vanessa Woods might be of interest... ChildofMidnight ( talk) 03:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the due diligence to establish her notability. She seemed to be notable at first blush, and I'm glad you found those reliable sources. I apologize for not doing a better job, but my time is limited because of the demands of Bacon Challenge 2009. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 05:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

are you going to join MQS? It's good times... kelapstick ( talk) 05:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Err... what exactly is this "Bacon Challange 2009"? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

What is this? You have missed this juggernaught of baconocity? The link is at the top of CoMs talk page....it is a sight to behold. kelapstick ( talk) 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I prefer to think of it as a juggernaut, but perhaps describing it as a jugger- naught is in fact more accurate. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 06:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Spelling issues on the iPod again (but if it is Canadian/British spelling I am going with that instead), feel free to fix my blatant errors when I edit after 5:00 pacific time :D.-- kelapstick ( talk) 15:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes... I missed the headlines. Just visited and saw the page. Bacon articles? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The event is sponsored by Boston Scientific, makers of drug eluting stents to keep our arteries open so we can eat more bacon. The OC? Jeepers. I try not to be seen with anyone from there. :) ChildofMidnight ( talk) 06:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

On a more personal note

THanks for the nomination. I'm not going to give up trying to improve myself. I suppose it's a given I can count on you for a co-nomination next time? — BQZip01 —  ^talk 16:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hell yes! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Your 'suspicion' about my nominations is flat out wrong. Check the dates on my earliest nominations, they predate the AN/I. please adjust your comments accordingly. ThuranX ( talk) 20:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Its done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I would have preferred you instead struck it out, so that those who had already read the suspicion can see that you have intentionally corrected yourself, rather than having to check the edit history to be sure it wasn't someone else, but I suppose it will suffice. ThuranX ( talk) 20:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

In one instance where an editor commented, I did the strike through. If I could have simply undid them all, I would have... as even with a strike-through one can click a link to other pages. Again, my apologies. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If you would be so kind as to throw your two cents in here under "Comments by other users", I would appreciate it: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TomPhan — BQZip01 —  ^talk 22:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I had no idea it was that far reaching. I feel bad that this has been allowed to go on for so long... putting your life and that of your family at risk. Hopefully someone will get off a bureaucratic butt and take some seriously needed action. This is unconscionable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Don't forget to express your opinion one way or the other at all the List_of_M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1). Every' episode has been nominated individually and there is only a few days left for the comments period to remain open. Even the pilot is up for deletion, and it was nominated for multiple awards. Your opinion one way or the other will determine if the nominator moves on to season two, and starts the tedious process again. 24 episodes are up for deletion, some don't have full plot summaries added yet, but the vote determines whether the episodes have the right to exist to be expanded upon later. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 06:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It has recently come to my attention that you canvassed others for support in a RfA; this is considered very bad form. Please refrain from doing so in the future. Thank you. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 22:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure. No problem. May I assume a similar notice is going out to certain of the oppose editors? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

If/when they are identified, yes. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 22:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough... what's good for the goose is good for the gander. And thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear MichaelQSchmidt, thank you for your comment in that SPI page. I have no idea why I am listed there, and this feels like harassment to me. What is going on there??? Arma virumque cano ( talk) 15:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I am the wrong person to ask, as account names were listed there by the editor receiving the death threats. My comment on that page was my voicing concerns that such should have been halted long before it got this far. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

And keep in mind, with your creating a new account and making AfDs your position of interest as "first" contributions, you're going to raise a few eyebrows, as newcomers rarely have such experience and knowledge. Accepting that you had an old account and forgot its username and login over the intervening year, if you're not involved, the CU will bear that out. Assume good faith and just let the system run. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is being very helpful [9]. The article was merged more than a month ago when User:A Nobody and I created that character list as part of the compromise of dealing with unnotable SVU characters while going through the Rebecca_Hendrix AfD. One can't argue it goes against WP:PRESERVE, because it was merged to the list and not a single bit of information was lost beyond dropping the infobox (which added no info not already in the prose), and the image (of course, which does not fall within the PRESERVE idea). I don't see why you felt the need to support an editor unmerging an article after such a lengthy time has passed, and considering he has never even edited the article, I'm curious as to why he felt the need to argue it at all. None of the article's actual editors complained at all. It is clear she is both unnotable and that he has not produced new evidence to discuss possible notability now for resplitting the article. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 22:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If the article's original editors were notified of the redirect, and did not complain, your argument has merit. The article existed, tagged certainly, for over a year, but I was unable to access any discussion toward the redirct on the article's talk page until after I reverted. If discussion among involved editors results in a merge or redirect, I would absolutely agree. That one editor did voice a concern, resulting in the reversion and redirects, would seem to indicate that some discussion should be undertaken per WP:BRD. I accept entirely the good faith of your action, and encourage the same with regards the minor improvements of User:COMPFUNK2, User:Mgfan222, User:Treybien, a number of anonymous IPs and the reversion by User:Redfarmer. We're not in a hurry here. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

His only apparent reason for complaining is that another minor character from the L&O series has an article (I didn't work with those, just the SVU line). And while we may not be in a hurry, at this point, I believe discussion should take place regarding the bold unmerging (with the merge retaining), rather than trying to redo a merge that had plenty of attention as the list itself was under heavy scrutiny at the time. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 00:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

See what you can find on Adata Wadiya Heta Hondai. If nobody else does, don't remove the {{ prod}}—convince me it should be removed instead. Bongo matic 16:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Still working on Clifton's. Do you know it was written of in On The Road? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I do now! Bongo matic 22:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... I don't think we need many more pictures. One of the WP:NFCC requirements is "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." I don't think more such images really help make the article better unless you feel they convey more information. — BQZip01 —  ^talk 22:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

CB has been good with the pix. The only additional one I think that would improve the article is one of the 1939 exterior facade of Clifton's Pacific seas... as it was grander even that the facade of Grauman's Chinese, and best showed the "magic" of old downtown. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Great job on the Clifton's article. Thanks for taking it and running with it. I have enormous respect for your contributions as well as for your good nature. Have a great weekend. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 22:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What came of your investigation of whether old photos can be used? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 13:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

...just ran into Cosette Goldstein and thought you might be interested. You doing alright out there in Californi-a? Drmies ( talk) 18:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well... took a look and even had a go at sourcing. There is just not enough out there yet. No doubt she and her twin sister Camille Goldstein will do more as their young careers advance, but I cannot find anything that even pushes her near the GNG, much less over that bar. Unable to decide which twin wrote the set of articles on the themselves... but the article is premature... and the sister's article ought to be nommed as well, as it suffers from the exact same problems. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Dammit! I'm going to lose five bucks over this! Well, thanks for trying. I hope you had fun with the topic. Drmies ( talk) 05:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The fat lady has not yet sung... as there is the barest chance she received praise for her 5 episodes of Barney. However, I have not found such... yet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I am at the end of a long line of editors that appreciate your efforts in support of ARS and WikiPedia as a whole. I only recently became aware of the bad blood between Editors Ikip and AMIB...(et al). I am insulted by the inference that all ARS members do is vote to keep...period. You and I both know, and have seen, repeated efforts to not only save but improve almost every article we get involved in (after voting keep). I can't recall specifics but I am sure you have voted to "delete" when appropriate. I am reluctant to add one more angry voice to the choir that is already present. Your congenial nature does much to counterbalance the continued onslaught against a rather innocent and beneficial community project.

Can you give me a nutshell explanation as to the bad blood and why "the 6" have been chosen for execution? And who they are? Thanks.....-- Buster7 ( talk) 20:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete votes? Hell yes. Look at my contribution history and you'll see the "delete" in my edit summaries at many AfDs... several even yesterday for instance. If I vote keep, its only after looking at an article, looking at guideline and precedent, and making my own reasoned decision that something has the potential to improve the project... either immediately because some enthusiastic nominator did not practice due WP:BEFORE or quote lessor guideline in contrvantion of WP:GNG, or because WP:COMMONSENSE indicates that what is iffy today may be solid in 2 weeks. WP:PRESERVE and WP:POTENTIAL and WP:ATD are too often seen as something bad or something to be ignored... and that's quite sad because the were wisely set in place to improve the project. I do not know why the MfD about ARS has become a witch hunt requiring sacrifical lamds to be slughtered. Any issues with individual editors belongs in an entirely different venue and I pray that a closing admin makes careful note that the entire MfD was initiated as a attack on those few individuals. As for the sacrifical victims....? Well, if one looks at the ARS pages, and the page histories, you may be able to figure which editors are being seen as too opinionated.

On an interesting sidebar, there is an ongoing scandal inre relief efforts in Africa. Many organizations have mounted tremendous efforts to collect and distibute food and medical supplies. At the African receiving end, certain individuals joined the relief effort, not to actually aid in distribution, but to redirect supplies away from the needy in order to line their own pockets and those of their warlord/criminal bosses. Others who had joined specifically to help in distribution raised the cry of alarm, and were killed by minions of local criminal bosses. The problem is that negative elements were allowed to join even though they had no intention of distributing food or improving the lives of their fellow countrymen... and now that they are involved in the distribution process, the entire relief effort has been crippled. The ONLY paralell I offer, is that if someone joins the Article Rescue Squad, they ought to go about rescuing articles. If someone joins Wikipedia, they should contribute to its growth.

I offered an analogy at the MfD about Robert Heinlein and Starship Troopers... where a person could enjoy the trappings of civilization, but had to prove a worthiness and dedication to society through service before being given citizenship and being allowed to vote in decisions that affected the entire society. They had to prove their worthiness. Non-citizens could enjoy the comforts of civilization... but could not make decisions regarding policy until they had shown that their interests were indeed for the betterment of the entire society and not just themselves or narrow special interests. It was overlooked or dismissed (perhaps I was too subtle)... but imagine what a different Wikipedia it would be if editors had to show they had knowledge and experience before being allowed to vote in consensus reaching discussions. Sure, its the encyclopedia anyone can edit... and indeed be encouraged to do so... but until editors had shown their dedication toward improving the project (perhaps through some "X" numbers of contributory edits), they would not be able to "vote" in policy making discussions.

The MfD has taken a drastically wrong turn. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'm going to make it, but I was just reading about shows taking place in the theater district downtown. The Sting at the Orpheum with an accompaniment of wurlitzer May 27. Paul Newman rest in peace! June 3 at the Million Dollar Theater some Abbot and Costello in Buck Privates and a feature of Cabaret (movie). And June 17 at the Los Angeles Theater there's Macunaima. Remember to take some Clifton's photos while you're there. And have a good weekend. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 01:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I read through the ARS MfD after seeing someone mention it on this page. I think it was interesting discussion and some legitimate concerns were raised. The nom itself and the time and energy spent in the drama are a bit troubling, but over all I was very encouraged by what seemed to me to be overwhelming support for a project that tries to save articles on notable subjects that need better sourcing and other improvements. Cheers. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 01:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Its turned into a most incivil attack page... vilifying the entire project because of the preceived actions of a few. Like throwing the baby out the window rather than change its nappy. Bad form. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw an awful lot of keeps and strong keeps as well as comments supporting the project and its good works. You can't please everyone Schmidty. Surely you know that by now. What's on tap for the weekend? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 05:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

My weekend? Well... certainly not like many other's to be sure. Well... I got this friend who is not too computer savvy (that "trivia" bit here is 100% true - see pic). I had spent most of yesterday at his house, helping get him set up on his laptop with some voice recognition software... cute way to write hands-free. While there, his PC tower died. As I was watching it. How often does something stop working while your techie is there to actually see it happen?? So... I carted it home and will be sending part of my wekend bringing it back to life. Barbecue and pool party on Monday. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

you and I had a edit conflict on the last two comments there. If you like, please feel free to reverse the order--whichever way you think it reads more effectively. Outrageous comment, there, that we were replying to. Perhaps it will serve, though, to demonstrate the bad faith of the opposition. I came very near using that phrase a few times in the last day or two. DGG ( talk) 02:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

[10] It took me a while to get the tone right. DGG ( talk) 03:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Found it and have already commented at your talk page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And chastising me for not rushing to improve 1 before it was kept anyways? Yikes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As there were already other comments, I left it alone, to avoid compounding the confusion on that p. . DGG ( talk) 03:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You took my comment entirely the wrong way, but my visit here to clarify was enlightening. I'm not "the opposition". The reason I'm stepping away from AfDs is precisely because how polarized they have become. My comment about your contribution to the AfD was not at all about how you didn't follow through on finding sources, it was to amplify that none of the keep votes were actually argued based on guidelines/policy. Although I didn't mean it in the way that both took it, my apologies for the misunderstanding. Please stop reading my comments as if we are in some kind of conflict - in my mind we are simply having a discussion and disagreements don't make us enemies. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 03:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is all about perception. The rough-housing between the best of friends might seem a bar-room brawl to an outsider. I do not at all see you as "the oppositon", and admire you wish to improve wikipedia... but what is often disheartening to see at AfDs is the seeming mad rush to toss something out and move on to the next AfD. No offense meant at all, and I think you'll understand what I conclude... but I sometimes imagine AfD as similar to seeing a living thing being placed into a school of hungry piranah (meant as a colorful analogy only). Once blood is in the water it becomes very dificult... sometimes nigh impossible... to extract the victim... specialy without getting one's own fingers nipped in the process. If Wikipedia were the world, we might consider ourselves as editors to be conservationists trying to save what we can for posterity. A question: Would it have benefitted the project or would it have harmed the project to have simply tagged the Orlando article for cleanup or concerns over notability? As DGG pointed out at the MfD, we're here to build, not to diminish... and if any article is not then improved over time after having been tagged, any later AfD would then have showed that due process had been followed. Again, you have my respect and appreciation of your good faith. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy Memorial Day......

.......-- Buster7 ( talk) 17:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

On May 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Clifton's Cafeteria, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky ( talk) 18:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I wasn't even aware ARS was getting MFD'd, let alone for the 4th time (I'm not going to bother to read through anything in any of them). Anyways, cheers! MuZemike 04:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate noticed that you mentioned DreamGuy's uncivil comments here. I think he crossed the line a long time ago, but the wiki-community seems intent on protecting this editor from sanctions. Please advise me when his comments against me should be reported. Also, do I need to report his slander myself; or will it have more weight if someone else reports it; or do admins sometimes notice these things and take appropriate steps to make Wikipedia a more pleasant place for contributors? Varbas ( talk) 04:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Others are aware and are watching. If it continues, he will answer to higher authority, as being a wiki editor for several years is no excuse for forgetting WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF. Each time he calls you a sockpuppet, imply and calmly reply: " Comment: the investifation found that User:Varbas was not guily of abusive sockpuppetry." Each time he denigrates your integrity, simply reply "Attacking me personally is not useful to this discussion". Maintain calm and reason. And yes, editoral oversite moves slowly... as there is a tendency to let matters run their course to see if they stop... all the while keeping track of anything that could be perceived as troublesome behavior. Stay the course and don't let anyone provoke you into rash responses. And by the way, please delete that sockpuppet notice from your talk page per the conversation here. It acts to paint you in negative light. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't encourage the editor to lie. They most definitely did NOT find Varbas "not guilty", they only said they could not find concrete evidence linking him to the earlier editor who was banned and they very explicitly said it was "possible" -- Possible is not even close to a finding of not guilty, and for him to label it a "slander" is ridiculous. You need to conform to Wikipedia standards, and encouraging outright falsehoods is a major violation of that. DreamGuy ( talk) 17:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

He asked for advice. I did not instruct him to lie. I instructed him to point editors to the sockpuppet case where they specifically said "No Need to punish Varbas"... as apprently the senior admins understand AGF in a manner that you do not. Telling half-truths is a bad as telling half-lies. And further, I advised him to not react negatively to your own poor manners at AfD. You yourself very much need conform to Wikipedia standards. Your continued incivility and continued lack of AGF are not welcome on my talk page. Please do not post here again. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You are mentioned as part of the discussion at WP:ANI#User:DreamGuy and User:174.0.39.30 68.146.162.11 ( talk) 23:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I am aware that I am mentioned as one of the many examples of editors being treated incivily. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice job on the WeeMee article - it is now a rather nice little article from something that I had thought deserved to be deleted. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I will grant the original was simply unsourced fancrap (no offense to contributors) and can understand why it went to AfD. But in digging, I found so much more that allowed creation of a properly encyclopedic article, I just had to keep trying. It may be an essay, but I belive in WP:POTENTIAL. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi MQS

You said:

"...the awards in question are not notable awards per our standards..." runs directly contrary to guideline. WP:Notability (films) lists some awards, but specifically states that "standards have not yet been established to define a major award". Consensus must be gained and standards actually set before making such an assertion as if it were fact.

This is an unpersuasive argument. If the standards are not set, then it means that every AfD that involves awards that aren't viewed as "major" by all parties requires a discussions on the merits of the award. While it's true that saying an award isn't notable doesn't make the award non-notable, it's even more the case that by saying "nobody knows whether this award is notable" doesn't make the award notable.

In this AfD you clearly have the upper hand on civility and moral authority, but you haven't marshaled the facts to support your position (in my view).

Best, Bongo matic 04:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I was countering the blanket statement that they were "not notable per our standards" when point of fact as NF specifically points out, is that standards have not been set, and such a claim tends to sidetrack a discussion. I agree that saying "notability or lack for these awards has not yet been established" would have been a better phrase. However, the simple and proven statement of "award-winning directorial debut of Jordan Bayne in conjunction with award-winning Michael Knowles" is a valid reason to keep, as Bayne has her own (albeit minor) notability. But as the sage said, "You can't please all of the people all of the time". I'm a pragmatist, but I dislkie bullies. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the accuracy of what you said, but am simply pointing out that it is not a way to persuade anyone that the awards are relevant. You can say what you wish at an AfD, but the ostensible purpose of opining there is to persuade others to delete or keep an article. In order to do that, you could have explicitly argued that the awards need not be "major", as you were not arguing under that prong (and then explain what prong you were in fact arguing under) or explain why you feel the awards are in fact "major". It may be the pot calling the kettle black here, but I'm suggesting that meta-points on procedure and other people's argumentation doesn't give uninvolved editors any more or less reason to support a particular view.

But if it helps you vent your frustration . . . well, who can object? Bongo matic 05:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

p.s. No need ever to place a {{ tb}} template on my talk page—I watch where I post. Bongo matic 05:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I know who. (chuckle). But thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, There was a WP:ANI thread about the conduct of User:DreamGuy, I have since reformatted it and move it to Arbitration enforcement and it can be found here. You may be interested as some of the evidence used involves you as a party. Cheers   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 09:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. However when visiting I noticed it had been closed. Are thse things only supposed to last a few hours? I would imagine a few days might have allowed input from all parties involved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That was a very abrupt closing by a clearly non-neutral admin. And no sanctions whatsoever! Now that DG and his gang have put that one to rest, they are right back at it with there old tricks. Now DreamGuy and MuZemike have started a complaint about me, once again, claiming that I am (once again) a sockpuppet here. This is the 2nd time this a week. It looks like a full-out phishing expedition this time. They have also thrown the relative newbie User:Granite thump into their complaint. This is a huge assumption of bad faith. MuZemike and DreamGuy's accusations, the approval of a CheckUser, and no notification to either myself or User:Granite thump, is completely against wikipolicy (as I understand it). Varbas ( talk) 00:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Be polite. Maintain decorum. Wait and see. A checkuser may decide it is a fishing hunt, as Granite Thump has not been involved in vandalism nor in incivil behavior... just simply disagreeing with DreamGuy... and as far as I know, that is not yet a crime. Again, keep your cool. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Many users have been blocked for the crime of disagreeing with DG; but your strategy must be correct, for being polite, maintaining decorum, and keeping cool have all be hallmarks for DG, and he tends to float through all reviews unscathed. Varbas ( talk) 00:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand WP:SARCASM, but still suggest decorum. Civility usually wins out over incivility in the long run. You may wish to consider a polite rebuttal in the "comments from accused parties section", as might Granite thump. If the checkuser finds no connection, you have vindication. If checkuser finds a connection... well... bad form, and OOPS... as I for one was extending benefit of the doubt. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Michael, just a quick note to say thanks for what you wrote on my talk page - not sure if you spotted that I replied there. Also worth mentioning that I'm quite impressed with this idea of rescuing articles on the brink of being annihilated, and I've decided to have a go at some more... -- cheers, Hebrides ( talk) 12:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw, and appreciate your comment greatly. Have you considered joining the ARS? All are welcome. Dispite the occasional furor, improving the project is why we are here. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Michael, there's some edit(warr)ing going on over this guy's birthdate. I cannot find a reliable source for it. Can you have a look? Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 20:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, since I have worked with him in films, might that be considere a bit of COI (chuckle)? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha! But I wouldn't worry about that. Hey, I'm conversing with greatness! Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 21:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

See this. I believe the 1992 date is likely incorrect, and would err to the 1996 one as I'm pretty sure he ain't 17 yet. However, since he has that "baby face" and young appearance, he may be advertising himself as younger than he actually is in order to get decent roles. I do have a confirmation call in to both his management people and the director of the film Delaney. I expect to have confirmation of his true bithdate before the day is out. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

An interview in Hollywood News (probably not the most reliable source on the block) says in 2007 he was eleven (they asked to confirm, no solid answer), which translates to 1996. Best I could find. Cheers. -- kelapstick ( talk) 22:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the 1996 date is most likely corect. Will await confirmation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there was one other reference in the article where a similar claim was made, leading to 1996, also not incredibly reliable, and I didn't enter that because the editors had been going back and forth between 1992 and 1994. Thanks for being on the case, both of youse! Drmies ( talk) 14:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm playing policeman for a boy actor's page? MQS, that edit was a derogatory remark toward your additions, wasn't it? Drmies ( talk) 15:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Funny remark too, considering that (from personal experience) some of the "microbudget films" ARE indeed available... either through production, Amazon, or certain video outlets. I left then as redlinks to encourage follow-up articles. For instance, Coming to Town (and yes, I own a copy) is a hilarious film from young director, that has itself received acclaim [11]. I have myself stayed away from writing it because I have worked with him and there would be screams of COI. As far as Daeg's age, the best thing would be to state in the article that "Daeg's age has not yet been confirmed. Various sources show his birthdate to be either 1992 or 1996." Many actors create such minor mysteries in order to create interest in themselves. Easiest thing would be to check birth announcements for his birthtown in 1992 and in 1996 to see just when his name first pops up. That would be the solution. Of course, some fans perfer tabloids to actual reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

However, there is THIS from back in 2007 that does show the 1992 year. With his youthfull look, his representation may be promoting him as 4 years younger (1996) in order to gain certain roles. Someone needs find that birth announcement. Just where in Canada was he born? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha, let's put Kelapstick on the case! I agree with your proposal re: birthdate. BTW, I am, by now, in agreement about those redlinks; I used to feel differently, but here they are an obvious invitation and someone will write the article. Thanks for the help, Drmies ( talk) 16:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There used to be this crazy notion on Wikipedia that redlinks encouraged the writing of new articles so as to expand and build the project. And now I often see an argument at AfD "look at all those redlinks... it can't be notable". When did the paradigm shift take place? Where was the birth of this sense that this project was anywhere near complete? Yikes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Go live! It looks good to me. You definitely do fine work! If I over did any of the attributions assigning perspectives and opinion to the movie unnecessarily, feel free to revert or modify. I know it's an article about the movie, and not the disease, so maybe it's obvious and I overdid it, but I'm cautious about including statements presented as fact that aren't attributed as such, and I think the disease itself is best covered in its own article. I have no idea if there is much controversy, but still. I definitely agree with the statements, but I still think they were assertive in nature. Moviemakers are not scientists. And scientists are not moviemakers. Speaking of which, what do you brewing in the lab? Some exciting projects I hope. Maybe Doc will write us a script. He's making big bucks this summer, so funding one of our projects should be no trouble for him. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 21:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Its live. Any suggestions for a sweet DYK? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

My proposal for your latest film is on my talk page. I need a ride to the Art Walk on Saturday. Craft and Folk Art Museum? Petersen Museum? Art galleries??? ALL FREE????? Who's in??? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 04:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Gotta work Saturday. Else I'd be there. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

How typical. Would you mind citing the bits I added? It looks good to me now. But feel free to adjust it as you see fit. You are the master, but as your padawan I have ideas of my own... ChildofMidnight ( talk) 04:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Will do. And if you put out a call to adventure... do it sooner. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I just booked a rental car for the weekend. So it's on! :) I like to art walks because it's a fun way to check out a neighborhood and see some random galleries and what not and the good ones have lots of free snacks and such. Hopefully this will be cool. I've never been to "LACMA" or the Petersen or the Craft and Folk Art Museum. I did see print fair and had a boba tea in that area once I think... I guess I should check what I'm supposed to get photos of. But then I don't know if I'm allowed with a camera into museums. So many decisions. Have you been to that area? Wilshire and SOuth Fairfax? I'm usually up on Third St., W.H. and sometimes over in BH when I need to hang out with my main man Wolfgang Puck and his crew. :) Any time you want to take me out to Spago (which doesn't have an article but should) you let me know. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 04:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't Spago be seen as a Wolfgang Puck fork? And will you be coming to my Anahiem show on July 26? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to. That's a long way off. I haven't been down in that region except to fly of John Wayne airport. It's a bit of a ways and I have no car, but I will see what I can do. Next you'll be asking me to drop Tarzana or some such out of the way place. What are you doing down there in the boondocks anyway? Third wave ska is over. I read it on Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 05:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I go where they want me... as long as their paying. The Anaheim show follows my appearance in San Diego at a a preceding live show and "AwesomeCon" picnic. They're paying me to go and arranging motel accomodations. The Sunday gig is part of the package and Anaheim is only a few miles away from my home. And Team Picture is looking even better (grin). Imagine how many would not go to AfD with even the slightest of WP:BEFORE. (sigh) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and yes. I'll leave him a final warning to knock off the silly shit, because I don't think he's been warned yet. Ironholds ( talk) 06:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks... and nice catch. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I was more concerned for the COI of the author... but went through and did some major cleanup of the advert and added multiple reliable sources that show the fellow actually does have coverage that meets the WP:GNG. I then removed the prod, moved it to the proper namespace, and advised him on his talk page of concerns with COI. It still needs work, but as long as the author does not try to puff himself up, it is probably okay to let it stay and be further improved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Micheal. The author was indeed a clear CoI, but i marked it for rescue anyway since a quick search revealed clear notability. I will keep an eye on the article\creator for a while to see if he makes any CoI edits to the article, or if he tries to promote himself in other articles. Excirial ^{( Contact me, Contribs)} 06:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.