Bongomatic (talk | contribs) m →Talkback: new section |
moved User MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Nora Samosir theater and television to User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Nora Samosir theater and television |
||
Line 213: | Line 213: | ||
{{talkback|Bongomatic|Nora Samosir}} |
{{talkback|Bongomatic|Nora Samosir}} |
||
<font color="green">[[User Talk:Bongomatic|Bongo]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/Bongomatic|matic]]</font> 12:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC) |
<font color="green">[[User Talk:Bongomatic|Bongo]]</font><font color="blue">[[Special:Contributions/Bongomatic|matic]]</font> 12:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Move == |
|||
I have moved [[User MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Nora Samosir theater and television]] to [[User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Nora Samosir theater and television]]. — [[User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] ([[User talk:RHaworth|Talk]] | [[special:contributions/RHaworth|contribs]]) 18:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:01, 12 April 2009
Archive 001, Archive 002, Archive 003, Archive 004, Archive 005
Self-published and questionable sources about themselves
An important lesson from Wikipedia... and I quote:
Self-published and questionable sources may only be used as sources about themselves, and only if:
- the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject being discussed;
- it is not contentious;
- it is not unduly self-serving;
- it does not involve claims about third parties;
- it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
- there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
- the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Emphasis mine. Tiger by the tail? Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Congrats
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! |
Try saving this one . . .
M,
This AfD should present quite the challenge for you and your inclusionist brethren. ;) X MarX the Spot (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Have not yet looked before responding, but I accept the challenge. And "inclutionist"? Yikes. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Enjoy! ;) X MarX the Spot (talk) 06:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Am finding this guy has a world-wide 35-year reputation and notability for his damn bronze frogs. On it now. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Remember, independent reliable sources are required here to pass WP:BIO. Good luck! X MarX the Spot (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- The multiple sources founs are from the galleries that chose to exhibit his works... and they ought to know. This will be a fight to stem artistic systemic bias. But I purposely avoided anything sourced back to the frogman himself and only offeered them as WP:V of his work being all over the place... in gallery after gallery. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
As usual you've excelled yourself, Schmidt MQ. X MarX the Spot (talk) 09:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- And now Bongo and I are debating over WP:CREATIVE and the proper interpretation of what consitutes "substantial part of a significant exhibition". First he asks which of the dozens of the venues are notable. And when I point out that venue notability is not required under CREATIVE since we are speaking about an artist and his work and not a location, he turns and demands a defining of what constitutes a significant exhibition. My head hurts. I'm going to bed. But thank you for the compliment. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Excelled? Naw. Just took a look is all. And I note that it still has not caused you to reconsider your opinion (chuckle)... so I suppose it was not "excell" enough. Or have you looked in lately? Taking some interesting turns and seems to be devolving into either reading and understanding or ignoring guideline. My head hurts again. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Just changed my !vote to Keep - I had a fair idea you could salvage the article. X MarX the Spot (talk) 09:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Certainly appreciate that... but now its in the hands of others. I can understand squawks about these galleries "vending" his art, but that is specifically how they stay afloat... by supporting accomplished artists, provising a venue for the work to be shown, and allowing patrons an opportunity to invest in art. If his stuff was not notable, the would not be worth showing or selling. The nay votes are akin to arguing against inclusion of the Whopper because it is a "product" and is bought and sold commercially. What a day. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Cotterill
Couldn't agree with you more. It's bizarre how these things can evolve into such a mess. If Cotterill has a sense of humour, he'd probably find all this quite funny. And I'd like to apologize for jumping on you during the discussion. I hadn't read your response too carefully. I was too busy reminding you to assume good faith while failing myself to assume that you were assuming good faith. I really don't think I can add any more to that discussion. I don't envy the closing admin. on this one. I think the answer is clear, but that admin. is going to have someone a little bit PO'd. freshacconci talktalk 19:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- No problem about the "jumping" as it was and still is a bit of a meelee. Your points were cogent and well-reasoned. The nom simply does not understand nor accept that any could disagree with his POV. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I contacted the closing admin. User talk:Chillum to ask him to review this. I also responded here. I have a problem with this particular decision, not on the close-as-delete, which I would have accepted had the justification been sound (i.e. the deletes were more convincing), but in the decision being based on the idea that the "keeps" didn't follow policy or understand policy. It seems the closing admin. just followed the Wikipedia talk:Notability message and the final comment on the AfD itself. I think we should wait until Chillum responds on his talk page. After that we should go to DRV. Now it's just an issue around principles. freshacconci talktalk 19:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Understood. And I will not even comment on the appearance of the nom's shoping to find an admin who agrees with him and dismissiveness of an admin who disagreed. On the closer's talk page I asked for userfication. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Tim Cotterill
Userfied at User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Tim Cotterill. Ty 23:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- The best thing would be to do a thorough sound rewrite using reliable sources extensively as references and then put it back into article space. Ty 23:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am in full agreement. Using the RS for sourcing, the Primaries only as externals, and the gallery cites only as WP:V of extensive exhibition, it can be a much better article. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Some refs:[1], [2], [3], [4] (scroll). Ty 23:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Appreciate the assist. I have now begun a major re-organization of the article and its presentation. When I get a bit further, I will definitely ask for your input. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- The ideal thing would be to get access to, and use, some of those pay to view newspaper sites... Ty 01:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Take a look at the very point being addresed on the sandbox talk page. However, this does not mean I will cease searching library of news archives that ARE 100% avaiilable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Don't look now but the umbrage continues on the AfD talkpage. X MarX the Spot (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Kriss Perras Running Waters /Deletion
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.
South Park
As I was leaving the South Park merge discussion the other night, I found a marionette in the corrridor. Any idea who it might belong to???? :~)....I enjoy your edits and talk.--Buster7 (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I have learned that use of multiple accounts by one user to edit an article is not condoned by policy nor guideline, as it indicates a false consensus in actions taken by one user as if he were actually several. This is explicitly not allowed. Even were the puppets declare themselves and not make arguments in discussions, it is not allowed... else eveyone would have dozens. The few acceptable reasons for such to be usable, were not met. Keep up the good faith. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Casanovva
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)
Barnstar
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) |
Valerie Hoffman
I want to congratulate you for your good work rescuing Stupid Teenagers Must Die!. Perhaps you might have time to look into another stub article that is currently in discussions and flagged for rescue - Valerie Hoffman. This film producer appears to be notable based on the awards that her films have won (at lease as shown on IMDb.com). [5] [6] [7] [8]. Whether or not you want to become involved in this one, I still think you, and the others involved in the rescue, did excellent work on Stupid Teenagers Must Die! Untick (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Heads up. Her partner is Simone Sheffield, who has also been sent to AfD. Untick (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
for expansion & dky
Someone you might find interesting: Harry Harris (director). Bongomatic 05:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Starting new articles in user space by default
Sorry that I haven't been more proactive on this. Ikip has raised it on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page, so I've replied with my thoughts so far. Would be good if you could get involved too—I still want to go ahead with the idea but I'd like it to be in a good shape before it gets proposed publicly at the village pump. - Pointillist (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am just glad that this is being seriously considered. Rapid tagging for speedy or for AfD is one way wiki discourages new editors. Making the initial efforts user-friendly will do wonders for bringing fresh blood and new ideas to wiki. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm relieved that Ikip stirred things up, frankly, as I was probably in danger of staring too deeply into my navel about the details. But I do think we have to think things through properly or there will be yet another inconclusive discussion. Looks like copyvio in user space is the first major hurdle - I've replied on the talk page. - Pointillist (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Are you going to continue working on this page? There still isn't reliable sources for virtually any of it. It's looking like an AfD candidate to me, personally. — raeky (talk | edits) 12:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. I have more to do. Have had only limited internet the last couple days... on a borrowed mactop with poor connectivity... while working a desert film shoot. KInda irksome. The article has a lot of fluff still to be removed, and a matter of having the several hours of decent web service to do a nice search. Being away from civilisation can be a annoyance at times. Revisit it next week and maybe we'll both be surprised. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- And your patience is appreciated, as I have been involved in several off-wiki projects and a few on-wiki dicussions that eat at my limited time. I'll get to more work on it this afternoon. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey MQS, care to weigh in on this matter? Are you a bacon lover at all? Drmies (talk) 04:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Why are some entries to the filmography referenced and others not? That's really the only problem I can see. It's an interesting person covered in such a wide variety of media he easily meets WP:GNG. - Mgm|(talk) 08:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well... I have this shadow on wikipedia watching my every edit who would look at a filmology and might remove something if unsourced. I can either source them all or none. What is the best way to go? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you." Anyway, the project would be a better place if—for whatever reason—people wrote more articles like this one. Bongomatic 10:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Looks pretty good, MQS, and I'll chime in with MGM (on both points). I've made a few copy edits (and one or two stylistic ones--your "shadow" might object to an unsourced "whimsically"), tweaked titles in the references, corrected a hyperlink here and there, and italicized a couple of titles. Good work! Drmies (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- I was worried about the "whimsically" as well. And that you for catching the typos that Franamx missed. Usually he's quite good at such, and never hesitates to "school" me on my refs (chuckle). I appreciate your other tweaks and am grateful. I think its time to set it loose. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- (Unsolicited suggestion) I thought that the "graduate of the University of South Carolina" should be moved from the lead sentence to the biography section. He isn't known for where he went to school, he is know for his Lewis Grizzard portrayals and (at least in my opinion) that should be the first sentance. The biography section could be expanded (and probably will once it is moved).--kelapstick (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Superb suggestion. I am actually in process of moving it to biography and adding birthplace. Thank you for speaking up. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- (Unsolicited suggestion) I thought that the "graduate of the University of South Carolina" should be moved from the lead sentence to the biography section. He isn't known for where he went to school, he is know for his Lewis Grizzard portrayals and (at least in my opinion) that should be the first sentance. The biography section could be expanded (and probably will once it is moved).--kelapstick (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- I was worried about the "whimsically" as well. And that you for catching the typos that Franamx missed. Usually he's quite good at such, and never hesitates to "school" me on my refs (chuckle). I appreciate your other tweaks and am grateful. I think its time to set it loose. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Looks pretty good, MQS, and I'll chime in with MGM (on both points). I've made a few copy edits (and one or two stylistic ones--your "shadow" might object to an unsourced "whimsically"), tweaked titles in the references, corrected a hyperlink here and there, and italicized a couple of titles. Good work! Drmies (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you." Anyway, the project would be a better place if—for whatever reason—people wrote more articles like this one. Bongomatic 10:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Turtles Are Surprisingly Fast Swimmers
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)
Reliable sources
Hi. Michael. First, thanks for taking an interest in the TOMS Shoes article. You made plenty of good edits. However, you need to be careful with the references you add. Especially in the case of a dispute like this where the main allegations by the opposers is that it is self-promotion and that the sources themselves are only promoting spam. I could have foreseen the reaction from the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TOMS SHOES (2nd nomination) nominator after you added this and this as references. These aren't legitimate reliable sources because they are self-published and serve only to promote the organization. (And, worse yet, they only feed the complaints by the opposers to the article). I just noticed you added this ref -- this is also an illegimate source because it is simply a press release. (Notice that it is written by Allison Dominguez of TOMS Shoes, and the url address mentions it's a press release). I'll remove it. Also, the addition of this obscure source isn't needed. There are already so many great refs like Time, CNN, Forbes, Fortune, etc. that it isn't necessary to add lightweight ones. I'll replace it with the Time magazine ref which has the same info. I say go with the big guns when you got 'em. Cheers. — CactusWriter | needles 08:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, and thanks for the barnstar. That was very cool. — CactusWriter | needles 08:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The section on charities is about the charity... which I felt needed to be made stronger. No doubt that it is an aentirely different one than when it returned. Good job to all of us... including the nominator. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Definitely, the charity stuff should be made stronger. I would like to see actual data about the company (sales figures, staff numbers etc.), more emphasis on social entrepreneurship (since that is the crux of the notability)-- and the shoes are distributed by the charity Friends of TOMS -- you know it, I know it, everybody knows it -- unfortunately, I have yet to find an independent RS that specifically states it. But it will turn up, eventually. In the meantime, you are right, the article is much improved and there shouldn't be any push for deletion again. Thanks again for your input. — CactusWriter | needles 10:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well.... even guideline allows SPS for non-contentious facts if not being used to source notability. And since notability has already been well established in multiple RS, a limited use of SPS for the non-notable factoids should be okay per guideline. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. In the case of non-controversial statements, the occasional SPS is no problem -- and there's not an encyclopedia anywhere which requires that every sentence has an in-line citation. Some things can simply be reasoned. But sometimes around WP... ah, well... I've been doing editing over at L. Ron Hubbard, I don't know how I ended up over there, but that it a shit storm of referencing battles. It reminds me of one of the funnier statements I've seen here. I can't remember which user page I saw this on but it read,
- My general impression of Wikipedia: The human hand has five fingers [citation needed]. — CactusWriter | needles 19:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well.... even guideline allows SPS for non-contentious facts if not being used to source notability. And since notability has already been well established in multiple RS, a limited use of SPS for the non-notable factoids should be okay per guideline. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Moved from userpage to talk page
Dear Michael, I am enlisting your help. I would appreciate your assistance. I am E. Joyce Moore, a writer and a member of the Chicago Film Producers Alliance. I have a new role as public relations for the organization and as a part of that, wanted to pursue the inclusion of our organization in Wikipedia. While some of the material in the article is similar to the original, it is definitely not the same and addresses your initial concern and I quote: The result was delete without bias as the article does not establish notability as per WP:GROUP. Kralizec! (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC) I have corrected the article accordingly and welcome you to advise me of any other concerns you may have. Would you please provide your objective opinion.
Kind regards, E. Joyce Moore--Guvnur (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
CFPA
I've moved the article to User:Guvnur/sandbox/Chicago Film Producers Alliance rather than simply deleting it. After reading all of the drama tied up with this article in the last few months, I can only say good luck, we're all counting on you. - Dravecky (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like Dravecky beat me to the punch! Sorry I was not able to take care of your request sooner. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do for you. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with File:Hot Rod Girls Save the World .jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Hot Rod Girls Save the World .jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}
(to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Photo
I'm not sure on the photo copyright notice. I passed it on to User talk:Ncmvocalist who I think deals with photos. Have a great weekend. I hope my being utterly unhelpful won't deter you from visiting me in future. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- I was just going to add {{Non-free poster}} but it looks like you got there first? After all that work! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hey. I have got to learn my away around that section sometime... just figured it out after I asked the question. If I fix an article about a film, being able to include the film poster should be a requirement. :) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, illustrations and pictures are essential. I've missed working with you as our paths haven't crossed in some time. And this despite my spending altogether too much time on here of late. :) It seems I've caused a bit of a fuss. How are things going for you offline? Maybe drop me a note if there's blog or something I can keep up to date. And make sure to take care of yourself. Thanks for being you. And thank you kindly for the barnstar. You are an inspiration to us all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hey. I have got to learn my away around that section sometime... just figured it out after I asked the question. If I fix an article about a film, being able to include the film poster should be a requirement. :) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Re: Nora Samosir
From User talk:Jennavecia#Nora Samosir
- Oh my... Michael, you really surprise me with this choice of editing on Nora Samosir, she's quite a talented individual in the local stage/acting scene of Singapore. Maybe I could give you a hand? Provided I'm not too busy with my company's big planes (it's the Airbus 380 if you wanna know), okay? -- Dave1185 (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Dave. I suppose when I see something nominated for deletion, I dig just a bit harder. This time, I struck gold, as I simply could not even begin to think someone with her history would have been written about somewheres. A perceived problem with the article is it listing EVERYTHING she ever did, and for whom, and where... and that is simply not required. Perhaps you might advise on the list which ones seem of particular note (I have already sourced several). I would like to then trim it to a partial list that shows some but not all. Do you know if she has an oficial website? And can you find RS that confirm her television and film? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Happy Easter!
On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Bongomatic 12:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Move
I have moved User MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Nora Samosir theater and television to User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Nora Samosir theater and television. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)