MichaelQSchmidt (talk | contribs) →Stole your userbox: cool |
Ron Ritzman (talk | contribs) m →Talkback: new section |
||
Line 209: | Line 209: | ||
:Honored to have been of help. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<font color="blue">Schmidt,</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|<sup><small>MICHAEL Q.</small></sup>]]'' |
:Honored to have been of help. '''[[User:MichaelQSchmidt|<font color="blue">Schmidt,</font>]]''' ''[[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|<sup><small>MICHAEL Q.</small></sup>]]'' |
||
== Talkback == |
|||
{{talkback|Ron Ritzman|Liam_Tulley_.28actor.29|ts=01:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)}} |
|||
[[User:Ron Ritzman|Ron Ritzman]] ([[User talk:Ron Ritzman|talk]]) 01:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:30, 22 April 2010
Template:Archive box collapsible
Re: Flutter AfD and Incubation
No problem, I withdrew the AfD, but apparently once you place the AfD tag on the article, there's no turning back, unless the majority of !votes are "Keep". I now understand that incubation requires a deletion, but if other !votes are "Delete" instead of "Incubation", you're still able to incubate for a period of time and then return it, right?
- If the lone delete vote agrees to an incubate, any non-involved editor could then close the AFD and move to incubation, or even now with your nominator's withdrawal, any non-involved admin could see that the one delete was based on the good faith error of thinking the film was still in pre-production and thus close and send to incubation as a result best serving the project. But if deleted it would then require an admin to undelete and send to incubation. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
You do a lot of work on film articles... what about this?
[1] Every decade has its own films in that decade page, listing notable things that happened that year. I don't pay attention to films, but you always seem to in the AFDs. Any suggestions on what to feel that article with? 2010s_in_film Previously it was just a redirect to 2011 and beyond, skipping the year 2010 entirely, which made no sense at all. Dream Focus 02:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Your reversion appears proper and in line with established precedent, as each decade in the varrious "XXXX in film" articles are all seen to begin with the decade number ending in "zero"... 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, etc. The article for films of the 2010 decade, per established precedent, must begin with 2010. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I've just done a complete rewrite of the above article following the format you used in Pro and Con. If you have time to review/improve/complete my changes I would be very grateful. (This page is now on my watch list if you prefer to reply here).
(Both articles are on films by Joanna Priestley and the original version of both articles appears to have been a copy/paste job from Joanna's company website Priestly Motion Pictures by User:Joannapo. The articles created by this user are all on Joanna Priesley's films. I leave you to draw the inference! The articles are in varying states of repair).
Cje (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Always best to immediately address any copyvio, as you did. Good job. Now do some g-news searches using film name, or film name+writer, or film name+production company... etc. Find some articles and reviews in reliable sources to help lock notability. Also check the websites of the various festivals where it was nominated or awarded and cite the awards too. It always best to give an article as strong a sourcing as possible. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 01:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
DES (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 20:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
DES (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I'm looking to wrap things up soon; poke, poke. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Jami Floyd's Page
Hello Michael!
I was referred over by NuclearWarfare with an inquiry about why my page has been "deleted."
He explained all the reasons why a page is flagged by editors for sourcing. All so fascinating for me as someone who didn't know much about how Wikipedia was edited or maintained.
I did not post the original "Jami Floyd" page but noticed it was down and asked NuclearWarfare all about it.
I was so surprised and flattered to have a page at all; and I would like to help get it back up, for professional and personal reasons.
What can I do to help you source it? Unfortunately, I do not know any of the original posters. But I can refer you to many independent sources, if that is helpful...?
Thank you for this and most of all for Wikipedia, in general. It is truly amazing for me as a reporter and for my children as students.
No rush on my page, btw. I will make sure to Watch your page so you can just get to it when you get to it. I am sure you have many other better things to worry about. Nice to meet you, here and on FaceBook.
Best,
Jami Floyd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floydjami (talk • contribs) 15:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Jami. First off, remember to sign your comments by using the four tildes "~~~~" which will automatically date and sign for you.
- I has asked that the page be moved to my userspace because I feel it has the potential for return. I note that yes... you did not write it, and during its existance for 4 years and with it being editing by dozens of other contributors, you edited it yourself only back on December 3 of 2007.... three years ago... and never again since then... and that's for the good, as even the slightest perception of self-promotion is not well received, even if not strictly prohibited.
- The reason it was reviewed after so long is because there has been concern at Wikipedia about a large and growing number of articles about living persons (WP:BLP) that are/were either unsourced or improperly sourced. Articles about living persons have a potential for harm, and informations contained within them must be well-cited to reliable sources outside of Wikiedia. So those that were lacking then became subject to greater scrutiny by the volunteers of the Wikipedia community. Many were deleted outright, and many were sent to a 7-day deletion discussion to determine if they should stay or go. That's where the Jami Floyd article went. It was discussed over a period of several days and found lacking by a majority of the few who discussed it. It was then deleted. However, as one of those who argued and belived that it had potential for improvement, I requested it be userfied to me in a workspace where I might send time improving it. And that where we are today.
- Now hopefully, you have spent some time studying User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Newcomer's guide to guidelines. You will see that your being concerned about an article about yourself is understandable, but that it is far preferred that you do not edit it yourself, and so leave it to others who do not have any possible conflict of interest.
- So to answer your offer above, yes... please feel free to send me links to the sources that speak about the Jami Floyd career and awards. The more reliable the source, the better. The more in-depth the report, the better. I can review them for suitability for Wikipedia and include them as sources as I rewrite the article. You may post them here, or email them to me. Above and to the left of this screen there is a link that says "E-mail this user" Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Shin splints
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
-Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Articles for deletion
I start my reason for deletion with a bold delete because I don't propose things for deletion that I am ambivalent about. I notice that some commentators, particularly those new to those discussions, seem not to have read the initial statement. Starting it with a bold delete encourages them to read it as part of the discussion, and not to ignore it as part of the header. --Bejnar (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- I understand your reasoning, but as I stated, a nominator's deletion opinion is inherent in the nomination itself and the reasons should be then included within the nomination itself as is done in the majority of AFDs per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, rather than as a separate !vote. This is so as to not give the possible impression of two delete !votes. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- Decisions about deletion are not votes, but are based upon the quality of the reasons given, so there is no harm. --Bejnar (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- So why make it appear that you are giving them twice? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 13:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Decisions about deletion are not votes, but are based upon the quality of the reasons given, so there is no harm. --Bejnar (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know what AFD you two are talking about, but you don't need to list delete twice. Administrators that close AFDs usually do so with just a glance. Rough consensus is done by seeing how many people favor things one way or the other. I recall a recent AFD where a new person wrote in bold Keep before each reply they made to someone's comment, and someone had to explain to them you only were suppose to do it once, and then deleted the extra ones. There should be an actual rule listed somewhere. Also, if you are concerned about someone not reading the statement of the nominator, relax, the closing administrator I believe will, and that the person making the decision. Dream Focus 06:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- If admins are closing discussions by doing a glance and are judging consensus by seeing how many people favor things one way or another, they are not doing their jobs. Woogee (talk) 06:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- Wiki-markup does not form a substantive portion of the discussion in any case. A good admin will start reading from where the bold-italics-underline most-super-strong-ever part ends. Bolding just helps to demarcate individual thoughts. Franamax (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
- It was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ainsley Earhardt. Some hours after my March 30 reply the nominator above, I struck my comment at the AFD. Any possible perception of the nominator's emboldened Delete being seen as a second !vote, is only "a possibility"... and not a certainty. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help
Michael, I really want to thank you for the work you're doing on the Brian Sterling-Vete page.
I put the page up initially, and I can see that I, as a newbie, have a LOT to learn. Your changes have made a huge difference to the readability and credibility of the page.
I see that you have added a lot of references, and I really appreciate that. I have a few more online references that I'll be adding too. One of my challenges is that some of the attributions I have are not on the internet, and therefore can't really be used, I'm assuming. I have .jpg images of titles, certificates, world records and the like, but anyone with Photoshop can make those, so I haven't used them. I don't know if there is some way to use these things.
Again, your help has been amazing, and I really appreciate all your hard work. I'm hoping we can get the article approved to keep soon.
Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!
24.118.46.1 (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- The page still has issues... but they can be addresed through regular editing. And it is not neccessary to include everything the man has ever done, as this makes the article seem too "busy" and full of trivia. So proper organization of the information is always important... and remember, proffered information that cannot be reliably cited is likely to be removed. I'd like to see more references and quotes about how others have recognized his works... perhaps in a "recognition" section. Don't be discouraged and keep up the good work. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Films March 2010 Newsletter
The March 2010 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) 03:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Libel against you
Hi, I notified Keepscaces about a potentially libelous claim that he made in your recent RFA. He had claimed that you flirted online with a girl who said she was underaged, but this was completely false. I asked Keepscases to publicly retract that claim because it bordered on character assassination. I haven't got a reply yet, but I'm just letting you know. Thanks.--75.23.33.194 (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- The RFA is closed. It is extremely unlikely that he will retract the mis-statement. The claim on the "female" editor's userpage asserted an individual of legal age, not a minor... and shared that (s)he was a adult artist interested in bodypainting. The entire limited coversation of January 18 is here. After later discussions at an ANI, the editor was determined to be a sockpuppet of User:John254 and subsequently blocked per WP:DUCK on January 27, 2009... 10 busy days after my brief exchange. So... though I did my best to be polite to a (presumed) newcomer and properly assumed good faith in what the editor asserted, I discovered the danger of having followed that guideline in cases where someone is later declared an enemy or the project. Anyone ever courteous or polite to this (supposedly new) editor... and there were more than a few... is now on the list of editors and Admins that may forever be accused of being irresponsible and easy-to-dupe. It turned out to be a no-win situation, and further underscores the encouraged anonymity of Wikipedia. When anyone responds anytime to any anonymous editor, they can never know for absolute certainty if the editor is male or female... or if the editor is 18 or 108. Because of cases exactly like this, and specially since the project includes topics and links to sites completely unsuitable for minors, there will come a time where Wikipedia will be forced to mandate some sort of adult-check and user registration... for both current and newcomming editors. Until that time, all one can do is remain polite and hope not to get caught up in someone else's campaign of deception. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- So much for WP:AGF... — BQZip01 — talk 22:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Bcause of the courtesies shown me by many when I was myself new, I decided to remain and be productive. Had I let myself be chased off by rudeness and incivility,due to my then lack-of-understanding... as are too many newcomers, there are, as of this date, some 230 articles that might not have been improved to serve the project and some 22 that might never have been written. No small wonder why I choose to believe the best in someone and continue trying to help newcomers become productive. That it bit me in the butt back in January of 2009, or that minor errors made as I continue to learn these pages, might be used as a bludgeon by some, is no reason for me to stop being courteous and helpful. BQ... thanks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- HUA! — BQZip01 — talk 04:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Bcause of the courtesies shown me by many when I was myself new, I decided to remain and be productive. Had I let myself be chased off by rudeness and incivility,due to my then lack-of-understanding... as are too many newcomers, there are, as of this date, some 230 articles that might not have been improved to serve the project and some 22 that might never have been written. No small wonder why I choose to believe the best in someone and continue trying to help newcomers become productive. That it bit me in the butt back in January of 2009, or that minor errors made as I continue to learn these pages, might be used as a bludgeon by some, is no reason for me to stop being courteous and helpful. BQ... thanks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- So much for WP:AGF... — BQZip01 — talk 22:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
AFD
Hi, thanks for the note on my talkpage. I noticed that the other article I nominated for deletion at the same time, Scott Hilley, was eventually deleted while you were working on it. Give me a shout if you'd like it userfied. Thanks, Black Kite 19:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Survey on quality control policies
As part of a project funded by the European Commission (QLectives), we are collecting and analysing data to study quality control mechanisms and inclusion/deletion policies in Wikipedia. According to our records, you participated in a large number of AfD. We are currently soliciting editors with a long record of participation in AfD discussions to send us their feedback via a very informal survey.
The survey takes less than 5 minutes and is available at this URL. Should you have any questions about this project, feel free to get in touch.
Thanks for your help! --DarTar (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Robert Kovacik Page
On the Robert Kovacik Page, I believe the issues in question have been answered, what are the next steps for removing the messages at the top of the article? Thanks, Tgarrett24 (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- When the deletion discussion is closed, many of those tags will be addressed. Just be a bit patient and worry not. And to let you know... one of the notices on your talk page invited you to comment at the deletion discussion. As the article author your opinion is as worthy as anyone's. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your kindness
for fixing up the Vamps article looks awesome!!! wow! even better Pumkinhead001 (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
For all your hard work
Here have a warm puppy!
Pumkinhead001 (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I think I'm back now
As you probably noticed, I've been mostly inactive this entire year. :( However, I think I am starting to get back into things fairly consistently now. If you are still interested, I'd be happy to continue the admin coaching from ages ago. Let me know, ThaddeusB-public (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- I was unaware of the RfA (obviously, or I would have supported). Skimming through it, the vast majority of the opposes were of the "ZOMG INCLUSIONIST!" nature it seems. That will be difficult to overcome, and after that I'm sure you have no plans to run anytime soon.
- That said, I will be glad to write up some more lessons in the near future. One of the things I'd do is write up a number of hypothetical AfDs, since your potential closes are obviously the main source of concern. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Barnstar
Thanks a lot! ^_^ You're also quite amazing for taking the time to work them into the article. I've seen your work elsewhere as well. You are an inspiration for all ARS members. SilverserenC 05:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- You're quite welcome. I figured it was best to be preemptive and incorporate them rather than allow anyone to squawk about a WP:Linkfarm. My personal moto: I'd rather fix the damn pipe than complain about having wet feet. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
an AFD you participated in is up for deletion review
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Tim_Marriott Dream Focus 04:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting. The AFD ran 8 days and I find no flaw in the good faith closure. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Icon Group books
Just a note that Icon Group books are not reliable. [2] Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
ANI
Hi, Michael. I've mentioned you in a thread on ANI and figured I should ping you.
It's me supporting bulleted lists in filmographies after your comment. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yikes. I worry about even being "mentioned".... as I have scrupulously avoided being the subject of any such. Thanks for the heads-up. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
WT:ACTOR 2
I wrote a comment about how to approach lists and tables. See discussion here. Please overlook the heated exchange before my comment. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Stole your userbox
I just stole your userbox format style, I hope you don't mind. :3 The up and down ones work much better than trying to place them side by side, they get all weird. I still have a huge space on my userpage, but maybe I can fill that with an About Me section or something. But that's enough for tonight. SilverserenC 07:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
- Honored to have been of help. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
Talkback
Message added 01:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)