Template:Archive box collapsible
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! |
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) |
The Barnstar of Recovery
![]() |
The Barnstar of Recovery | |
Thanks for the help rescuing and improving Jim Brandstatter TomCat4680 (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC) |
Thank you
Hi Michael Schmidt, I just want to say thank you for your help with fixing references of the Wołów bank robbery article. I appreciate you help. Tymek (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Barry Snowdon - good job
Good work on the clean up. Not sure how the AFD will fare but at least it is now in a position as an article to be judged more fairly. Pedro : Chat 22:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Quite welcome. I have to leave now to go to work (real world) but will continue in a few hours (short day). MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
FYI, I just added 5 more sources to the AfD (two are primary) that can be used to build the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Make that 7, bringing the total to 20. If I included all the other local stories I skipped we'd be at 30+ sources available. Granted they all say pretty much the same thing (plus or minus some details), but that isn't the point. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Add 'em to the list on the article's talk page. I'll be working on it tomorrow. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 09:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I know you like to "save" the movie articles, so I thought you might be interested in Black Noon. The article is currently PRODed and I didn't really find much so left the tag in tact. If it is deleted before you see it, the article consisted of one while sentence: "Black Noon is an American television movie directed by Bernard L. Kowalski and broadcast in 1971 by ABC as a segment of its Movie of the Week series."
If you decide to write a proper article and use that sentence, make sure to have it WP:UNDELETEd.
Also, that you for the vote of support on my RfA. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- IMDb list 1 external review: TerrorTrap.com - no idea if that is a notable source or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- AllMovie gives it 3 stars, but only offers a plot synopsis - no formal review. It just occurred to me that since it aired on a major network, it is presumably notable per WP:OUTCOMES. The idea being that there are bound to be contemporary coverage in newspapers that are not available online. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- With its re-airings 1972 through 1978 and later commercial re-release on DVD, it meets WP:NF, even without multiple reviews online. The cast itself kind of surprised me. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- I now have you back on my watchlist for a different post; but I just checked Gbooks - the movie aired on TV in 1981 and in 1982, has a wee bit of a mention here and in this the asterisk leads to a mention about the excessive dark photography. cheers -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 03:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent. There will be quibbles anout it being a "TV Movie", but being re-aired 10 and 11 years later are further note of "commercal re-release more than 5 years after it's intial release. Nice. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- With its re-airings 1972 through 1978 and later commercial re-release on DVD, it meets WP:NF, even without multiple reviews online. The cast itself kind of surprised me. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Michael, I started the Black Noon page, can't have a film like that disappear! Thank you for your correction -- --keithy BX (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Mr. Schmidt
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
This is to thank you for bringing National Fibromyalgia Association to Wikipedia. I am very impressed with your work on this article. Keep up your fine work! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC) |
Your comments welcome
Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. [[1]] Thanks, Smatprt (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism fight
Hi MIKE, VASCO here, longtime no "see",
I knew it would happen man, this vandal i two or three times have discussed with you, User:Pararubbas, has this account which went unblocked, Edc018. In the last few months, he had the custom of opening two at a time, and maybe this went unnoticed, even though i notified User:EdJohnston. I imagine the vandal's surprise when he found out he had no need to open a new sock, because this one was still available.
He immediately started to contribute, gluing all sentences at F.C. Paços de Ferreira (here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=F.C._Pa%C3%A7os_de_Ferreira&diff=next&oldid=303911157, anon) and Rui Bento (here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rui_Bento&diff=303746064&oldid=300668721) - i already reverted - and be sure, he will remove player infobox stuff if he is "given the chance" (latest "contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Edc018). He has worked anon for the vast majority of the last months, with a neverending supply of IP. Look what he wrote, here as anon, in same ball club (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=F.C._Pa%C3%A7os_de_Ferreira&diff=prev&oldid=303948228). Are these "people" needed here?
Have also sent this message to Satori Son and Ed, whom have greatly helped dealing with this issues (and this "person" in particular). Only reason i'm doing this (i'm sorry if this causes any inconvenience) is because i need help urgently and (at least) Ed is on a wikibreak and Satori is only a parttime editor here, so i don't know what to do, man. Checkuser is done, but "user" is still unblocked.
Attentively, VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
DYK for National Fibromyalgia Association
BorgQueen (talk) 06:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
BQ
I have added my 2 cents to your statement. We need to get the page protection fixed. It is at the wrong version. If only they would look at the history and see what the right thing to do is. Isn't there someway to have this looked at by others. It seems like we are being ignored? Disgstngfatbdy (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
List of actors who have played animated characters
The AfD was closed 'no consensus' here, challenged by Powers here, reopened here and closed Delete here. King of Hearts caved in to Powers like a December Jack-o-Lantern. The argument that the AfD should be reopened to allow an editor to insert a last comment is unworkable and unsound. AfD closed, X requests the right to comment, AfD reopened, X adds a final comment, AfD closed, Y requests... When the second closure is considered, it's also having it both ways. Either one believes that it should have been opened to allow comments from Powers, and it shouldn't have been closed before replies to Powers could be addressed, or one believes as I do that it shouldn't have been re-opened for a user to get the last word in the first place.
My comments on User talk: King of Hearts for more on this. (much the same sent to DGG) Anarchangel (talk) 03:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I just dePRODed Silip: Daughters of Eve as it appears to be a notable horror film. I did such very basic cleanup and such, but it needs work. Feel free to help if you like. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Began with a bit of copyedit and sourcing. Found that it had commercial re-release on DVD 23 years after original release. MichaelQSchmidt (talk)
- Feel free to move to Silip if you think that title is better - I just created that as a redirect earlier today... although I see just now that there is another Silip which also appears to be notable, so maybe best to keep the main Silip page unused for now. [2] might prove useful for expansion on this Silip, as there are several quality reviews to choose from. According to Amazon the defunct VHS-survivors.com said "If there were a prize for wildest film of all time, I'm pretty sure this one would win" - it might be nice to find their full review somewhere. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Found DVD Talk. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Feel free to move to Silip if you think that title is better - I just created that as a redirect earlier today... although I see just now that there is another Silip which also appears to be notable, so maybe best to keep the main Silip page unused for now. [2] might prove useful for expansion on this Silip, as there are several quality reviews to choose from. According to Amazon the defunct VHS-survivors.com said "If there were a prize for wildest film of all time, I'm pretty sure this one would win" - it might be nice to find their full review somewhere. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
RFC discussion of User:RetroS1mone
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of RetroS1mone (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RetroS1moneTemplate:Highrfc-loop]]. -- RobinHood70 (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to take a moment to delivery a personal thank you (not "thank spam" :)) for your involvement in my RfA. (It passed 117-2-7 in case you hadn't seen.) I have long found your article saving work to be amazing and was an honor to have your support. I also appreciated your attempts to defend me over the Barry Snowdon rescue tag thing (and also for cleaning up the actual article). I know there would be questions about your occasional biteyness if you ever ran for adminship, but you would certain have my support. In any case, if you ever need an admin assistance (such as copies of deleted articles) let me know and I will be glad to help. There is no one I'd trust more to save an otherwise hopeless article than you.
Thanks again, ThaddeusB (talk) 05:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I don't know if you're interested in a preemptive rescue. This article was prodded as it isn't based on reliable sources. I deprodded. Unless it can be sourced better the prodder will probably send it to Articles for Deletion. Some rewriting based on reliable sources wouldn't go amiss; I'm struggling with finding sources focussing on this aspect of the Terminatorverse. Fences&Windows 19:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- The best choice might be to pre-emptively suggest various sections of plot description be merged into their various related articles, else as you rightly figure, the original prodder might just slap the whole thing into AfD and get it deleted. As a seperate term, I honestly do not believe you will find enough independent notability to save it, IMHO. A good start to stave off the inevitable AfD is to officially begin merge discussions on the article's talk page to make it a team effort. Thus saving the content and putting the pieces in the places where they have context and sourcing. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Films July 2009 Newsletter
The July 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) 01:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Irbisgreif (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Irbisgreif (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I just deproded Maple Palm. There isn't much there currently, but the film is notable. (Reviewed by LA Times for example.) Seems to be a pretty horrid movie (1.4 imdb rating), but I figured you'd be interested. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Another de-prodded film for you. There is a fair bit of info around - mostly about how bad it is - but it also appears to be a bit of a cult classic. IMDb lists it as an 1983 movie, but it appears it was actually 1979 with a re-release in 1983. (Amazon & Allmovie list the date as 1979 & IMDb's accuracy isn't the greatest.) I would suggest moving it to Skullduggery (1979 film) with a redirect from the 1983 title.
Plot summary from Allmovie. A few reviews are around, including this extensive one and this extensive one. IMDb lists about 5 others. Film was distributed internationally as Warlock and possibly also Blood Puzzle. Enjoy! ThaddeusB (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
A barnstar for the man with a barn full of them :)
![]() |
The Horror Barnstar | |
For saving numerous horror film related articles from deletion, and otherwise greatly improving Wikipedia's coverage of film, I hereby award you this barnstar. Congratulations and keep up the great work! ThaddeusB (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC) |
Figured you had enough article rescue and film ones, so I found a seldom used one instead. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- There are gobs of seldom used barnstars on Wikipedia:Personal user awards. Looks like this one has only been given a dozen or so times --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Take a look at this actor & let me know if you think he's notable. Has a ton of bit parts with a few somewhat more significant roles mixed in there. Not sure if he has enough for inclusion or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'd say he was. Started in theatre. Is covered in news [3], a few books [4], and among his rather long television career, was recurring in at leat 3 different British soaps. He meets WP:ENT. The article is a mess though. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi MQS. I've created a stub for the above-captioned film, which may already meet notability guidelines (or may not), but will certainly do so soon, in any case. Care to have a look? Bongomatic 02:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Honored. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- You've created one of those rarely found exceptions to WP:NFF. Nice job. Crystal does not apply since it has finished principal filming and is completing edit. Its coverage of a notable person through interviews of other notables give it the coverage that meets the WP:GNG... and with the (very sad) loss of Hughes, this documentary will now become one of the hottest properties of the year... and it is plain common sense that this is an instance where continued and extended coverage in RS is a certainty. I gave it a few minor tweaks and added a couple more sources. Modify if you wish. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Tweaked a little grammar. Thanks for fixing my template, and making the obvious connection to the song that I left out for who knows why.Bongomatic 07:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Forest for trees perhaps? Watch that little guy grow over the next few months. Nice job. MichaelQSchmidt (talk)
- Yes, on its way, thanks to your help. Bongomatic 07:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Forest for trees perhaps? Watch that little guy grow over the next few months. Nice job. MichaelQSchmidt (talk)
- Thanks. Tweaked a little grammar. Thanks for fixing my template, and making the obvious connection to the song that I left out for who knows why.Bongomatic 07:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- You've created one of those rarely found exceptions to WP:NFF. Nice job. Crystal does not apply since it has finished principal filming and is completing edit. Its coverage of a notable person through interviews of other notables give it the coverage that meets the WP:GNG... and with the (very sad) loss of Hughes, this documentary will now become one of the hottest properties of the year... and it is plain common sense that this is an instance where continued and extended coverage in RS is a certainty. I gave it a few minor tweaks and added a couple more sources. Modify if you wish. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Dead In The Water
I got another PROD save for you to take a look - Dead In The Water. Article contains a massively plot summary, an info box, and not much else. It won big at New York International Independent Film and Video Festival (I added that fact to the article) and has been reviewed by a few RS: [5], so notability shouldn't be an issue.
If you are so inclined, it is waiting for your magic touch. ;) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- On it now. Have just trimmed away a horribly lengthy plot section. Despite claims to the contrary some of the reviews on IMDB are from respected and quoted reviewers. Working. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yah, I know they are reputable. I was surprised to see it immediately go to AfD, but it appears Collectonian has, as you would say, "a bee in his bonnet" today. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. I under covered a few more RS that aren't listed at imdb - they are in the AfD in case you hadn't seen. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'll look in. Collectonian does great work and I like her contributions. Before adding the reviews I have so far done, I went and checked on the background of the authors of the reviews and included that in my edit summary. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Portal vs Project
Just a minor note, but when you do these[6] edits, you are adding a project banner, not a portal. Portals are very different :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you. WOuld a beter summary then be "project tag"? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yep :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Patricia Lake
WP:DYK 20:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure on notability. But thought you might care to have a look. Cheerios. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
And checking out your work on sauerkraut candy is on my to-do list. I'm looking forward to it. But you know how one thing leads to another and it's easy to be side-tracked. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The Inherited- nice
thanks for cleaning/expaning this article
Re :Inherited
It does not seem to be deleted.Tim1357 (talk) 03:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- oh i see, you have tagged it for deletionTim1357 (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- No, I was not the one to tag it for deletion. I was referring to the current discussion about it possibly being deleted, and what steps might be taken to save the information. It was tagged for deletion by User:Joe Chill. Sorry, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
[Trans (film)]
I appreciate you offering to help with the Trans (film) article. This was my first article and I'm too proud of it to have it deleted! I agree the plot summary was too long. I looked at other film's plot summaries and they were around 500-650 words. My summary for "Trans" was about 850, but I though it'd pass inspection!! Timothyapetty (talk) 09:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Are there any tips you can give me on cleaning up the plot summary section other than just shortening it?
- Well... yes... but it will require shortening it too. A plot summary should be just that: a summary. It should not include such great detail. Curently it reads like a film treatment, and essentially recites the film's story. Let me take a good look and get back to you with specifics. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. The edits you have made so far have are a real improvement. Timothyapetty (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Re: A question...
I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. decltype (talk) 05:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Also, please don't tell me you are planning to become a full-time vandal fighter. The other work you do is far more valuable. Regards, decltype (talk) 05:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yikes! Gosh no. Just thought it might make life a little easier for thos few times I might need it. Thanks, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Twinkle and Friendly are even more useful (and include rollback in three forms, better yet), in case you don't have them activated. Bongomatic 06:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- More nice tools. Time for study. Thanks all. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Twinkle and Friendly are even more useful (and include rollback in three forms, better yet), in case you don't have them activated. Bongomatic 06:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yikes! Gosh no. Just thought it might make life a little easier for thos few times I might need it. Thanks, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Oooops
I forgot to remove the template from the article when I did the withdrawl. Thanks for catching that. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. Might you check to ensure I did it correctly? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Trans (film) edits
Hey, MQS! I've edited the "Trans" plot summary down quite a bit and I'd like your input if you wouldn't mind.
Thanks again for your help with this article!
Timothyapetty (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Could you take a look
I just dePRODed Don't Be Afraid of The Dark although the film isn't scheduled to be out until 2011 it likely to pass WP:N. Apparently Katie Holmes was in an on-set accident that has generated a good deal of coverage. (see [7]) There is also some additional coverage of the movie. The film is based on Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (1973 film) and the article is actually duplicate of Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011 film). Could you take a quick look and let me know what you think?
Assuming it is notable, would you prefer I merge the two copies together or move the large one over the top of the small one? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Both of these fellows had their pages deleted via PROD today. In both cases the article consisted of "X is an American television producer and writer" and then a full list of their credits. They seem to always work together and were nominated for a Daytime Emmy for Lizzy McGuire twice (as producers, along with about 4 other producers for the show). That is a pretty weak claim to notability, but probably enough. They are also duelly mentioned in a number of news article. Usually only brief and usually in reference to Lizzie.
So I have several Qs: 1) Do you think they are notable enough? 2) If so, would one article be better than two (since they apparently always work together)? 3) Even if notable, can an article that goes beyond a mere list of credits be made?
LMK what you think, ThaddeusB (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Its always tough to have an article about a writing team, as there is rarely enough about each as an individual to support seperate articles, and editors seem to hate teams. The two are also book authors [8] and may have notability through their juvenile fiction as well as coverage of them as partners. [9]. They would have represented in one article... a team article, as that IS their notability. In other news, do you think improvements here are bringing snow here? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- I plopped it into my userspace under a combined title for now as the article really isn't suitable for mainspace: User:ThaddeusB/Tim Maile and Douglas Tuber. When it goes back to mainspace, I'll create redirects from each of the individual names. That's how I handled Ryan Higa and Sean Fujiyoshi some time ago and no one has complained, including at its landslide AfD keep.
- I'd say the Mike AfD has about a 0.0% chance of editing in delete, but it only has a bit over a day to go so I'll just let it run its course. I wonder, are there really any 1920s movies that are still known to exist that aren't notable? --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
What's your opinion of this...
Hi Michael, I stumbled across this article just now and thought it a prime candidate for a redirect. The choices are to redirect to the film-maker or his filmography. There's a few more films in that filmography that are similar one-line-of-info type articles as well. So my question is - do we redirect to the filmography (and un-wikilink the film in the filmography) or redirect it to the filmmaker? Cheers. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- My thought would be to redireect to the filmmaker's article. This way readers get a much better understanding of his films in context to their creater than they would if the redirect were only to his filmology... and such would allow that they could always then go to the filmography linked from the article. If such time as one of the one-liners can be expanded into a decent stub, allow recreation of a seperate article. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for that Michael, I knew I'd get a logical answer from you! I'll get that done when I have time :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Someone keeps deleting my article
MichaelQSchmidt,
This is cerberusrunning (newbie). Thanks for the tremendous work on the Charles Dennis article.
I put up an article for Kim Eveleth, but someone totally deleted it (I think, since I can't find it.) Will you please explain if you can undelete it, and how to make an article that won't get deleted? I'm working on articles on producers/directors, and put up a template on Kim Eveleth, producer (you can see it on my cerberusrunning/entertainment industry template page.
Also, where do I look on the internet for your answer? Should I check back on this page?
Thanks. cerberusrunning 19:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Your edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cerberusrunning
- I can see that you have indeed been working an an article for her in a workspce User:Cerberusrunning/Kim Eveleth. A word of caution... keep working on it and when you wish to move it main space, just ask. It's easy to do. I have just moved it to a dedicated sandbox for you so it will be less likely to be prodded or deleted as you work on it. See User:Cerberusrunning/sandbox/Kim Eveleth Best regards, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hello, I took a moment to take a look at Kim Eveleth and you are correct that the page you created there was deleted. The reason was that it was just a template:
“ | First Middle Last (born March 99, 9999) is an award-winning American film director, screenwriter, producer, cinematographer and actor... | ” |
DYK nomination of Harvard Beats Yale 29-29
Hello! Your submission of Harvard Beats Yale 29-29 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Allen3 talk 09:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Network television schedules
Hi Michael,
Your input at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Per_station_television_schedules would be greatly appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
It's Complicated
I should've probably made my vote more a Keep & Move rather than just a move; my intention was to keep the article but under the correct name. I apologize if within my vote my intentions weren't clear enough (but as it was kept, it's all moot now :) ). Nate • (chatter) 06:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm just happy that it was worth saving. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter (September 2009)
The Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Content |
![]() |
The Writer's Barnstar | |
This barnstar is awarded to MichaelQSchmidt for his incredible help on the very first Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC) |
Interview
Hi, Michael. Just wanted to let you know I enjoyed your interview at the ARS Newsletter. (I'm not officially a member because I have some difficulty working with large groups... and I've even had as heretical a thought as this: "consensus" can be wrong :) I particularly agree with, "it's important to not forget that growth is the goal of wikipedia and not the bane." The blistering contempt that many users-- and many with some "authority" here-- hold for content-creators has never ceased to amaze me. Vandal-fighting, deletion, rule-making, "drama-tribunals", etc. are all necessary evils at some point. But any editor who makes one of these activities their primary activity here has lost sight of the goal of Wikipedia: to create a free encyclopedia of "the sum of human knowledge". Santayana's definition of "fanaticism" comes to mind. Thanks for the interesting read, and happy editing! Dekkappai (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Dekk, you may find this section of the newsletter facinating. It is journalists' views on wikipedia deletion. You can join the squad and simply rescue articles by adding sources on your own. have you thought of adding the {{ARS/Tagged}} template to your page? To keep updated about those articles which have been tagged for rescue? Also we have already started work on a new newsletter, if you are a member, you will be assured of recieving it (or, if you wish, I can put you on a special list on non-members to recieve the newsletter)
- Best wishes. Ikip (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Ikip. Yes-- that was also interesting and agreeable reading. Thanks for the invitation. I did consider joining at one point-- I may actually have, I'm not sure-- but after doing the AfD work I found it just wasn't for me. I found many articles I could, and did, source and save, but I was frustrated by seeing so many other articles on the chopping block that I couldn't save just due to time constraints... Eventually I became so frustrated I quit Wikipedia for a short time. Since coming back I've decided to stick to my happy little niche, and close my eyes to the AfD boneyards, and that's worked so far. I have been saving some unjustly deleted (I think) articles to a specialist Wiki-like project. (Don't even have to give Wikipedia credit, since that article has been deleted :) Anyway, I admire the work you guys do, but I just don't have the temperament for it. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it was a wonderful interview. Congratulations! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I feel honored to have been the first, as the ARS has many terrific editors. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- You are a role model for all of us Michael.
- Dekk, I have pretty much given up arguing AFDs, I get too emotional. I have quit wikipedia numerous times myself out of shear frustration. Now I am involved with simply building our project, and learning tools to help the project. I want to do so many technical things. Thanks for talking with me. Good to see you again Pastor. Ikip (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ikip, I fully hope to see you adding content as well. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Here's an idea: Next time someone sputters, "B-b-but, if we don't strictly exclude articles on subjects that don't pass our home-made definitions of 'notable', then, we'd have a WHOLE BUNCH of articles!" suggest that we could free up valuable server space for those articles by deleting our Notability definition pages, their corresponding talk pages, and the AfD brouhahas, Deletion reviews, Wikiquette alerts, RfCs, etc., etc., etc. that these subjective standards create... :) Dekkappai (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I feel honored to have been the first, as the ARS has many terrific editors. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The short film No Hair Day was deprodded by Fences and windows today. Though it may be of interest to you. Evidently it was shown on PBS. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- His deprodding was a good one, and he did terrific work with expansion and sourcing. All I could do was pretty it up a bit. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yah, evidently he was working on it as I sent the message. :) I did also deprod a clearly notable Chinese actress - Ng Hui - yesterday. Not sure if you can do anything with that one or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Working on it now. There's enough in English to show notability. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yah, evidently he was working on it as I sent the message. :) I did also deprod a clearly notable Chinese actress - Ng Hui - yesterday. Not sure if you can do anything with that one or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Other...
Thanks MQS for being GOOD. I don't know how to generate a "star" page, so that's the best I can say for now. Cramyourspam (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)CramYourSpam
Another future film for you to take a look at
I just deproded The Wild Bunch (2010 film) as it appears to have already generated plenty of coverage ([10]). I added the fact that it will the first CGI film made is Israel to the article, but it good use some fleshing out if you are up for it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Asperger syndrome
In this edit to Eric Leiser, you added the statement: "Anna has a rare form of autism called Asperger’s Syndrome." This isn't really accurate; first, it's Asperger syndrome, not "Asperger's Syndrome". Asperger syndrome (AS) is indeed an autism spectrum condition. However, while a few researchers think the AS diagnosis should be merged with high-functioning autism, most believe that AS is a distinct condition, separate from classic autism. Also, since there are no clear statistics on how prevalent autism or AS are, there is no factual basis for referring to AS as "rare" in relation to other autism spectrum conditions. I have edited Eric Leiser to reflect these statements. Thanks for reading. Whatever404 (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have no problem with assistance and was simply repeating the term as written in one of the sources. Your correction is apprciated. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I must be frank: whoever adds content to Wikipedia is responsible for verifying the accuracy of that content with sources. A filmmaker's personal views on a medical condition are not an appropriate source for a factual description of that condition. Leiser also said that his character's Asperger syndrome rendered her "unable to cope with reality": this is a gross misrepresentation of life with AS.
- Please consider how such inaccurate portrayals and descriptions affect the people who live with these conditions. One of the best ways to be an ally to persons with disabilities is to refrain from perpetuating harmful stereotypes. Scrupulous fact-checking on Wikipedia is just one small step in the right direction. Whatever404 (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'lll be frank in return. While I accept the good faith or your comment, you must please understand that I was specifically quoting the source itself in the plot summary for that film when they wrote "...Anna has a rare form of autism called Asperger’s Syndrome, rendering her unable..." (see source)... (their words, NOT mine}. While I appreciate your correcting the term based upon your personal knowledge, I chose not to mis-quote the source's summary of the plot for that film. It is what they wrote, not me. It was their words, not my correction of their words. It is always of concern when an editor deliberately mis-quotes a source... raising accusations of WP:OR and WP:NPOV and cries of "that is not what the source said". And if you'd care to look at my work on Everybody Is Different: A Book for Young People Who Have Brothers or Sisters With Autism, you'll see that I am aware of the difference. Again, thank you for making the changes you feel appropriate. If you further choose to expand and source that article, your assistance will be welcome. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I do not understand the reason for your foray into the issue of "misquoting sources". It strikes me as off-topic, because there is no need to do this in order to be accurate.
- Putting aside, for a moment, the issue of whether medically inaccurate information should be propagated through Wikipedia, the issue we must address first is that of attribution. With the phrasing you used, it was not clear that this was an opinion, solely attributable to a young filmmaker, rather than a factual description of AS. If we were to include Leiser's inaccurate description of AS, we would need to attribute it as such, and provide contrasting, factual, medical information from a reputable source, to avoid any confusion about what AS is. Anything less does a disservice to those diagnosed and non-diagnosed readers, alike. Whatever404 (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Please note the spelling of Asperger syndrome; you spelled it incorrectly as "Asberger Syndrome" in this edit. Whatever404 (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. Your keen eye is welcome. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Blogcritics
The site is not Blogcritics. It is Blogspot. Joe Chill (talk) 02:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I see the link now. That was added after my comment. I was talking about Blogspot. Joe Chill (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I just saw that you added a Blogcritics link today. Did you somehow confuse the Blogspot link as Blogcritics when you added a Blogcritics link even though I said that Blogspot was a blog on August 24? Or something? Joe Chill (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes Blogspot is not Blogcritics. Sorry for any confusions. I just hate when a reliable source has such a non-reliable sounding name. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
IMDb information
Hi Michael, I came across an article on the (rather obscure) English actor David Proud and discovered it was mostly unsourced. I've tried to verify as much as possible of the article, and stripped out what I couldn't, then rather tentatively stuck what was left up for WP:GAN (the good article review is at Talk:David Proud/GA1 if you're interested). His more obscure credits, and his date of birth, can only really be sourced to his IMDb profile. I know you use IMDb professionally and was impressed by your input at WT:Citing IMDb, so I'd like to ask your guidance on a couple of issues:
- Judging from IMDb's help pages, the credits will probably have been supplied by the film and TV production people. To what extent would it make sense to treat them as "reliable"?
- I can't work out who is allowed to submit date of birth information. Am I right in suspecting that they come under the IMDb Resume service, and therefore (like the publicity photo) can only have been submitted by Proud himself or his agent or other authorized person? I find it hard to believe that a random fan would be allowed to submit such information.
Any advice would be appreciated, thanks. TheGrappler (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Short answer.... Don't count on IMDB, and don't use it to source an article. You may include it in External links, but not as a cite. If you find some nice piece of information there, simply use it as a guide in your search for other locations that provide the same or additional informations.
- Long answer.... It does appear that certain informations on IMDB do indeed go through a vetting process, but because IMDB, in protecting their employees from outside harrassment and preventing any chance that an IMDB employee might be compromised by outside influences, does not give full disclosure to their editing/vetting processes (they do not even go so far as to allow their staff to use anonymous or funny usernames), Wikipedia has not been able to agree on what parts are acceptable (if any) and what parts are not. From dicussions, you'll see that some editors feel it is mostly okay. Some feel only limited portions are okay. And other feel that absolutely no portion is reliable. The argument has been going on for many years and will continue into the future. So all I can advise here is to use it as a guide to give you hints about other sources, but not as a source itself. Far fewer headaches. Less arguments.
- Now in looking at your work on the David Proud article, I'd have to say that you have done a nice job. For birthdate, perhaps use UK TV Guide. Further advice... though there are certain limited esceptions, best to avoid like the plague any website that resembles a blog or a press release. Keep your sourcing as powerful and mainstrean as possible. The Digital Spy article is quite a decent source, and itself well supported by the informations in Screenrush, Telegraph, View Sheffield, Guardian, Metro, Guardian, Telegraph, The Sun, Scottish Sun... and other sources [11]. You have a great start. If anything is the least bit "iffy", it's best to leave it out until you find it supportable.
- Feel free to ask anything else. Good luck, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for that. Out of interest, why would uk-tv-guide.com be any more reliable than IMDb? In particular, their underlying source seems to be MTEDb, a site which is part of the [12] Digiguide group (a non-reliable confirmation of that is here). Having trawled around there, it's not at all obvious where they get their information from, as they clearly aren't just an IMDb clone (they use a similar credits-based database, but they don't seem to separate the individual episodes of TV series out, so it doesn't seem to be a straight copy-over of the information). They don't release their source information: though it doesn't seem to be user-generated, it might well be imported from somewhere. For the date of birth my suspicion is that they will have taken that from some other available source, and IMDb sounds likely since it is the most accessible (without knowing more about their sourcing, there's also a risk it could have been copied over from Wikipedia!). Just as a question to someone who uses IMDb professionally, does the date of birth come under the "IMDb Resume" service, like the photos do? In which case, could it only have been added by the agent or actor? (I guess the fact that IMDb are not very open about where they get which information from, and how it is vetted, makes that a hard question to answer; but it seems even harder to know where MTEDb is getting its information from or how accurate it is likely to be). TheGrappler (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Any comparisons to IMDB are just not worth making... for good or bad... as a slight majority (consensus) on Wikipedia feels that that particular site is totally and completely unreliable. Arguments to the contrary may have merit, but they have not (yet) swayed consensus. An interesting sidebar: When I myself asked IMDB managers for input at their messageboards, I learned that many at IMDB hold Wikipedia in low regard... and for many of the same reasons. [13]. As for UK TV Guide, I brought it up only as possibly comparable as RS to the US TV Guide. I note that they are not an SPS, being administered by GipsyMedia Limited [14] and not by an individual ot fanbase... and yes, GipsyMedia created Digiguide [15] back in 1999. So... the place to specifically ask if they might be considred RS for an actor's birthdate would be the Reliable Sources Noticeboard... since reliable sources are allowed to be considered in context to what is being sourced. As for my own date of birth on IMDB, when I submitted the date they sent me motification explaining that they would not accept my submitted date unless and until I sent them an unredacted copy of my birth certificate. Coinversely, birth dates in an actor's resumes are submitted by the actor or actor's representatives... who pay to have a resume up there. The date of birth on the actor's credits page is handled differently and not taken from the resume... and it is not accepted without proof. If you were to go to any actor's personal resume on IMDB Pro, and try to submit informations, you would be entirely unsuccessful. If you were to go to the actor's IMDB main and submit a birthdate, it would not be accepted unless you provided suitable legal proofs. While other informations require differing levels and types of proofs... for birthdates, they hold to a very strict protocol... and have for at least the last 9 years. But discussing IMDb is kind of moot. Better to go ask at WP:RSN about this instance of birthdate and MTEDb. Until then you will be quite safe using the numerous sources you do have to state that "as of August 2009, David Proud was 26 years old". MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice. TheGrappler (talk) 02:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Glad if I was of any help. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
August 2009
Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to The Hidan of Maukbeiangjow, without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 20:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- If I remove a template and offer a valid reason to do so, it is improper to assume bad faith in my actions. Your continued incivility to my good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia could result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Discussion is always a better recourse that hostility and incivility. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- And so with no regard for my good faith reasons for removing them, you have placed the tags back on the article. Please do not edit war. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Actually I did offer a reason, but arguing with you about it would not be helpful. If you feel my attempts to improve that article are somehow an affront to aesthetic sensibilities, then please... by all means file an WQA, ANI or RFC. But please do not be rude to me on my own talk page. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I would just like to say this is a bit ridiculous, Hrafn. MichaelQ certainly made an attempt to address the tags by adding two secondary sources, which is the normal definition of notability. Perhaps you felt they were still warranted, but you crossed the line both by assuming bad faith and by jumping straight to a level 3 warning for no reason. You also violated WP:DTTR. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello! You and I both argued in an AfD to keep this article, which did close as keep. The other day it was deleted because ONE of its creators requested it be so. That does not seem right. If the creator of any article on a notable topic wants it deleted, it really should not trump the validity of the article's subject, no? Anyway, I am not sure what the request was, but please note that it survived a consensus discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Suburbs (web series) and so should we not go more by the consensus reached by multiple editors rather than one of the writers? I have asked the admin, but he/she is on break until Novermber/December! Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- If the author were the only contributor to the article, his request for deletion was properly honored. However, if others feel the article notable enough to remain (as the AfD might seem to indicate), any editor might ask it undeletion by any admin and continue improving it, as interests of other editors have just as much bearing as interests from a single author. Remember... once it is in mainspace, it no longer belongs to the author... it belongs to all of Wikipedia. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Might you be able to use your magic to come up with some sources? I know she's notable, but for the love of Darwin, I can't find any pertaining to her specifically. I've seen quite a few of her movies. I'll try to find some too. cheers. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 03:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll use those to dePROD. It's very difficult to get Indian news refs for someone who was mostly acting prior to 2000. cheers. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 05:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Always happy to help. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Neila
It was. Joe Chill (talk) 11:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Harvard Beats Yale 29-29
Wikiproject: Did you know? 05:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Derek & Simon
Hi there, excellent work on this one. I'm still not completely sure it hits notability, but I doubt it'll be deleted by AfD anyway given the work you've put in on it, so I've clsoed the AfD as withdrawn. Black Kite 01:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Films August 2009 Newsletter
The August 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) 04:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
A favor
Hello, Michael. I'm writing this in hoping that you would do me a favor for me since you helped me with proofreading the article of Yeonguijeong. Gyeongju, one of popular tourist cities in South Korea and the capital of an ancient kingdom is one of a few FA of Korean Project, but has faced in danger of delisting, so I've been working on expanding the article for about 2 months. So the closing time is near close (I hope not though), but as reviewers have pointed out the prose of the article is not good in the current status, and my grammatical errors are not fixed since I'm the only one working on the article, especially Gyeongju#Cultural properties, Gyeongju#Economy and Gyeongju#Healthcare and utilities. I've been struggling to find copy-editors although two people copy-edited a portion. So could you consider my asking for the favor? Thanks.--Caspian blue 22:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'll look in and see what I might do. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah and I could've used your help on Jedi Temple and Jedi Academy. Where could he be? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- THIS is where I've been. If you don't give me a heads up, how can I know?? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Rudy can't fail
Hi MQS, long time no see! I've left the movie business behind and am now concentrating on other venues I wish to pursue. (It wasn't going anywhere anyway!). Hey, I was wondering if you could spare a minute for this edit--I have found an IMDB link to establish her provenance but would like something more solid, so that the tag can be removed. Care to help a brother out? Thanks in advance, and all the best to you, Drmies (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Done. But why was a fact tag even added? The actress' article and character's article more that cover her work for the show. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Look at the history: an IP acquired a name and wanted to make a point, I reckon. Did the article cover her provenance, though? I think that's what they were suggesting, that that wasn't verified or so. Hey, thanks again! I knew you'd come through. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thought you wanted to cover her being in The Cosby Show. However, THIS one covers her home town. Just added it instead of the other. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- What I need, I just don't have. Bongomatic 23:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Need assistance with something? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Ask Drmies . . . Bongomatic 00:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Need assistance with something? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- What I need, I just don't have. Bongomatic 23:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thought you wanted to cover her being in The Cosby Show. However, THIS one covers her home town. Just added it instead of the other. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Look at the history: an IP acquired a name and wanted to make a point, I reckon. Did the article cover her provenance, though? I think that's what they were suggesting, that that wasn't verified or so. Hey, thanks again! I knew you'd come through. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Your Opinion Please Mr Schmidt
There's an AfD discussion at the moment here I thought you might be interested in. It's a short film from donkey's years ago - I looked in Halliwell's and a couple of other guides, but you always seem to have a lot more joy finding sources for obscure films! Also, how do you sort an AfD into one of the lists? Cheers :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
AfD
What content would be merged? The title? There is -no- content on that page to merge. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Okay... you do not belive that there is anything worth merging. All that exists on the director's and writer's pages is the film's name. Including the film's historical production information, cast, background, etc., is worth considering in a merge of the stub... but that option was not discussed. Now having just read through the discussion at Wikipedia:An#Page_move_warring_at_Break.2C_Break.2C_Break, and while I do understand your wish to have this name solely for the Tennyson poem, why not use Break, Break, Break (Tennyson poem), rather than continue arguing for deletion of an article about a film from early cinema history? I note that more editors are coming forward with sources to verify the information in the artilce per point 2 of Wikipedia:NF#Other evidence of notability, so perhaps a merge does not even need to be considered. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- As has been proven by other editors, there are no sources. The google books hit by one individual was misleading and most of the links there didn't even mention the movie's title. There were about 17 hits for the movie's title without information, and a bunch for the song and the poem. That is very strong justification. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Okay... you do not belive that there is anything worth merging. All that exists on the director's and writer's pages is the film's name. Including the film's historical production information, cast, background, etc., is worth considering in a merge of the stub... but that option was not discussed. Now having just read through the discussion at Wikipedia:An#Page_move_warring_at_Break.2C_Break.2C_Break, and while I do understand your wish to have this name solely for the Tennyson poem, why not use Break, Break, Break (Tennyson poem), rather than continue arguing for deletion of an article about a film from early cinema history? I note that more editors are coming forward with sources to verify the information in the artilce per point 2 of Wikipedia:NF#Other evidence of notability, so perhaps a merge does not even need to be considered. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Harry A. Pollard already has the content there. As does Sydney Ayres and William Garwood. Only Louise Lester lacks a mention. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Content? No. Only the name... no other information. The article has more to offer than just a name. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Have you read the article? Seriously, it doesn't have any content. Please tell me how long the film ran, what the plot was, where was it produced, etc. I wonder if you have actually looked at the article after seeing your comment above. You do realize that the page contains only one sentence, right? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Content? No. Only the name... no other information. The article has more to offer than just a name. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- My conclusion then is that the stub needs expansion as an article about a film from early cinema history. You note that some of the provided souce links only provide a name... which is a flaw with google books and their snippet views. Time perhaps for a visit to a comprehensive film library and archive I suppose. This search shows 22 book sources most of which do not have even snippet views online. But since the Library of Congress received received 58 prints on September 17, 1914 [16], information on plot and production will likely be available through the national archives. Time for more digging. Deletion diminshes Wikipedia. Expansion improves it. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Source 1. "Catalog of copyright entries" - not a source for content. 2. "Catalogue of copyright entries" Duplicate of number one. 3. "American film personnel and company credits, 1908-1920: filmographies" - merely lists names without information, so is not a source for content. 4. "The Braff silent short film working papers: over 25,000 films, 1903-1929" already discussed and has nothing but a title and is not a source for content. 5. "Photo-era magazine" has nothing to do with the movie. 6. "An index to short and feature film reviews in the Moving picture world" lists only the title and is not a source for content. 7. "The Yale book of quotations" is about the -poem- and not the movie. 8. "Sweethearts of the sage: biographies and filmographies of 258 actresses" merely lists the title and no content. etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please let me know what you discover at a comprhensive library... as I already noted that google books does not offer much more than snipets, if anything at all. It really is not suitable for information on this film from early cinematic history. By the way, did your own search only go after the title? Did you research the film histories of thr involved parties? And how about record archives on microfilm somewhere that might contain photostats or reproductions of 1914 reviews of the film? I myself have a common sense presumption that such exist. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Source 1. "Catalog of copyright entries" - not a source for content. 2. "Catalogue of copyright entries" Duplicate of number one. 3. "American film personnel and company credits, 1908-1920: filmographies" - merely lists names without information, so is not a source for content. 4. "The Braff silent short film working papers: over 25,000 films, 1903-1929" already discussed and has nothing but a title and is not a source for content. 5. "Photo-era magazine" has nothing to do with the movie. 6. "An index to short and feature film reviews in the Moving picture world" lists only the title and is not a source for content. 7. "The Yale book of quotations" is about the -poem- and not the movie. 8. "Sweethearts of the sage: biographies and filmographies of 258 actresses" merely lists the title and no content. etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Sock puppet hammering your fine editing?
Michael: You did a fine job on Gareth Penn a couple of months ago, but it seems a sock puppet has wormed its way into that entry and started a mass deletion of well-sourced info using high-handed language to justify. I say "sock puppet" because the user sounds suspiciously familiar (ManhattanSamurai) and is acting as a sPA on this. Don't understand why, after your work and mine. Would appreciate your having a look! 173.30.129.164 (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- I left a note on the SPA IP's talk page. Feel free to revert and request discussion of such major changes to the article on its talk page. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! I reverted three of the seven or eight edits and cleaned up a forth one per this person's concerns. As I pointed out on the user's page, his/her use of language like "unsourced puffery" and "removed self-promotion" seems to imply bad faith on the part of editors. I don't edit much here, which is why I asked for your assistance, which you rendered with a great deal of care.173.30.129.164 (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Radio Tales
I've a request on my talk p. from Shoessss to undelete & userify this (and presumably the episode articles also). I cannot figure out what happened, since they closed keep, phttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Time_Machine_(Radio)_et_al]. There are subsequent log entries that they were moved to your user space "per discussion after AfD", and then apparently deleted from there. but I haven't found the discussions yet. Could you reply on my p. after his request, at [17], to keep this together. Were they all found to be copyvio,or what? DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
List order
No problem. It's not something really important. Just one of my pet peeves. :) Garion96 (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Happy Labor Day!
Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A NobodyMy talk 04:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Inre this diff...
Your courtesy is greatly appreciated. And I am so sorry that I did not hold onto the userfied Radio Tales articles longer. All 63 being nominated at the same time was overwhelming. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hey Michael not a problem, you did a nice job bringing it up to speed. I believe if you look through my history, you will find that we are actually reading from the same book. Just different pages from time to time. Likewise, I am part of the ARS project. In fact, my approach to saving articles is very similar to yours. First look for sourcess - source the piece, rewrite if necessary - then debate like hell :-). Regarding the Radio Tales, no big deal, I'll just start from stract and see what I can do. In the mean time, take care. ShoesssS Talk 02:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Glad to be editing these pages with you. Keep up the good works. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hey Michael not a problem, you did a nice job bringing it up to speed. I believe if you look through my history, you will find that we are actually reading from the same book. Just different pages from time to time. Likewise, I am part of the ARS project. In fact, my approach to saving articles is very similar to yours. First look for sourcess - source the piece, rewrite if necessary - then debate like hell :-). Regarding the Radio Tales, no big deal, I'll just start from stract and see what I can do. In the mean time, take care. ShoesssS Talk 02:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I saved this article from speedy deletion by doing a slight expansion. Since you are interested in theatre articles, would you be interested in expanding Ashlie Atkinson? You are the expert in this field. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, thanks for your work on this article! Cunard (talk) 07:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- Glad to help. I was unable to get to it until a short while back, as you have seen, but I am happy enough that it is safe from deletion. I am a bit considered that it was tagged only 1 minute after creation, as my understanding is that NWP's should at least try to see if a subject is worth improving... and a source or expand tag would have served quite nicely. Anyways... you made a very good catch in pulling the speedy tag. Keep up the good work and thanks for the opportunity to help. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Can you help with some refs? I found a few trivial mentions stating it was a success and added to the article, but nothing yet to save it at AfD. I haven't seen the movie, but I know it was successful. cheers. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 03:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Fanne Foxe
Hi, Michael. I noticed the Fanne Foxe article has come up for deletion. I don't have time or interest enough to work on it, but there are many, many sources out there that could be used to improve the article. Do you think it might be appropriate for the Rescue Squadron? Dekkappai (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yes, I did a quick couple searches and just assumed the nomination would get thrown out... I'm surprised it's getting so much support when it seems fairly obvious a substantial article could be written on the woman without a lot of effort. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yup, definitely a WP:HEY situation. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hey-- good work there so far! I hope I didn't imply I wanted you personally to do the work. It just looked like an obvious job for the Squadron, but I wasn't sure how to bring it to their attention. What gets me about the discussion is: who the hell says a person can't be "notable" for one event? I've never heard, in real life, such a "rule"... The answer is: a group of Wikipedia editors who got together used some time to make up a silly rule instead of spending that time wisely working on an article... These editor-made rules put editors in the position of authorities, a position we are, rightly, not granted in writing an article... so why should we suddenly become authorities when it comes to making up rules governing articles? Ah well, I've brought this point up at other discussions, to blank stares of incomprehension from everyone... I feel like a guy trying to start a discussion of evolution at Sunday school... :( Dekkappai (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yup, definitely a WP:HEY situation. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The AfD *was* the merge discussion
What do you really expect to happen? Everyone comes forth, says the same thing they did before, people rush in urging the character must be notable due to innate ability, and then when it's closed as keep because the other side doesn't bother making compelling arguments again, we'll have arguments about what consensus applied.
Well that is more or less what's going to happen. And that's not considering the fact the subsection is all that's left after cleaning up the article.
Look, if the rescue squadron folks want to revive an article to fix it that's one thing. But so far it's been "revive so we can discuss" the same thing we...pretty much already discussed. That's not process, that's bureaucratic shuffling, no offense meant.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- No arguments needed... and no need to question the intention or integrity of the AfD or its closer. With respects, I do not know how the closer's comments can be interpreted any way other than as what he wrote:
- "The result was Keep. There is support for a merge, and some for a redirect, and discussions about this may continue on the article's talk page; but it's quite apparent from this discussion there is a strong consensus that Elaine Marley should be a bluelink on Wikipedia." (emphasis mine)
- Please do not edit war with actions that violate the consensus and the admin's instructions from the AfD closure. Yes, the closer recognized that other opinions existed in the discussion, but made specific note that the consensus was a keep. Rather than edit war, you might write him yourself and ask if he meant something different. Happy editing, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for blowing a fuse like that, User:A Nobody seems to have a knack for getting under my skin. As it stands I proposed a middle ground on WT:VG, let's see if it works out...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- You know I might be more amenable to middle grounds if you didn't have to throw jibes in when I am only one of three editors who reverted you in this instance. Thank you. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- To avoid any confusion, up to the point I was typing that you were the only one reverting it back more than once. However this person's talk page isn't the place for this...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- You know I might be more amenable to middle grounds if you didn't have to throw jibes in when I am only one of three editors who reverted you in this instance. Thank you. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry for blowing a fuse like that, User:A Nobody seems to have a knack for getting under my skin. As it stands I proposed a middle ground on WT:VG, let's see if it works out...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
HEY.... I don't want a fight in my yard. KFM, with respects, the closer specifically wrote that the strong concensus was a keep. He did not write that consensus supported a merge or redirect, only noted that such opinions were offered in the discussion and suggested wisely that the discussion continue at the article's talk page. SInce that is what was written, your merge and redirect would seem to run contrary to the AfD. So here we have a classic case of BRD. You were bold, you were reverted... several times. Time now to go to the article's talk page and talk. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Um...you're a bit late actually? User:S@bre suggested he was willing to work on the article, and we reached some agreements on bits that needed to be improved and the article deserved a chance. We were more or less done with my last line there regarding fighting over it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Comments I didn't post
Everyone seems to agree that our deletion process is bitey to new users and broken. But any attempts to fiddle with it or fix it is met by a handful of vocal editors expressing disdain. They never suggest any alternatives, they simply bitch and moan about the suggestions. I realize full well that I will never satisfy this handful of editors, nor will anyone else here.
Michael has a great saying: "I'd rather fix the damn pipe than complain about having wet feet." a few editors here have had there feet underwater for so long, fervently arguing against any repairs to fix the pipe, that they forgot what their feet look like.Ikip (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Help within WP:NF
i don't know what to do, for an animated film to have 2 remakes, would that mean that they each have there own separate article just because they meet general notability guidelines? It seems strange to me, since the remakes would hold the same plot and same producer. The time length between the original and remake aren't so far apart, yet, they have 3 reviews to keep the general notability guidelines....so confused. it would make sense to keep them in one article, but for some reason alot of members would just want to leave it. is there a specific guideline about this? you will be grately appreciated if you could answer thisBread Ninja (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Tough call.... as it depends a lot on the film. Many major film franchises have a master article and then several properly sourced WP:SPINOUTs that are about the subsequent films. Star Wars comes to immediate mind as an example. If the Spinouts are short and sweet, and their content would not overburden the main article, then there is no real reason to have seperate articles. If the Spinouts would make the parent to cumbersome, then spinouts are worth considering. Please send me a link to the series in question and I can give a better and more specific opinion, as generalities only go so far. Best, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
the articles are Evangelion: Death and Rebirth which hold two parts, and there is End of Evangelion the remake of the second part, but it seems that the plot stays there. Also there is Revival of Evangelion, nothing much to that one, it's just a compilation of both.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- Okay... I am out of my depth with this subject... as there is also a very large article at Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) with tiny section on re-releases. The ones that concern you might best serve by being condensed somewhat and brought over to the main... but if the Spinoff has enough individual notability and would overburden the main, then a seperate and related article would make sense. Sorry to sound like this is waffling... buit this is a question you might get better help with if asked at Talk:Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime).
I know, i'll see what i can do then.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Ears buzzing?
You name came up today at RfA talk as someone who might make a good candidate for adminship. (See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#List_of_editors_who_should_be_considered_for_adminship) If you are interested in the job and/or would be interested in preparing for a run, let me know. I'd be honored to nominate you (if you feel you are ready) or coach you (if you feel you aren't quite ready). Of course if you aren't interested at all, that is fine too. Let me know, ThaddeusB (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. I've never nominated anyone before.
- Wow. I am honored that I am thought perhaps ready for such a grave responsibility. Let me think it over. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- "Grave responsibility"? :) I take that as unintentional morbid humor. You'd make a great admin, no doubt about it. The process is a crapshoot though and can be kind of brutal. Good luck. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- As per your thoughtful email on the matter, I have created User:ThaddeusB/Admin coaching/MichaelQSchmidt. Nothing really to see there yet, but thought I'd give you a heads-up anyway. I'll start by reviewing your "current standing" in all the normal areas that come up during RfAs & then create exercises to help you with any areas that might be seen as weaknesses. Don't hesitate to say something if you don't like the way I'm approaching things, as this is a first for me too. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Cool with me. I know I sometimes tend to tilt at windmills... and occasioanlly I'll debate an issue too long... and yes, I once in a while get testy... but I think I have been a fairly reasonable and contributory editor... one willing to learn and further grow. So even were I to never offer myself up for adminship, your coaching will be quite valuable. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Check out User:ThaddeusB/Admin_coaching/MichaelQSchmidt#Assignment_1 at your convenience. Assignment 1 is on CSD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Cool with me. I know I sometimes tend to tilt at windmills... and occasioanlly I'll debate an issue too long... and yes, I once in a while get testy... but I think I have been a fairly reasonable and contributory editor... one willing to learn and further grow. So even were I to never offer myself up for adminship, your coaching will be quite valuable. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Imagine my surprise to find that you've gone over to the dark side and become a deletionist. This movie (titled Hanuman) is very notable [18]. The guideline that principal photography has to start before we can include a subject is hogwash. Notability is determined by substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. If a movie project is notable, it's notable even if it never gets made. Preventing us from covering and developing articles on movies as they progress in development is not constructive or helpful to our readers. Thankfully, I am here to straighten this all out and get us back on the right track. :) How are things? Beautiful weather up here. I hope it's good where you are as well. Enjoy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to say I enjoy giving you a hard time. Thanks for your kind consideration of the issues I raised. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I enjoy the interplay, even though not everyone appreciates your sense of whimsey. If Ramayama is to survive, the existing article Hanuman (film) should be moved to Hanuman (animated film) and then Ramayama (film) moved to Hanuman (2010 film). Then the article will need multiple sources added ASAP, rather than just spoken of. This will better show its notability and the revised name will ease future searches. Yes? No? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I moved it. Adding a source or two isn't a bad idea, but I'm willing to leave it to those interested in the project. It sounds like a monstrosity of a movie to me. I thought the days of pale faces playing Indians was over? I've been watching some older stuff on Turner Classic Movies and I just watched Horton Hears a Who, which I found mildly entertaining. Have you seen anything good of late? Catch you later. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
- I enjoy the interplay, even though not everyone appreciates your sense of whimsey. If Ramayama is to survive, the existing article Hanuman (film) should be moved to Hanuman (animated film) and then Ramayama (film) moved to Hanuman (2010 film). Then the article will need multiple sources added ASAP, rather than just spoken of. This will better show its notability and the revised name will ease future searches. Yes? No? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:FILM September Election Voting
The September 2009 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next six months; members can still nominate themselves if interested. Please vote here by September 28! This message has been sent as you are registered as an active member of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Michael
Any chance you could cast your eye over this article? I de-prodded it a while ago but have been unable to come up with much - and you're the go-to guy for hard-to-find actor and film info … pablohablo. 12:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Okay... I've begun cleanup and sourcing. She may just squeek past ENT because of her roles in television, but her theater background may yield some decent reviews. I'll expand it and source it more over the next couple days. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
RFA
If you have an RFA, please let me know. Joe Chill (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- I am considering all the pros and cons. So keep your eye on Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/RfA_Report, as I do not believe it is proper that I notify editors if/when I do so. Do you think I should go for it? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes... that's what I meant. Thanks. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- It would be great for the community if you did agree to serve us as an admin Mr Schmidt. Your name is up as a possible candidate on RFA talk so its not just me and Joe who think so. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would be #3 on that sentiment. — BQZip01 — talk 18:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've seen quite a few RfAs derailed recently because editors have been seen as "too inclusionist" or "too deletionist". Personally, I'd prefer more editors that didn't sit on the fence on these things. People panic that they'd suddenly start closing AfDs to their own preferences, but that's ridiculous, because we have WP:DRV and frankly any admin that starts doing that isn't going to be an admin very long anyway. I have recently had a conversation with another editor who is perceived to be on the "deletionist" side and suggested that he ran for admin, but might want to be nominated by someone who doesn't have that perception amongst others. Similarly... Black Kite 19:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- It would be great for the community if you did agree to serve us as an admin Mr Schmidt. Your name is up as a possible candidate on RFA talk so its not just me and Joe who think so. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes... that's what I meant. Thanks. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Have a look at this. The actual article is awful, so unclear that another editor tagged it db-nocontext. I rescued it from that, worked out that it was about an amateur Youtube film (and largely extracted from this to the point where as it stands it's probably copyvio) and PRODded it as non-notable. There is a certain amount of internet chat, but I don't reckon "Youtube celebrity - buzz on the internet" counts for much. However, now an IP has dePRODded, and I am having second thoughts - it seems they actually won an RTE competition, though I don't gather the series (which seems to be about 5 x 5-minute episodes) is actually going to be broadcast on air. What do you think - is winning an RTE competition enough for notability? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'd say they just squeek by. RTE seems to be RS as an Irish source... and the film won their first ever RTÉ Storyland on-line drama series. Not to waffle, but Project Web might have a better handle on web notability.... HOWEVER, the film has and is being seen off the web... being screened at film festivals... [19], [20]... and is getting a touch of press... Western People, RTE Entertainment, San Francisco Chronicle, IFTN, for instamce... and more at G-News. I think that with their win, and the growing press, they have met WP:GNG and WP:NF. And I am saying this without actually looked at the article to see its state. That's my next step. Hope this was helpful, Best MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Just stopped over there, added a message (similar to the above) on its talk page, and sectioned the article off in preperation for expansion and sourcing. In a few minutes I'll see if I can turn that sow's ear into a silk purse. Best, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Article Incubator
As one of our top, "article rescuers" I figured you'd be interested in the new project, WP:Article Incubator. For those rare times when you want to edit something, but don't see anything that piques your interest at AfD, drop on by and lend us a hand. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for helping me out. After what I have seen from Ikip, I'm surprised that he said all of that. Nothing hurts me more than being called a liar because I have never been a liar online and offline. I understand guidelines way more than policies. Joe Chill (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
This may not be straight up your alley, but figured I'd ask you. The movie title is Elippathayam and is in Malayalam. It was screened outside India with English subtitles as "Elippathayam (Rat-Trap)". It was reviewed by the Post under the original title, and by the Times under the English title. Awards were under the original title. The page was recently moved from Elippathayam to Rat-Trap citing Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). But I'm not sure that's the right thing to do in this case given that the English name was used only in the subtitled version, and not the original which won awards etc. What do you think? cheers. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 21:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- You provided the answer yourself. It was an English "subtitle" of a Malayam, not English name. The subtitles were there for non-Malayam audiences. Using the original and awarded name would be correct and proper... and heck, every foreign word or phrase can be translated into an English "equivalent"... but that is only an equivalent, and such translations are not always 100% spot on. In this case, the film has its notability under its original name, and due to non-uniqueness of the English translation, correct sourcing for notability would be much harder to find under anything other than the original Malayam name. Guideline allows that a name should be used where using the name in a search for sources will lead readers to best locations to ascertain notability for themselves... with yes, a preference given to English... but as guideline allows and expect the occasional and reasonable exception, "Rat Trap" is not a reasonable usage of the Malayam film title for allowing proper sourcing for that film. Naming conventions are fine... but they also indicate "...name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works). This makes it easy to find" ... which explanation contradicts itself in this case, as English usage would act directly opposite to the guideline reasons for its usage in the first place. You found English language sources showing awards and notability under "Elippathayam"... already an Englification of a Malayam word. IMHO, the original name with an acknwledgment of the rarely used (and non-notable) English equivalent would be best. Explain such on the article's talk page and move it back to where it has researchable and sourcable notability and awards. Hope this helps. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
the root problem at AfD
My friend, great to see you speaking up for reason and moderation on the RfC. Re the S Marshal idea, it might be hard to achieve concensus for substational changes to AfD, but maybe we could promate an essay emphasising the importance of good manners and of cooperating in harmony with those holding opposing views. Please edit the draft essay as much as you like if you think the idea has legs. AfD is not a war zone - FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
RFC/Username
I believe the person who removed the RFC/Username request was in error. Our Username policy applies equally to signatures, it explicitly states this. The situation doesn't warrant immediate blocking so UAA would be inappropriate. Gigs (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Not being in Seresin's head, I think it was removed only because he figured an RFC was the wrong format and that it should simply have been a talkpage question since it did not require imediate attention. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
G7 Clearout
Have cleaned out your userpages - sorry they didn't work out in the end. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I am moving many to text files off wiki. Not as easy to work with... but improved versions may yet come back. Keep an eye out.... I'll have a few more yet to go. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- You could also copy the text to a free wiki provider--some of the templates might not work, but at least you can keep formatting etc. Bongomatic 07:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Good sugestion. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'd need to undelete the G7d files for that, and Michael would have to attribute the text correctly. Out of interest, Michael, why don't you keep them here or ask for help at WP:INCUBATE? Fritzpoll (talk) 07:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- And how long may they incubate? A few of the longer ones may not have decent sourcing for a few months yet. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Help
I need heep with an editor constantly assuming bad faith towards me. First is was saying that I was editing in bad faith and searching through my editing hsitory for stuff to twist around. Now that the discussion is over, he is saying that I'm a meatpuppet The issue is here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continued wikistalking/wikihounding and harassment from User:Miami33139. I thought this might be considered canvassing since you are uninvolved, but apparently not because Tothwolf notified uninvolved editors including Uncle G. Joe Chill (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Userfied as suggested. However, would you consider moving this article and perhaps some of the other stuff on your "plate" to WP:INCUBATE? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)