User talk:MichaelQSchmidt/Archive 019

Through the end of Augist 2011

WP:FILM July 2011 Newsletter

The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film 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. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please leave a note on the Outreach department's talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The Black Enforcer

Has been prodded, dunno if you can find more on it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Found some. Per WP:CSB I think it behooves us to allow the assistance of Mandarin and Cantonese reading/writing Wikipedians who may have access to hardcopy pre-internet sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh thankyou! You are more deserving of it than me though!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, your arguments were seen as convincing. Mine were seen as unpleasent. Thanks right back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

need your searching experitise

I was wondering if you could help me with something. I created the article CrossBones (film), but I am not sure what the movie title actually is. I see it on websites as both CrossBones and Cross Bones. I own the DVD, but I still am not sure because Cross and Bones are close together on the case. The Internet Movie Database page says CrossBones, but the website is user edited. Do you think that you can help find the correct title? Joe Chill (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

IMDB is not user edited. Only the IMDB database editors staffers can add or subtract information from the site. Regular folks can submit to IMDB, but these submissions go through a vetting process by those data editors, and require the submitter to provide evidences to verify what is being submited... usually screenshots of film credits or links to articles in other media where the submitted information can be confirmed. It is because of the lack of transparency in that IMDB does not reveal their vetting processes step by step... and that they do allow the inclusion of trivia and forum discussions, that they are seen as unreliable. So we instead use themn to guide us in our searches elsewhere. That said, I suspect "CrossBones" may be correct, as IMDB themselves will use a film's title just as is seen on the movie scree,. I will now use my google-foo to see what I can find for you. I'll report back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Joe Chill (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Naked Monster

Hello! Your submission of The Naked Monster 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! Anaxial (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, I guess you just figured out what's been going on. That's why when you mentioned DYK I thought, mm it aint like it used to be..♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad that the article was saved, but since when was the nominator allowed to review it also? :/ Joe Chill (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Um. I read it wrong. Oops. Joe Chill (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Noella Marcellino

Since you helped me with the article Noella Marcellino a long time ago, I thought that you would like to see these two responses to the article. "EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG - Raw-milk cheese fans: Noella Marcellino (AKA the Cheese Nun, to her chagrin) is worth looking up. Fascinating proponent." - http://tweetmeme.com/story/245069165/noella-marcellino-wikipedia-the-free-encyclopedia and "By the way, her Wikipedia profile says she doesn't like the Cheese Nun title. Ok, I won't use it again." - http://www.amazon.com/Cheese-Nun-Sister-Noella-Marcellino/product-reviews/B000FGG62K. Joe Chill (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Very, very nice. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

	Article rescue
	For excellent research in Kwon Hyi-ro AfD. Good work! Noleander (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Any ideas for Template talk:Did you know/Ants of Kansas? I am trying to address a reviewer's concerns. I know that you don't dabble with species articles, but you normally have good advice. If you're unable to give any suggestions, I might ask some Wikiproject Animals members even if I don't know them very well. Joe Chill (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Definitely check with the folks over at Wikiproject Animals. My own thought is that as the article deals with Ants of Kansas and the article states that over 100 species can be found there, perhaps expanding it more will make DYK reviewers happy. The input from Orlady is well worth consideration. That said, it is an interesting and properly sourced fact. I suppose the biggest concern see is that because DYKs are to lead readers to where they can get more information on the DYK topic, the article should give them that more information. Whatcha think? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

How about ALT2: Did you know... that there are over 100 species of ant indigenous to Kansas?

Simpler, to the point, and leads readers to where they can learn of those 100. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

Now it's being called a trivia article. I might just give up. I wasn't angry before, but now I am. Joe Chill (talk) 23:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Please do not take it personally. The article has tremendous potential. I'd suggest withdrawing the DYK until such affronts cannot be made. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I will probably quit DYK because it isn't clear cut. I will start trying to write Good Articles. The reason why I didn't ever branch out that far is because most of my articles are obscure species with barely any information so DYK was the only place for them. I will still create species articles, but I will probably never nominate them for DYK again. Joe Chill (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Having only recently discovered the changes over at DYK, I wil myself likely refrain from future attempts. It is now set up as far less encouraging to editors. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I retracted my nomination. Joe Chill (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I had 65 successful DYKs before the change, but I do not predict my bothering again in the future. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Essay

I withdrew it. On an unrelated note, what is your opinion on my essay WP:NAFD? I created it because of the mass software nominations that happened last year with editors not even trying to find notability. It is still done now with a variety of articles. Joe Chill (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Mass nominations are frowned upon, and are sometimes seen as diruptive or pointy, mostly because they reduce the expectation or opprotunity that all could be improved in a short amount of time. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Not all articles can be improved in a short amount of time or at all. I also don't care about members finding it disruptive or pointy when there is no guideline or policy stating that it is. Since some editors do find it pointy or disruptive like you say, I probably should get it deleted. There are even popular essays that a large group disagree with, but having this may get me attacked again. I was attacked for nominating an article for AfD, I was attacked for nominating an article for DYK (a big step from AfD), I was attacked because I reported someone to ANI that told someone else to f off, and I was attacked because of a DYK article being too close to the sources that I was unable to fix because I took a break from Wikipedia. All of these happened in the past few days. I might just be rambling, but I do not know why the rules don't apply to everyone. Joe Chill (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Your essay is fine, and no... not all nominated articles can be improved. But I have seen instances where someone mass nommed over 60 articles on topics that could be improved, simply because no one had done any improvements. As for perceived attacks, all I can advise is to be the better person. And there are those that do ignore CIV policy. It eventually bites them in the butt. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairbury Police Department (Nebraska) is a mass nomination that disgusts me. Maybe I should add it to the essay as an unconstructive example. It is also against every constructive thing that I added to my essay. I separated the two topics. I hope that you don't mind. Joe Chill (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, an example of how unhelpful mass nominations can be. I note that among those listed, Morrill County Sheriff's Office survives due to its sourcing. Expecting or demanding improvements on so many puts strain on those who are willing to improve such. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Tom Hatton

Thank you for your AfD participation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Hatton. Since you made your initial comments, the article has been substantially revised by the editor who requested that it be restored after previous PROD deletion. Please reevaluate the article and see if your !vote in that AfD reflects your assessment of the updated article. Jclemens (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I will look in. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Good work on the newbies guide Michael. Only someone with a great heart like you would have the patience to do that. I trimmed down the lede and intro a little but added in a very concise summary of the guideline's purpose. Just revert if you dont think it helps. PS - I really dont think you need to say "no insult intended" about the dummies title, unless there is some sort of humour going on that Im not getting. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at Snottywong's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Question

I am trying to get S&Man to Good Article status despite me having no interest in the subject. I tried asking for help on the Film Wikiproject, but I haven't received any response as of yet. What are some good examples of Good Articles that are similar to this and what suggestions do you have? I would rather like to get the article to Good Article mostly by myself or by myself. It is not a case of trying to own the article because I won't stop other people from editing it if they want to. Before and after my RFA nomination in early 2010, so many members doubted and still doubt my understanding of policies and guidelines. Members have also complained and still complain about how I handle certain issues. Vastly improving this article from where it first started out as is not just to prove to them that I am an asset to Wikipedia, but to also prove it a bit to myself. Joe Chill (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

By asking me, you just got a ProjectFilm response. Study Wikipedia:Good article criteria. While looking good as a decent "B class", it will take work, more sources, and expansion to be judged GA. You'll want to spend some time at and ask questions of Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment. Study other film artilces that have made it to GA FL and FA status to see how much more sourced detail they get into in enlightening the reader. Also, and while not a mandate, avoid having redlinks.

And by the by, I just upped S&Man from stub to "C" based upon its curent level of completion. Perhaps one of the other Project Film Coordinators can check it for B, if I do not get back to it today. Please note that many articles that tecnically meet the criteria for GA, do not make it because a lack of comprehensive depth. More is better. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I am going to aim for DYK less than I normally did. The DYK talk pages shows so many faults. I do consider it a worthwhile project and I will still participate in it, but DYK just has had such a bad reputation recently. Joe Chill (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

RTVNM

Liked your introduction to editing thingy. (Liked it first time too.) Have spotted and corrected a few typos - hope you don't mind. Peridon (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Do not mind one iota. You were invited for those keen eyes. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bull Hotel

Speedy?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Meets the criteria. Best option now is a hatnote on each Bull Hotel article with a wikilink to the other. The disambig page can be recreated if/when someone create articles on the other Bull Hotels seen redlinked. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

We have 3 articles now, it does not meet speedy criteria anymore.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

NICELY done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for The Naked Monster

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	A new award! R RAE 08:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

After 3 years, 7 months, and 5 days..

At a quick glance it looks pretty good, but I don't have time to read it properly now. I will try to have a better look at it tomorrow, and let you know. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Update

I don't know if you noticed, but I took your advice and Mike Allen re-classed the article S&Man as B-class. Joe Chill (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed you had checked in with Mike Allen. Good job. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at Peridon's talk page.
Message added 20:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Peridon (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Essay

Good job on pulling this altogether, I'm surprised we didn't have something this straightforward and detailed before. I went through and made a few grammatical edits, feel free to revert. I'd recommend maybe increasing the image sizes. For tips, I think it would be helpful if you included either a brief section on images, both free and non-free, and where they should go for uploading or for any questions they have. If you don't want to include a whole section, a direct link to image policies should be helpful. I would also recommend adding a tip for editors to really make use of the "show preview" button, it will become their best friend. Other than that, it looks good to me and will likely be another helpful tool for new editors in developing articles not to be immediately deleted. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It was a labor of love. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to echo the above comments. I've read this through and am thoroughly impressed with the care taken with language use and the comprehensiveness of the primer. I'll make sure to send newer users that way. Thanks for all your hard work! I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, now I feel I better give it a second read through just to see if I overlooked anything else. I'll look at it closer later this week. Again good job, I'll also definitely be providing a link to it for new editors I encounter. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Glad if it makes it even a little easier for the newbs. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Also wanted to thank you for giving me first (two!) barnstars. I feel like a million bucks! I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

  Hmmmph... should be two million. Keep doing what you're doing and I'm sure you'll get more. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

10pix Done!

DYK nominating

This nomination was not posted correctly. In the future, please follow the instructions at T:TDYK#How to post a new nomination, instead of copying someone else's nomination and adjusting it manually. Thank you, rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes... in retrospect, it seems that between my previous DYK of June 2011[1] and this latest, the DYK nomination rules have changed significantly. As for you presumption that I copied and modified "someone else's nomination", I simply used the exact same format that had been using successfully for my 65 earlier DYKS since 2009.[2] Sorry that I missed out on the discussions that created the more convoluted procedures. Could you please share a link to those discussions? Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind about the discussion links. Did some digging and found enough to scare me. While streamlining the process would have made sense and perhaps even reduced the backlog, the resulting confusion/obfuscation has made things far worse. No offense to you or your efforts to untangle the hairball, but it seems the cure is worse than the disease. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I see. What I meant was not specifically someone else's nomination, but that you're copy-pasting formatting from previous nominations rather than using the template (because there is some formatting in your nominations that the template cannot have produced).

Regarding the change to the rules, there is a large editnotice on T:TDYK attempting to alert editors that the process has changed. This was pretty much the best I could do, as it wasn't feasible to individually notify every DYK regular.

Regarding the complicatedness of the procedure: I am aware that things are a bit crazy right now, but please be aware that most of the confusing things are not related to this change. The talk page is full of arguments about, e.g., reviewing checklists and such, which is a different issue than the switching of nominations to subpages. I have done everything I could to make the new process as easy as possible for nominators and I have written up what I think are pretty clear instructions at the top of T:TDYK; out of the couple hundred nominations that have been posted since the change, very few had problems like these, and most people have told me they find the new process no more difficult than the old one. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		To MichaelQSchmidt, for putting together Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers. This is a great layman's guide to editing and should prove helpful to many newbies. ThemFromSpace 00:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of our philosophical differences at AfD and elsewhere, this page is brilliant. Thanks for the work you put into it! ThemFromSpace 00:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

We each in our own way wish to improve the project, so thank you very much. You may also like another essay written right before WP:NewbieGuide went live: WP:Wikipedia is not about YOU will hopefully prevent too many newcomer offerings that smack loudly of COI. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Newbie Guide

Hi, Michael. I think this is a really valuable resource and commend you for the work you've put into it. My question would be how best to help newbies find it? Shortcuts are useful, but of course newbies aren't familiar with shortcuts (that said, I note that the shortcut WP:PRIMER isn't spoken for: perhaps you should grab it, maybe even along with WP:Rough guide). How about proposing some "further reading" links off of Wikipedia:Introduction, Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, Wikipedia:FAQ or Help:Getting started on the respective talk pages? I'm not sure what the inclusion criteria are for these categories, but have you considered adding the guide the categories Category:Wikipedia basic information or Category:Wikipedia quick introductions? Cheers. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		For creating Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers to help new users. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Film searching

The Anime and Manga wikiproject has a special Google search which only looks through certain websites. http://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=009114923999563836576:1eorkzz2gp4 There is a link at that bottom to create your own custom Google search. Not sure if I suggested this before or not, but since you are active and knowledgeable in films, you could create such a thing for films. Notice how this one links to where the list of all sites considered reliable sources for anime and manga are listed on the Wikipedia? Probably have a page like that for films, and if not, someone should create one. Make it easier for people to search for things that way. Dream Focus 08:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense, specially as Google has shut down their news archive search. What I am struggling with now is in trying to install User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait, it has? The archive search still seems to work for me.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

As recently as yesterday, it did not work for me, though a version of it seems to now. I did find a very recent post at Search Engine Land: "Google News Archive Search Page: Gone Forever Or Temporary Bug?' and an earlier "Google Shuts Down Ambitious Newspaper Scanning Project" What I am seeing now may be Google bowing to consumer pressure, and differs greatly from the screens I would see in the past which would list timeline of articles for a topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That first linked article has it right. The old news archive serch IS gone. And advanced search does not ofer the same facility of use as did the old. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Del Zamora.
Message added 01:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Delayed Responses

Since I have been away for the last two weeks I'm just dropping you a note to let you know I have now responded to your comment on my talk page - in case you have stopped watching for the reply. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	New editors primer is great. Spartaz Humbug! 20:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It was a labor of love. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. T. Alley

Closed as a delete? Does that seem fair? To me it looks clearly like a no consensus.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

As sources existed and were present in the article, any delete votes that said there were none were demonstrably incorrect. More to the point, three of the keeps made special note that citation were available and IN the article, and only two of the keeps (you and the article creator) did not specifically acknowledge sourcing. The closer was in error in his summary "The delete commentators say that he doesn't have multiple, reliable sources backing him up, the keep commentators say he doesn't." Wrong conclusion. At worst, a no-consensus default to keep would have been a reasonable call. For someone in Texas to be covered IN Texas media is logical. While the GNG requires multiple reliable sources for something to be considered worthy of note, it does not demand nor expect that such coverage be world wide or even national. Notable to Texas is notable enough. AFD is not a vote, but the rationales ofered by those opining for delete were flawed. Im my opinion, and sepcially as were not speaking about a BLP, the closer made a poor evaluation of the arguments and seemed to impose a supervote. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

Hi! I've never been a barnstar giver and I hate abstaining from giving praise so I thought I'd leave you a message. For what it's worth, your name is synonymous to me with quality editing. Any time I'm in proximity of your edits regarding AfDs and rescuing articles, I've admired what you do and agreed with your assesments 100%. I think the only way that you could benefit WP more is if you opened a school for teaching editors how to research subjects, find sources, and make a proper analysis of the notability of an article. You set a great example and I hope you rub off on others. Happy hunting. OlYeller^Talktome 00:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nithya (film)

I have no objection. If many feel that redirecting would be a better option then it's fine. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 10:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Appointment with Fear (film)

I started this, you might find some more info and sources. I watched the film on youtube its linked at the bottom. Its not a bad film actually, bit silly as is to be expected of a 80s superatural horror film. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

OMG! A true "Alan Smithee" film (read up on "him"). Apparently DGA director Ramsey Thomas did not want to be attached to the project, but was eventually linked to it anyway. I'll dig more and get back to you.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 14:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey man thanks for catching that. See ya around. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 03:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
Message added 17:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drmies (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three Days (2011 film)

I'm fine with redirecting as you suggest. PaintedCarpet (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Google News Archive fix

On Google News, click on Advanced news search. Click on "Return articles added to Google News between blank and blank". Remove both dates in the between fields and then search. That should show you many sources from way back. Joe Chill (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

My main problem is that I was using IE7. Upgraded now to IE8. Slower browser, but does allow an archve search in goggle news. Thanks for checking in. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I have been unable to do a Google News Archive search the regular way on Firefox and SeaMonkey. I find it odd. Joe Chill (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. The page redirects to that way. Google News is so annoying now. Joe Chill (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Almost as if making searches easier for users is no longer a consideration. I blame the accountants. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at I Jethrobot's talk page.
Message added 07:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

AfD Discussions

Hey Michael, I was curious, so I ran the numbers, and by the look of your AfD history, it looks like you have an 84% success rate (eliminating all the comments, opinions, ect. and assuming everything you put + was a success), not bad for over 1,200 keep/redirect/userfy opinions. Not sure if you had been looking at the numbers, but pretty impressive none the less.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Lots of work to do the tallying... that page needs updating. I do think that that page shows that I am just as willing to opine a delete as a keep, and my opinions are grounded in policy and guideline and are born out more often than not. The SnottyWong tool is pretty helpful too. See THIS to see the most recent 250 AFDs in which I participated. Green and Yellow for deletes AND keeps, added up, versus the Reds were my opinion was not born out seem to show that I do have "clue" and am not nearly as inclusionist as some might claim. And in looking at your stats, show you to be perhaps more deltionist than me,[3] and even more likely to be correct in your assessments. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The tallying was no drama. Just some clever Excel work. Snotty Wong's tool is quite useful, I had seen it before. Opinions grounded in policy is the key, and I tend to avoid AfDs I dont have a strong opinion about, one way or another. Keep up the good work, if you want a lesson in running the numbers, let me know, it only took about 90 seconds. kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You may also have interest in this userbox. Couldn't find a better picture though.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh, one of those seems more appropriate for Wikipedia...--kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

My thought exactly. :)

thanks for the barnstar

thanks for the barnstar. just saw it. Okip 16:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

there were many that were involved in helping me tweak WP:PRIMER, and all merited my thanks and recognition. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

thanks for your poster work

your most recent poster uploads on silent films is par excellent. I thought I'd send a shout out to you in appreciation. I hope I'm in the right place as I just came from your 'user page'. Thanks for sharing that photo with us of you and the late Jeff Conaway. If you'd like more posters to work on just let me know. Stay safe. Koplimek (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Yup, this is the place. :) I have lots more to go. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)