User talk:MichaelQSchmidt/Archive 023

Thanks

Thank you for the kind words at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. So many times in discussions like these, editors are quick to criticize others and rarely take the time to say nice things — which really do help the tenor of a discussion. My compliments to you for serving as a real-world model for others. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at Wifione's talk page.
Message added 14:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wifione ^Message 14:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The Fate of Lee Khan

I created the article The Fate of Lee Khan from Requested Articles, but I am having trouble finding more sources for this Chinese kung fu flick. I already showed notability, but I would like to expand it more. If you desire, you can expand the article also (of course). I am asking you for help because you are great at finding film sources even for foreign films. SL93 (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Luciferwildcat

Michael, would you be willing to spend some time trying to explain to luciferwildcat (talk · contribs) about how to make contributions to AFD that actually count and make a difference. They are currently taking an extremely un-policy based approach in their contributions and I think advice from an editor of an inclusionist perspective who has learned to work extremely effectively with our meta attitude to inclusion would be more helpful then more lectures from avowed evil deletionists like myself. Its OK if you would rather not. Cheers Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Michael, I agree with Spartaz except the part about him being evil. I have also observed this editor's participation here, and he could be really useful in improving our coverage of notable topics connected with Richmond, California. However, at the moment, his ongoing argument that pretty much anything mentioned in a few newspapers is worthy of an encyclopedia article is becoming a bit disruptive. Perhaps input from an "inclusionist" administrator might prove beneficial. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:One Tree Hill (TV series)#Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt, would you mind commenting on the above linked discussion when you get a chance...since it has to do with a comment you made at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Flyer22 (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Red Sense

I will let the AfD just run its course. It's giving me a headache. SL93 (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

CSB is almost always a headache. I can understand. While I addressed your concerns that it might be a hoax which never screened, we'd still need some decent sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Susan Cusack

I am not so sure we get WP:ANYBIO out of her awards. The GG is a special award not even included at 51st Golden Globe Awards. The other one also seems a bit trivial. I am now looking her up as "Susan" and finding a bit. Follow my editing to see what I find.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Film talk pages need moving

• Disney's The Kid - Talk:Disney's The Kid Done. Page moved. Redirect overwritten
• Kill Bill Volume 2 - Talk:Kill Bill Volume 2 Done. Page moved. Redirect overwritten
• Ichi the Killer - Talk:Ichi the Killer Done. Page moved. Redirect overwritten
• Veettilekkulla Vazhi - Talk:Veettilekkulla Vazhi Done. Page moved. Redirect overwritten
• Vettaikaaran (2009 film) - Talk:Vettaikaaran (2009 film) Done. Page moved. Redirect overwritten

These films appear to have not been assessed because their talk pages were not moved with the article. I can't move them because of the redirects, I'm hoping you can help. Thanks! --Peppage^ಠ_ಠ 05:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The talk pages are redirects (someone fixed Eloie's Lover), on The Kid the talk page should be the same name as the article but it redirects to Talk:Disney's The Kid (2000 film), I would just move it but I can't overwrite the redirected page. The article was moved from consensus but the talk page must have been forgotten about. The kill bill vol 2 talk page points to vol 1 but it shouldn't and actually I don't know how to fix that one. It needs its own assessment. I added the talk page links to the list. --Peppage^ಠ_ಠ 13:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I asked on the wikiproject talk page with my thoughts and to see what everyone wants to do. --Peppage^ಠ_ಠ 18:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

AfD of XD Theater -- Discussion on Triotech Amusement

Hi there! I just posted an update on the AfD for XD Theater.. maybe you can help me with revamping Triotech Amusement so that the redirect will be smoother.

I already found some possible third party websites:

• Blooloop
• Business Week
• YourGuides

Feel free to find more and edit the page.

Thanks, Whenaxis (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artel Walker

As someone who participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artel Jarod Walker, you may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artel Walker. --Nat Gertler (talk) 08:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Never mind; AFD closed and article speedied. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

*sniff*

I see you closed your first AFD! [1]. I'm so proud. Happy New Year Michael. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Slowly and carefully. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Incubator question

I moved Keith Akers out of the incubator after finding five book sources with significant coverage. Since I was the one that found the notability, did I have to wait for someone else to move it? I hope that no one complains. SL93 (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops. If an editor improves an article enough so that he feels it ready for mainspace he is not a dis-interested party, and so he should then tag it for evaluation, and wait. Editors such as myself might be notified that it is ready for evaluation. I'll look into properly transducing and tagging. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

re:inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aqib Khan

Nice job saving Aqib Khan, you really turned it around. Enjoy your kitten!

Cocoaguy ここがいい 05:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

How'd you know I like cats?  :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Socking

You'll probably notice some edits to an AFD I've made recently. This page history should explain most of it. There's more if you need it.—Kww(talk) 13:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd noticed. Good job. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Film December 2011 Newsletter

The December 2011 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. Thank you. —Peppage (talk | contribs) 22:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at Funnyfarmofdoom's talk page.
Message added 22:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 22:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

re: Talk to Me (2005 film)

No problem. Lugnuts (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Done! And again, thanks for your work on sourcing this. Lugnuts (talk) 07:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

San Francisco meetup at WMF headquarters

Hi MichaelQSchmidt,

I just wanted to give you a heads-up about the next wiki-meetup happening in SF. It'll be located at our very own Wikimedia Foundation offices, and we'd love it if some local editors who are new to the meetup scene came and got some free lunch with us :) Please sign up on the meetup page if you're interested in attending, and I hope to see you soon! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as I am an 8-hour drive south, it is unlikely that I will be there. But thanks for the invite. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Just casting a wide net – anyway, I think it's a pretty good excuse for a road trip :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Moni

This may be of interest. - Sitush (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a diff by you that has been linked to. The thread is Canvassing. Thank you.--v/r - TP 19:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at TParis's talk page.
Message added 22:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

v/r - TP 22:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

User:CatWizard777

I appreciate your offer of help to User:CatWizard777, but he seems to misunderstand. He insists on his user talk and on the Help desk that you support his contention that “Remember a Day” should remain in article space simply because the subject exists. It might help if you would clarify that you do not agree with him on that. —teb728 t c 19:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Michael for getting Remember a Day back to work space. I am looking into all aspects to rectify this page to the specified wikpedia criteria. If I may add some opinions aired by London Clanger and Michig - are in my opinion not valid as all reviews are in hard copy magazines in German and English - these reviews on Remember a Day (200 film) are not blog spots on websites - but featured articles on the works in notably well known journals. These aspersions from these contributors have not been accurately researched - as if so - they would not have quoted these genuine articles as blog spots. I should like to ask you for your help in replacing this page, in terms of minimum requirements, whilst the technical aspects are being rectified. I also have been having some other page problems condemned by the same users. Is there a way I can confer with you other than in public, for help on all, as I did initially with administrator moonriddengirl in 2009. Thanks again for your help. CatWizard777 (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Reasons_to_avoid_article_deletion

Per our conversation last night, I want to point this out. Wikipedia does not keep articles because "It can be discouraging for an editor to have their article deleted" or "It can be frustrating for a reader to come to Wikipedia for information and inside find that the relevant article existed at one point but has been deleted". Fight the perception starting with the causes first.--v/r - TP 22:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yupp. This section "re-labeled" by NA1k last October will require either elimination or major rewritting in the revamp of the project page to neutralize its tone and be properly reflective of and link back to WP:DEL, WP:DEL#REASON, WP:DEL#CONTENT, WP:DEL#PROCESSES and should specifically instruct members that deletion discussions are NOT decided by weight of numbers, but are decided rather by discussion and application of policy and guideine. It should also encourage newcomers visit WP:PRIMER and WP:NAU. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the project page need fixing up, but the attitudes also need to be fixed if this is any indication. Anyway, I support your changes to the project and I'll keep my opinion of ARS and it's members down and give you about six months to a year of peace before I bicker again. Good luck.--v/r - TP 00:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the grace period, as it cannot be done overnight. :) Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

For breaching a paywall for a damsel in distress

		The Ka-Ching Ka-Ching Citation of the Monied and Munificent Order of Wikipedian Patrons of Civilization barnstar
		On behalf of Marjorie Eaton, I bestow this award on you. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

VERY cool. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Silent Life article restoration

Hello, there is a bunch of new publications on Silent Life movie, may I ask you to evaluate if now it is eligible for moving to mainspace.[2]

http://www.cinemotionlab.com/inform/1114

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/entertainment-arts-15674340

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Another-Silent-Film-Come-Out-prnews-3331690647.html

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/ef444a56-24dd-11e1-bfb3-00144feabdc0.html

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Ftelesite.ru%2Fnews%2F4247%2F

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1099209/

Thank you in advance --MisterFirst (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll look into it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Your article has been moved to AfC space

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:MichaelQSchmidt/The Great Mountain Biking Video has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Great Mountain Biking Video, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For fine work on The Lawful Cheater at AfD, Wikipedia at its best. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You're the Man!

Congrats!, The Lawful Cheater has been saved from deletion thanks largely to you. Kudos Michael. [:)] Koplimek (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Advice?

Hiya! I was just wondering if you could look at a page I'm working on in my userspace and see if it's ready to go up on the mainspace. My first reaction is that it isn't, mostly because many of the sources I've used are trivial sources. There are a few lengthier pieces by some reliable sources, but I'm a little hesitant to move it to the mainspace if it's not ready. The Critical Mass blog and the PW entry are the two that are the meatier of the sources on my Netgalley page. I'm trying to think of the page in terms of how I'd vote if it came to AfD, but I'm sort of inbetween as far as whether I'd have voted delete or keep if I'd come across it in an AfD. I figure that you'd be a good neutral voice as far as this article goes. I have no problem continuing to keep it in my user space until (or if) more sources become available. (This is pretty much my only concern, that there aren't enough reliable in-depth sources on the article to justify moving it.) Here's the page: User:Tokyogirl79/NetGalley Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Kick (2012 film)

Dear MichaelQSchmidt, you recently moved this article to another page. This is an upcoming movie and qualifies for a separate page. Please advice why do you suggest the page movement. Regards AKS (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The recent AFD for Kick (2012 film) was closed by User:Deryck Chan three days ago as a delete... but in following up, I noticed that the article had not actually been deleted. As other options offered at the AFD suggested redirects, I performed a redirect. Not a move. The article history remains intact and the redirect can be undone and the article brought back once the issues of it failing WP:NFF are addressed. To return the article, speak with the admin who closed the AFD. But keep in mind, simply being an upcoming film does not mean we automatically have articles. For planned films we look to see if the topic has enough in-depth and persistant coverage to merit being one of those rare exceptions to WP:NFF. And if having coverage but not enough to merit being an exception, we can then look to see if per policy it might still be spoken of somewhere, even if not in a separate article. That's why a redirect. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Michael, like lots of other upcoming movie, article for this movie was also created; nothing unusual about it. This page was created today by me and if at all AfD was placed then then I am not aware about the historicity of it. There is sufficient coverage for this movie including national newspaper which has been cited in the article. Please refrain from “revert war” as you are simply redirecting the page without discussing, waiting for my reply or even researching anything. If an article needs additional references, then it has to be tagged properly and not moved. I am reinstating the article - please discuss on talk page before taking any further action as the article qualifies the guidelines. Regards AKS (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The redirect was the polite way to handle it. Per WP:CSD#G4 your new article recreated one that had been properly deleted per result of a deletion discussion. Did you not notice the title tagged as such when you recreated it? You are correct that addressable issues can be tagged, but to recreate a deleted article we go through other channels. If you wish the article back, even after it was deleted or redirected, please discuss the matter with the closing admi or take the issue to WP:DRV. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to say, thanks for notifying me. Deryck C. 21:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

ARS

I posted some thoughts here and here. What are your thoughts on these ideas for ARS?--v/r - TP 21:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at Arunsingh16's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AKS (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at Arunsingh16's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at Arunsingh16's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Howdy

Hey MQS, I've never really looked at Wikipedia Review before, but I did find myself mentioned there--look, I'm mentioned in the same breath with you and Ikip as a member of the ARS. Isn't that funny? (Also, they're calling us old--them's fighting words.) Hope you're doing well. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That, plus you are both more than two years older than you were when the charge was leveled. Don't feel bad - I've got # 60 coming up next month. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

And I wasn't a "kid" even back then. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Plus, that admin shirt adds ten years. Has the power gone to your head yet, MQS? Drmies (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Nah... just as I offered at the RFA, while the mop has proven useful, I am too busy fixing articles[3] to get deeply embroiled in politics and drama. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so that's why I am at ANI defending your buddies? Thanks a lot, old pal! And I do mean old! Drmies (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

And droping my name... as I just discovered. I was until now unaware that the ARS was once again returned to ANI. Repeated ANIs over the same issues could be seen as a bit pointy and could result in a block for the offending editor. Other issues keeping me busy are my real-life film and commercial projects. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Volume I, Issue III February 2012 Front cover | Feature | News and announcements | Humor | Want ads To contribute to the next newsletter, please visit the Newsletter draft page. ARS Members automatically receive this newsletter. To opt out, please remove your name from the recipients list.

Bin Bulaye Baraati

Hello, back in July you expanded the article Bin Bulaye Baraati with, among other things, a plot summary [4]. You did not source the plot summary, but very much the same summary is found on IMDB, where it is credited to a user called rAJOo [5]. Did you copy that summary from there, and are texts from IMDB freely licensed? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It may be possible that IMDB contributor "rAJOo" borrowed the plot from the Wikipedia article, but did not share an attribution. My own version was based upon various articles about the film. And while yes, the two do read somewhat similarly, his version seems to have been "sweetened" with Bollywood hyperbole not suitable for us. It may be best that I rewrite it to remove the similarity. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Fun Size

I've withdrawn my AfD nomination for Fun Size. There are now plenty of sources that establish notability, so passes WP:NFF. Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 02:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Review

Hello. Could you please take a look at 6th Asian Film Awards. Its a different style of film awards, and I have made the list in a somewhat different way. Is it alright if I leave it in its present form? Currently, the winners have not been announced. Thank you in advance. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I quite like how you assembled the page. Well done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Congrats

I have just returned to the project and one of the first things I noticed was that you are now an admin. As such I wanted to offer my late congratulations.

--ThaddeusB (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

My thanks to you for your guidence.:) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Best films deletion discussion

• Thanks, and well done. It looks like the clear consensus is going to be to keep, and that nearly everyone agrees with the points that you've made, so I'll hold off on throwing in a keep unless it appears that the tide is turning for some reason. My experience in AfD was always that getting comments in early is the most important factor in swaying opinion. Being able to show what's wrong with the reasons given in the nomination, without implying that there's something wrong with the person who did the nomination, is another factor in persuading others. Good job on all counts. Mandsford 13:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at ItsZippy's talk page.
Message added 15:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at Aramis Knight, please?

Michael, could you take a look at Aramis Knight? It's a new article that's suffering from a number of issues (ownership being just one of them…), and I'd like to know what you think. Right now, the article is primarily sourced to IMDB and the subject's own web site, and when I try to move those into ELs (where they should be), I get templates and yelling about "blanking," "vandalism," and supposed formatting errors.

My 2¢, fwiw: the kid has had a number of small parts in films and TV shows—an impressive number for his age, imo, but not what I think of as "significant roles." He has a sweet supporting role in a major film due to come out over a year from now. But I can't find any existing significant coverage about him—that is, articles that focus on him versus passing mentions as one of the cast on projects.

Anyhow, I'd appreciate your take on this one. If you find the same nothing I've found, maybe you can get through to the creator. And of course, if you can find more/better sources, that's the best outcome of all. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 04:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The article on the young actor has tremendous potential. I feel that even while somewhat weak on WP:GNG, and even though, as have many young actors, he has had minor roles, I think enough of his roles are significant enough to plot and storyline so as to verifiable as meeting WP:ENT. I have dropped the new author an little note about reliable sourcing vs IMDB and offered my assistance. While many young actors do not meet the hurdle of ENT for years, Aramis is doing far more and far better than many of his peers. What is most current naturally, is his having captured a jewel of a role in Ender's Game (film). For that alone we can expect more and far better sources to come. So, while a bit weak now, Aramis has just enough going on to allow the article on him to eke by... and so remain and grow and improve over time. I think the "ownership" issues arise from a newcomer's lack of understanding... itself an addressable issue with the patience of we "more seasoned" editors. Thanks for asking me to look in. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like you and I are on exactly the same page—an article on Knight would have been borderline previously, but being cast as Bean jumps him into an entirely different category. Of course, Hollywood is Hollywood, and a lot can happen in 13 months, but I was willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

Do you have an opinion on the sourcing for him having been in Shrek Forever After? The link to a PDF at Paramount.com looks very dubious to me, and I haven't been able to find anything else—reliable or not—that supports it. Again, thanks! Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 22:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the PDF is indeed on the Paramount site, and is a list submitted by DreamWorks of the "assets" they used... but apparently, his being one of a set of random crowd voices used in the post-production ADR was not important enough for Paramount to include on the IMDB page for the film (as of yet). And while the author feels it worth mentioning this very minor anonymous background voice role, I do not see it as contributing to notability. Sometimes we can find such in officially posted production PDFs. A similar PDF search finds his being Juan Sanchez in Crossing Over found on page 22 in an "production assts" page posted by Ascot-Elite,[6] and in a similar Crossing Over production notes posted by The Weinstein Company.[7]

That said, it's really not surprising that the author was able to find Paramounts prosuction notes on the film, but the link will definitely subject to linkrot. Apart from the Paramount source, I did find Aramis as a minor Shrek 4 background "voice" at ccv.msalvini.de, but as just a name in a list, it's not coverage that imparts any notability. Pretty much, the Aramis artilce gives the mention all the space it deserves. It's essentially trivial, but not controversial nor harmful to include, as it is verifiable to the production company, even if nowhere else.

Better we encourage him to find stronger sources for the more notable roles. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

MovieWeb backs up the Crossing Over role, so I've got no issues with that one. IMO, if a role is too small to even be listed on IMDb, I think it's better to just leave it off entirely.

Anyhow, I'm now doing my edits piecemeal, so if he wants to just undo one, he can, versus wholesale reverting. And of course, if you have any disagreements with my edits, please don't hesitate to let me know. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 23:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I was using his role in Crossing Over simply as an example of how some information is available in official production company PDFs, and yes, it is verifiable in much better sources. I think as long as we treat him with patience, and even encourage he make corrections himself after our explaining why they need be done, we'll have ourseves a fine contributor. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Survey

Rcsprinter123 got into a lot of trouble for starting a survey. But he was doing worse and claiming it to be an official survey.

Ling JIANG is receiving an almost equal amount of flack - see also this notice. I think the matter is being dealt with. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

One hopes. Using the send email link in this manner amounts to generating unwanted SPAM. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at Booth088's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Citation Question

I'm adding citations to Ryan Ochoa, and the question is arising in my research: are enotes and TV.com considered acceptable sources? Thanks!Aaron Booth (talk) 05:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

As a website where anyone can post information, enotes is not considered a reliable source. You might consider using the information contained therein in your search parameters in seeking actually relaible sourrces. Owned by CBS Interactive, TV.com is somehwat better... just so long as one sticks to informtation supplied by ts editorial staff and not use information supplied by its users. Far better to use sources from more respected providers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

ILGLaw

Hi, you voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender & Intersex Law Association. We looked for sources and I posted a review of each of the sources which were found. The sources do not seem to be enough to pass GNG. Would you care to comment or to change your vote? Dingo1729 (talk) 06:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For editing the article. Rp176 (talk) 07:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy to assist. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Mettle (comics)

Hello. Folken de Fanel has been edit warring over Mettle (comics), reverting it to a redirect and claiming the character is not notable. He is a new character, but has been appearing regularly every issue as a featured character in the Avengers Academy series for over two years now. Can you help me find some sources that prove this is a notable character so the article can be restored?

Thanks. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There are unfortunately, those editors that look at an article and determine that because it currently lacks souces, the topic "must" therefore be automatically unsourcable and thus non-notable. Such a determination is of course against policy. The best way to counter such action is to provide sources if reversing a redirect... adding them to the article before hitting the final "Save Page"... and then letting the matter be discussed at AFD if the editor is still not convinced. The character of "Mettle" needs to be confirmed outside the comic book itself, and this seems do-able.[8] Mettle is spoken of by Newsarama in their discussion of Avengers Academy #20, and #14.1.[9] in Daily Blam in their discussions of Avengers Academy #15 and Avengers Academy #14.1.[10] He is spoken of in Comic Book Resources in their discussion of Avengers Academy #4. He is spoken of by Play by Play in their discussion of Avengers Academy #7.Better is the character being spoken of in Philadelphia Inquirer,[11] Lubbock Avalanche-Journal,[12] Keep in mind that the term "mettle" in association with "Avengers" brings a lot of false positives and, as articles on fictional elements usually raise a lot of negative input, they must be concise and well cited. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look at those! I have noticed that there are a lot of such editors.  :) 129.33.19.254 (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Some of those I decided not to use, but I did add a few to the article. I'm fully expecting him to try to delete this one anyway! 129.33.19.254 (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Article for you

I dePRODed Bruce Leddy, but it could use some work. I thought you might be interested in giving it a shot. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Incubator anomalies

I stumbled onto the incubator stuff and noticed what might be a problem with the four pages listed here. Maybe these shouldn't be using the template or shouldn't be in main article space, but I don't know. Mentioning it here as you seem to know something about this incubator mechanism and I couldn't find any generally reasonable place to otherwise bring it up. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem. The articles were apparently intended for the incubator but an editor did not do the move correctly, so I have just moved the 4. If you come accross such in the future, you can complete/perform such a move your self using "Wikipedia:Article Incubator/(article name here)" as the new title.

The WP:MOVE tool will allow you to also move the article's talk page with the article and NOT leave any redirects behind. Good looking out. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Film's January–February Newsletter

The January 2012 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. Thank you.

To unsubscribe, please remove your name from the distribution list. GRAPPLE X 00:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Take This Lollipop

• Thanks for asking my opinion. It's a very well-referenced and well-written article about a subject that is clearly notable from the coverage; enough so that I think that even the most zealous deletionist is unlikely to attempt a nomination, and will be booed off the stage if he or she tries. I made some suggested edits that you might consider before putting it up, mostly for punctuation and consistency of tenses when describing whether a reporter "says" or "said" something. I think that most of the descriptions of the reviews are written in the past tense. Your own descriptions, of course, would all be in the present tense. Good work. Mandsford 23:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The tweaks and corrections were the perfect thing. I find that sometimes I get my tenses mixed up. Admittedly, my PC was running slow last evening (corrected now) and I was tired from a long day. Having tired eyes, your second set were and are appreciated. Thank you very much for your excellent contributions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks also for asking my opinion. It's a worthwhile article - well done. I was just sitting down for late lunch/early dinner with my wife, sons and one son's girlfriend, so I didn't have time then to do more than correct a typo. My only substantive suggestion at this time is that a chain of ten references for the lead paragraph seems a bit excessive. I would limit to perhaps three of the most solid and reliable references for the lead, and then use various of the others to support specific assertions made in the article. I did watch the video, and it was clever, but I was expecting it to be even more frightening. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Imagine how it might appear to someone who was not expecting it. I do like that each time it is viewed, there are occasinal differences as the app has the potential to grab and display different pictures. Im my own case, my Facebook has so many various pictures of my wofk tat it almost makes it appear the stalker is wacthing me with jealousy and frustrated anger. As more the extra sources... yes, I can trim them to only the very best... but will wait a few days. I wanted it well understood that this most special meets WP:NF... even if for a short film. Your insights are greatly appreciated. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
        • I will take another couple of looks at the video. It was a bit chilling to see a photo of me as a little kid with my dad aged about 27, (my son's age now) and later a photo of my dad shortly before his death, all taken from my Facebook page of course, but an eerie effect nonetheless. Thanks again for bringing this article (and the video) to my attention. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Looks good, very good actually. One minor comment: any particular reason you referenced the purpose of the movie to 10 sources? Surely 2 would be more than sufficient.

If you haven't done so already, I suggest putting it on WP:DYK --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK has become an unfriendly and complicated place, but yes... it is something I have been mulling over. As for the purpose of the 10... well, it was the first bunch of RS I found about this project and I used them as I expanded. But yes, they will be trimmed to the only the best. Many thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I like how the references are distributed throughout the article now, Michael. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Always happy to help. I am rather pleased with the article and think the film is delightfuly creepy. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Google Technology User Group (Incubator)

Dear Michael, I'm an active member of the global GTUG (Google Technology User Group) community. Our Wikipedia article was moved to Incubator almost 2 years ago, before I even knew it exists. After that its main editor asked for help and I did my best to improve the article. I'm writing you because I saw that you moved the article back to Incubator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Google_Technology_User_Group). Therefore, I'd like to ask you if you could share your opinion and thoughts on how I can improve its structure and content to be able to move it into mainspace one day?

Thanks a lot in advance!!! Aygulka (talk) 11:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I moved it "back" to the incubator because it was tagged as being in there even though it was not. I'll take a long look at see what else it needs. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much! If there was any mistakes with moving the article, it was totally mine (I haven't yet gain enough experience with incubator space articles). Looking forward to reading your thoughts about the article. One small thing: Google is going to rebrand GTUGs to GDGs (Google Developer Groups) in a month or so, the logo is changing as well. And we're moving to the official Google domain at developers.google.com. Not sure if it's important right now but decided to share this info with you just in case. Thanks again! Aygulka (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Enzo Petito

Reckon you can add to this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll see what I might do. In the meantime, go and enjoy Take This Lollipop. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing by the looks of it! I see a mass series of AFDs on recently created African films. Googling a few of them there do appear to be a few mention in sources. I awarded the creator a barnstar for his efforts in the belief they met notability requirements. Any thoughts?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

SFL 1

Hello, I don't think you can remember me, but we both voted Keep for the ProElite articles. I am here to ask you if you could go to the AfD page for this event and vote. If you look into the event, it meets the same, if not more, coverage as the ProElite pages and for this reason I voted Keep. The SFL is India's first MMA Promotion, and their upcoming event this weekend will mark the first MMA event to ever happen in India. Prior to the fights Jennifer Lopez, LMFAO and many other famous music acts will perform prior to the event to gain an audience and then they can stay to watch the fights after it, which will be headlined by James Thompson and Bob Sapp. There are dozens of articles out there on this event but please take the time to research these and vote for whatever you believe it should be. BigzMMA (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Australian notability

If you see any Afds related to Australia or where you think Australian sources may be available, I have access to several Australian related databases I can use to dig out sources for use with notability. (One or two are public. A few are through my university.) --LauraHale (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Your offer of assistance is invaluable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Take This Lollipop

Hello! Your submission of Take This Lollipop 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! Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Easly addressed.[13] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

making a point

I was not attempting to disrupt or make a point with my AFDs. I got to them organically during new page patrol, proded several, AFDed them when the prods were removed. When I noticed the LITERALLY MANY HUNDREDS and possibly THOUSAND of articles the person had created all within 2 days, I went to ANI. I will certainly cop to lacking on BEFORE, but only to the same degree no investigation was done as to the notability of those article topics to start with, other than being included in, and directly copied from a database. While certainly I might be out of bounds here, and perhaps the creator is sitting in a nice loophole, I think certainly there needs to be an equivalent BEFORE for article creation. In any case, we have worked together in the past, and I certainly respect your work as an editor and admin, but I did want to defend myself somewhat. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Though your numerous recent AFDs may not have been done to make a point, in looking at the recent ANI discussion it seems you take issue with the author's creation of so many many stubs. So intentional or not, this thus makes the nominations appear to be retaliatory. Sorry, but this is the appearance. The recent bunch you've sent to AFD all appear to have begun their very recent lives as minimally sourced but improvable stubs, with enough content to allow editors to research and expand them. This means that while they might be worth tagging for expansion and additional sources, they are not good candidates for AFD, as we have other better options for such. Understanding how some in NPP prefer stronger articles, I have myself taken to creating articles in a far more ready state before moving them to mainspace. But that's me... and a requirement that editors must create only fully-fleshed out articles is not a policy, as Wikipedia recognizes that we are a community working together and that Wikipedia itself is a work in process and admittedly imperfect. User:M.casanova has been aboard for less than 6 months and made less than 1700 edits.[14] I do not pretend to be able to read the author's mind nor do I wish to speculate upon whether or not this newbie has the skills to create some amazing tool or if he has instead set up a content assembly line, but that his stubs appear improvable seems indicative that he did do at least some sort of WP:BEFORE on his topics before setting them loose to hopefully be improved by either himself or others over time and through regular editing. Have you found any one or two that have absolutely no possibility of improvement? Have you and he engaged in discussions on how his works could be improved somewhat more before being set free? At the very least, how about sending him to WP:PRIMER, suggest to him that he use the WP:Article Wizard or begin them in a userspace sandbox? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Userfy request

Completed at User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Edward Drake (filmmaker). Stifle (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The Christmas Choir

Is this article still under a deletion policy or is it decided for keep the policy be taken away?--GoShow (...............) 04:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. It's not "under deletion policy"... it's under deletion discussion. The discussion tag will be removed from the article once the discussion is closed. Should be a few more days. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Giving a head's up

Hiya! The original contributor to the article wasn't happy with my revisions (not all of which were mine) and I tried to explain why it was necessary and why I couldn't revert the review section back to its original state, but he didn't seem to be very happy. I told him that if he was unhappy then he could bring it up on the AfD page or talk to you about it, so just thought I'd let you know in case he wants to bring it up here or on the admin board. I figured that it'd be best if he came to you first since you were involved in the AfD. [15][16] Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Untitled Star Trek sequel

I just figure you would know best at what the proper title should be for this article. Cheers. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

As we already have the redirect from Star Trek 2 (2013 film), so perhaps we can just wait until the studio announces its title. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC

There is an RfC in which you would probably be interested.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

As you use me as a example of an editor who repairs article that have not been on the ARS list, I appreciate your alerting me to your RFC. Of course, my repairing articles NOT on the ARS list could just as easily be used as evidence that other project's delsorts act as canvassing just as you claim the ARS list does. Making your RFC about inclusionists versus deletionists, and then using only exapmles of a few select comments from a few select and not typical "inclusionists" does not give a properly balanced picture. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I mention delsorts in the RfC. I do not think categorizing deletion discussions on the basis of what topic area the article falls into, has the same effect as a list that suggests or outright states the argument for deletion is wrong. I think, if anything, the problem with delsorts is they are not readily accessible to all editors. Trying to get to them from AfD is not as straightforward as it should be honestly. Basically, you have to know where to find the categories in order to know what AfD's fall into the category. A person can't be argued to have violated WP:CANVASS on the sole basis of how people vote. It requires some indication that the notifications were specifically intended to solicit the kind of votes that were gotten. Saying "I hear you like Mudkips. Here is a discussion about Mudkips" is not the same as saying "Someone's trying to delete the Mudkips, but the Mudkips belong here! Save the Mudkips!" :) The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

A delsort is quite easily accessible to any who choose to do so. See my userpage where I share userboxes specifically linkking back to various projects. Your comments all come back to what you perceive as problematic behavior of individuals... and not of an entire project dedicated to being the "last chance" to improve problematic articles. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you really just not get it? This is not a mere issue of some editors having bad behavior. It is that the ARS enables and essentially encourages such behavior. It sure doesn't do anything to effectively discourage such behavior.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It most certainly is a behavior issue, as editing Wikipedia is a personal and volunteer choice that requires individuals take responsibility for their actions. Through your set of arguments at your RFC, you speak toward the actions of a very few people, and then choose to use those few individual's actions as if representative of some 300+ other editors, and imply that those other 300+ must have somehow encouraged the poor behavior of those few. That's not how it works. Editors will edit as however they edit no matter what project they have joined. The issues are behavior and education.

For example, if someone was "attacted" to join Project BLP and then did nothing at all but place poor sources in articles or offer poor arguments at every discussion or BLP that went to AFD, that editor might possibly receive, in acsending order of attention... a polite note, an invitation to read pertinant guideline and policies, a caution, a sronger caution, a polite warning, a stronger warning, perhaps an ANI on their behavior, maybe an RFC on their behavior, and then might even merit a block dependent upon how disruptive their actions were. That individual would receive a chance or two or three or four to redeem themselves and correct their behavior. Surely you must be familiar with the processes? But we would not blame the entire BLP project because someone joined it who did not know what they were doing, nor claim that because the BLP project did not chastise nor admonish its errant member, that it must somehow be at fault and so seek to sanction the entire project simply because it attracted a disruptive editor or two. That's not how it works. Editors will edit as however they edit no matter what project they have joined. The issues are behavior and education.

All any project can do is attempt to educate its members in the project's goals. But no project is a police force. Editors will edit as however they edit no matter what project they have joined. Blaming the city because someone chose to visit and decided to "tag" a freeway sign does not address the problem of the tagging. That is addressed by speaking with the individuals. And please... you are quite welcome to counsel problematic editors yourself. THAT is the best way to begin dealing with behavior issues... through discussion and education.

Based upon the numerous cherrypicked AFDs of which you complained at your RFC, it makes it appear' you believe 1) Admins who close AFDs do not know what they are doing, and 2) Afds are closed per weight of numbers. Not the case. Afds are closed per consideration of the various pro and con arguments and application of policy and guideline... and not by how many votes there were from one side or the other. If you have an issue with the close of ANY Afd, ask the closer to reconsider his actions. If still not satisfied, take the Afd to deletion review.

Per your recent topic ban, you should seriously consider disengeging yourself from your constant fretting over the ARS. Step back. Take a deep breath. Go write a few articles. Counsel a few editors. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Take This Lollipop

Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article Rescue Squadron.
Message added 23:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Very easy to miss replies in what is already an (understandably) lengthy discussion. Wanted to know if you had an answer to this. (As an aside, I can't believe how civil this RFC has been so far...I was expecting fire, brimstone, and the end of days). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hope it remains civil. Shouting never convinces anyone. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorting some old laundry from my talk page archives...

...which included some userfied and incubated articles. Any new developments on this? This jumped out more then the others because she contacted me on my facebook page soon after I userfied it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Been distracted elsewhere. Will look into the artricle and its curent potential and get back to you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Help with editing Jason Zada

Hi Michael, I came upon the Take This Lollipop article that you started from the DYK fact on the main page, and I went ahead and started an article for Jason Zada, the producer of the film. I saw that you started the Take This Lollipop article, so I was wondering if you want to help improve the article on Jason Zada. Can you help with the article to make it acceptable? Thanks in advance, and great job creating the Take This Lollipop article! I thought the article must have been created at least a few months ago because it was nicely written and I would have never thought that you just created it last week if I hadn't looked at the history! - M0rphzone (talk) 05:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to move it out of mainspace for now. Find it at User:M0rphzone/Jason Zada. Starting a BLP in mainspace without having a decent set of reliable sources in the article will get it a lot of negative attention. Read WP:PEOPLE. Yes, I will be happy to help out... and will gladly move it back to mainspace when it is a far stronger and better sourced article. Read WP:RS, WP:V, and visit WP:PRIMER. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm yea I thought as much. I'll work on it some more until it is acceptable as a mainspace page. Thanks for the advice/info. - M0rphzone (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I've already done a few tweaks. Find articles ABOUT Zada, or about his work which speak about Zada. You might even contact him through his twitter and ask him if he is aware of any articles about him. Also, find articles about Elf Yourself that might speak about Zada. Avoid getting too much information from Tool of North Amewrica website, as it is considered WP:SPS and not independent of Zada... and instead find it they informatuion they share is itself covered elsewhere in reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

porn article

I saw you !voted on the porn discussion. I think there can be a viable consenus for merge, which would be a well supported outcome as per WP:NFILM since the sources may not merit a standalone article, but if the notability for this movie is primarily via the notable artist, and that artist has a page we could just add it there? Anyway, if you would comment on that outcome, I think it might help bring this AFD to a close most people can agree on. (Of course, if you are adamant about a separate article, that is your position to take as well). Gaijin42 (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If this is about the Sagat article, I have at least twice spoken toward the possiblity of merge and redirect to the filmmaker's article, only to have been rudely filibustered by its nominator when I carefully and politely tried to expalain WP:NF. His use of one small part of NF does not allow him to pointedly ignore its other parts if doing so serves a personal agenda. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

would you consider making an explicit !vote towards merge then so I can try and gather additional consensus? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Was just about to do so when I saw a new message here. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You find gay porn a disgusting subject? Thou art a 17th century homophobe. Heaven forbid anybody to think that! I have no problems with such articles existing but when wants to eat one's dinner... I am kiddin but I was under the impression it was universally loved on here.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh... one can find a topic disgusting, yet still properly and fairly and politely apply policy and guideline in dealing with them. It's those persons that wish such topics gone per a personal agenda that damage the project through their actions and animus. Enjoy your dinner. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hehe. Well yeah, I have no problems with such content on here. Hell we could have articles on Sweaty Boatmen 29 for all I care. I'm sure there are many who would read them and if they're reliably sourced.. Just don't think they should appear on the main page and on a Saturday afternoon appeared very in my face and it stood out as inappropriate. But the response I basically got was how dare you even remotely find gay porn as a topic distasteful ya raging homophobe. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Input required

Hi. The role of Film Project co-ordinator has been raised at the talk page of the project. As you were appointed to the role, please would you be able to respond to the topic? Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Inappropriate_relisting.3F

Hi Michael, just a warning... here you have received some non-nice comments by User:Aaron Brenneman... you were already been well-defended by DGG (and less directly by Uncle G), but if you want respond to the accusation by yourself feel free to do it... sorry if opening that thread I gave someone the chance to blame you, but I'm still convinced I had some reason for doing that. Best, Cavarrone (talk) 08:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the heads-up, and am grateful for the cool heads that have come to that discussion. Seems those wishing the article gone simply took your ANI as an opportunity to re-argue the AFD and be openly insulting. Almost makes one think that civility policy has been rendered historic. Some folks simply hate it when the tide goes against them and ultimately result to shouting and insults reminiscent of a bully in a 2nd grade schoolyard. However, when one considers the source of those insults, they may be dismissed as sour grapes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw the note on Cavarrone's talk page. Just wanted to say thank you for your work on AFD. You are one of the very few editors that always make stop and think. (DGG is one that pops to my head) I may not always agree with you comments, but I always respect them. Bgwhite (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I echo your sentiments right back at'cha. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar! Yeah it happens too often I'm afraid..♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Its always good that even on the cloudiest day there is still that occasional ray of sunshine. Be well and continue the good works. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The film in on youtube here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No prob!

No prob- you're right that it is worth incubating. Speaking of incubations, I was working on Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Silent Life (since people complain that incubated articles don't get any love) and noticed that someone recreated the film article a few days after it was moved to incubation. I've listed it as a speedy, so I thought I'd mention it. I've got a few sources on the incubated version, so if you think that the incubated version can pass muster then I'll move that material over to the existing Silent Life article. The problem I ran across with the article was that all of the sources listed were unusable as far as notability goes. It had some brief- and I stress the term brief, as it was only one sentence in articles that were about other films- articles, accompanied by primary sources and a link to an article that didn't seem to be from a reliable/trusted source that would show notability. I did manage to find two articles that talked about the film, but given that the film isn't going to be released until this summer I'm afraid it doesn't seem to pass notability guidelines. (These are on the incubated copy.) I thought I'd mention it here just in case and ask if a speedy for an article recreation would cover something like this. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Weeeeee..... got to use my mop. Just deleted that page. It definitely qualified for speedy under G4 and A10 both... as duplicate of article sent to Incubator as a result of deletion discussion. The one in the incubator is not quite ready to return. Take a look to see if these are of any use:[17][18] I note that there is more infornmation available now than was available last December, so the incubated article can indeed be further expanded and sourced. Heck, in just the last few hours this very nice piece of significant coverage popped up. I'll look back in in the morning. Time for bed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• LOL. I looked at the links and recognized most of them as links I had to delete from the incubated version because they were either primary sources or they were mentions so insanely brief that it couldn't even be used as a trivial mention. They're of the "mention once in passing" persuasion, with the mention being 1-2 sentences max. This article [19] goes into detail but I'm not sure that it really counts as a reliable source. Could you take a look at it and see if it counts or not? I'm not as familiar with Russian sites. The primary site really only re-lists the same articles as in the IMDb page as well as a press release. It's a little frustrating that there aren't more sources for this, given the stars in it and how cool the stills from it look. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, totally snagged that last link to RT!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Silent Life

Hello, you deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Life The reason for the previous deletion was the claim that there are no significance since no publications substantially covers the movie. Since that time very little basic information about the movie altered (that's why the article looks the same), but dozens of publications cover the movie, so there are no reason to delete it. I believe that it was deleted by mistake. But the article was already the object of the activity suspectable for vandalism. Please check some links about the movie to make sure it is covered by media:

http://rt.com/art-and-culture/news/silent-rudolph-kozlov-valentino-611/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/nov/20/silent-movies-golden-again

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/ef444a56-24dd-11e1-bfb3-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1iPu7iOoj

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fcritic.by%2Fnews%2F29-01-2012%2F

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/another-silent-film-to-come-out-in-2011-silent-life-moves-up-release-date-134313178.html

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cinemotionlab.com%2Finform%2F1114

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Ftarbut.zahav.ru%2Fcellcom%2Ftv%2Farticle.php%3Fview%3D974

I can also provide you with the links to TV reportages about the movie and refferals to offline media if the above will not be enough.

Could you please put the article back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loginerupdated (talk • contribs) 14:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:NFF the article is not quite ready for mainspace and the unsourced version was deleted because it recreated an article previously removed from mainspace as the result of a deletion discussion and it duplicated an article that was still in the incubator. What you need do, rather than copy it from incubator to mainspace, is to instead improve and source the one that was sent to the incubator WHILE it is still being held in the incubator. In sourcing it, do not use anything as a source that can be determined as a press release. Take a look at WP:CITE and feel free to also include there those source links to TV reports and offline media. Use the incubator AS your workspace. Make the article shine. THEN, request through {{Limbo assessment}} that the incubated article be reviewed to determine if it is then ready again for a return to mainspace. Keep in mind that as the film is not yet released your improvements will have to show the article as meriting being one of those occasionaly allowed exceptipns to WP:NFF, else we will be right back here discussing another deletion. I also urge you to contact and perhaps work with User:Tokyogirl79 (comment above your's here) as she is knowledgable, experienced, and appears quite willing and able to improve the article right alongside you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

François Sagat's Incubus

I don't understand your comment. I have no opinion on whether the article is appropriate; my statement was simply opposition to the relist, which was effectively a renomination because consensus was obviously in favor of keeping the first time around. Nyttend (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with your comment about the relist, but that boat has sailed. It was simply a notification sent to all those who had offered an opinion about the AFD one way or the other. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Although the suggested paragraph looks fine and anyway, François Sagat page needs to have a separate paragraph on Incubus in any case regardless of the film page, and I certainly thank you for your effort to narrow down differences between editors and I know you, besides me, took the brunt of the comments of the discussion, I still would prefer to have an independent editor assess all the comments made in the AfD including the sources and make a decision on keep or merge himself. If the decision is for "keep" I'd be very happy, if decision is merge, so be it, we abide by the discussion result. So instead of giving in to the acrimonious and very harsh response from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I prefer taking this thing to the end. That's what most AfDs end up in. That's the procedure. I am also gratified that this particular article garnered all this discussion. We need an active and healthy participation like this in other articles. Sadly at times, there is a suggestion for AfD, then just one more editor agrees in a one liner, no other comments come, and I read as conclusion that "consensus" is reached to delete an article. Well not in this case, I am happy to say.... Just one more comment... if article on film series is deleted, we need to expand the section you are suggesting in François Sagat article slightly more, as it certainly merits it. werldwayd (talk) 03:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the section on the director in his artcle will benefit from expansion in either case. Best wishes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

John Bobek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Chuck, When a Stranger Calls, Happy Endings, Alibi (film) and Heartland

The Christmas Choir (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Holiday film and Donald Martin

Richard Machowicz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Gift

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saanch Ko Aanch Nahin.
Message added 17:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Secret of success (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Big Gay Musical AfD

A page you contributed to has been nominated for deletion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

A related nomination.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Re:AFD

Thanks for informing me of this. If it was just me and the nominator requesting deletion and he's withdrawn, I don't see the point in my withdrawing it if it's going to get kept under SNOW anyway. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Francesco Salvi

Thanks for the barnstar for the Francesco Salvi article. Happy to have been of service! GiovanniS (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well deserved. When an editor does not read the language in which a notable is sourced, he really should seek input before nominating. Nice job in the rescue. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Re:Silk Purse Award

Many thanks for the barnstar, really appreciated! Cavarrone (talk) 07:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well earned and much deserved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Zombie help

Hi, I see you're a coordinator for the film project. I'm looking for help in a dispute that looks like it will sideline the presentation of the classic zombie films away from the main zombie pop culture page. See this notice. If you know anyone who might care about this kind of thing, I'd appreciate a point in their direction. LaTeeDa (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Milko Bambič

Hi: Looking at Template talk:Did you know for one to review, I noticed you'd reviewed this. If you intended to pass it, as it appears to me you did, could you add one of the two checkmarks to it so that that will be clear to the bot that keeps track and to people assembling preps? Yngvadottir (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Karma: The New Revolution

Thanks for your comments and your work on Karma: The New Revolution. As you might have seen, I am trying to stand back a bit and let others decide whether the article should stay or go, so I appreciate your opinions. While I still have concerns about an article on a film that I suspect will never get completed (and if completed, will never be more than a digital download), my main concern is that Truth be known 888 is not a new user. As I mentioned in the AfD, there is an SPI on the users who created this article: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Buddhakahika. A checkuser has confirmed that two of those who commented on the AfD, Buddhakahika and Wikipolice911, are the same person, and that Truth be known 888 is likely to be the same person. The SPI is awaiting administrative action. Truth to be known 888 is thus likely to be the same person who has been using multiple accounts to make quite numerous edits over the space of two years, all oriented towards changing Wikipedia to reflect and promote a particular religious point of view, one disguised in a view of religious history unsupported by the facts. Judging from the edits, I strongly suspect this person is or is closely related to Zen Acharya, who runs a religion called Nio Zen. Buddhakahika, who I suspect is the sockpuppetter, once tried to create an article on Zen Acharya (which was deleted after an AfD). The only reason I got dragged into this mess (and I am getting tired of this) is that I patrol new Japan-related articles and an article was created by Buddhist PHD (one of the confirmed sockpuppets) called Nio Zen that stunk of original research. Looking at the edits of that user, I found dozens of edits by that user and seemingly related users that made assertions about not only Nio Zen, but also many of its main tenets (especially about a religious warrior tradition tracing back to Buddhist Brahmins--an article created by Buddhakahika, which culminates in the extremely dubious assertion that Zen Acharya is the living inheritor of this tradition (the reference is still there)). They are spread over 100 Buddhist and Hindu-related pages on Wikipedia and it may take years to root them out, because while many are suspect, some are not. I am not an expert in Buddhism, though I took college classes on the topic. It became clear that the user was using sources to make it seem the edits were referenced, but when you actually checked the references, they either did not say what the edit asserted they were saying, or were merely supporting a peripheral element in the edit, not the main point. Still, some edits seem fine--though you would really need an expert to judge whether they are, and there are few in the English-speaking world who are experts in these topics. I have not been on Wikipedia as long as you, but this is one of the most insidious cases of misusing Wikipedia I have run across. Again, this is not a new user, but one who quite cunningly uses references and multiple accounts to make a minority religious position seem like accepted historical knowledge, so I hope you can understand my suspicions towards anything edited by this user. Karma: The New Religion is basically a film promoting this religion (which is why Zen Acharya has been using Michael Jackson or anything else to get mentions of this in any news source that will allow such PR). Articles on films promoting a religion are allowed on Wikipedia, but only if they, like other films, pass WP:NFF. I will of course defer to the consensus of the community, but the community ultimately should know about this misuse of Wikipedia (a misuse that, I suspect, is not too different from Zen Acharya's effort to use the media to promote his film). Once the SPI is closed, I will report the results on the AfD and let others decide. Sorry for the long response, but I hope you now understand what has been going on. Frankly, I am tired of this and would like to forget about it. But the traces of this user's activities will remain on Wikipedia for years. Michitaro (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

As the film has "released" and be downloaded in segments and watched, WP:NFF no longer applies. And rather than be influenced by the "long rants" of SPAs and possible socks at the AFD, I stood back, looked at sources, and did what I could to neutralize the article and make it encyclopedic. Hence the change of my !vote... as no matter the topic or nature of the articles about it and its related topics, it seems it has just enough coverage in genre sources to meet WP:NF. As a non-Buddhist and unfamiliar with Buddhist theology, My edits we not influenced by any wish nor desire to promote that religion. Hope your frustration levels remain low. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I did want to say I appreciate your efforts to look at the article objectively and neutrally. I myself want to make sure that I am being as objective as possible. While I think we have some disagreements on the objective facts (for instance, I still do not see objective evidence that this film has been released or even been seen by any third party), your spirit of civility is much appreciated after the incivility of some of the comments. Michitaro (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

From Beneath (film) deletion discussion

Hi Michael, Since you gave some advice on film articles before and are usually active in the deletion discussions, I thought your input would be beneficial in one that I just started: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/From Beneath (film) (2nd nomination). Thanks, AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello MichaelQSchmidt. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Lakshmi Putrudu

Dont mention that at all. My contri is nothing in front of yours. For DYK may be "....that the Andhra Pradesh state IT minister Damodar Reddy launched the music of the film Lakshmi Putrudu?". I dont find anything hook-y in that article. But before this goes music section needs to be added in it. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Have added the music section. In case you wanna DYK it. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Keisuke Hoashi

Michael,

As I've said before, I trust your judgment on actor bios, so I'd love to get your opinion on Keisuke Hoashi. Personally, I just don't see how he meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG, but you're good at digging up sources. Thanks! Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 22:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I think there may be some potential. I'll look in in a few hours. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you have a chance to review it? Any further thoughts? Currently, I'm trying to figure out if I should go for {{Prod blp}}, {{Prod}}, or just go straight to AFD. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 05:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Response on your talk page. Finally got a chance to work on it. More to do... more to do. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Help with film article

I created Attack of the 50 Foot Cheerleader which at the moment has minimal coverage. I thought that it would be alright to create because the film has been completely filmed, has a release date sometime this year, has three notable actors, has a notable producer, has a long interview, and another albeit short article. I am worried about this being nominated for deletion. Since you're better at film articles than I am, I was wondering if you could help find more coverage that I may have missed. SL93 (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

With respects, the very minimal stub will indeed attract unneccesary and negative attention. Mostly there will be claims that lack of [used} sources violated WP:NFF. I'm going to move it temporarily into your userspace at User:SL93/Attack of the 50 Foot Cheerleader so it can be expanded and further sourced out of mainspace... and I'll gladly move it back when it's better. And please... I'd like your permission to work on it with you while it awaits its return. It has some tremendous WP:POTENTIAL, and I'm sure we can make it pretty much unassailable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That is fine. SL93 (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks there will be even more coverage as the days go by. I found this which says that the film is slated for a summer release. SL93 (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

An AFD you participated in is at deletion review

You participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridgette B (2nd nomination) so you should know it is now up for deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_April_12. Dream Focus 20:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Referral from Drmies

Hi, Drmies said that you have an excellent background in film, and that you could possibly help me. Could you please take a look at the article that I am working on here, and offer any help or advice? Drmies thought that the article could use more references, and he immediately found two that I had not come across. Thank you in advance! Doc2234 (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Will look into it and get back to you. Soon. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Doc2234 (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you be okay if I did some editing to it in your userspace? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

That would be fine. Please feel free! Doc2234 (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Okie dokie! :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help! I will check with Drmies to see if he thinks if it is ready. Also, thank you for creating the Donkey Xote page! Doc2234 (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Glad to have helped. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I just moved the article to "live" status. Thank you, again! Doc2234 (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

As she is quite active in the industry, keep your eyes peeled for additional sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I will! Doc2234 (talk) 08:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have the article reviewed to clear the banner? The article quality looks to me like it's "Start" class at this point. Doc2234 (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your fantastic work on the article Monster Mutt (film). The work you have done on it is fantastic :) Chewbaccaaa (talk) 07:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Happy to have done so. For the future, please note that the better written and sourced an article, the less likely it is to ever go to AFD. So thank you much for the contribution... and remember that even article authors are allowed to voice their opinion at AFDs. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Just submitted the article for a DYK at Template talk:Did you know. So in a week or three the DYK factoid might find itself on the main page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Good Article nominaton

I felt insulted in my last Good Article nomination for S&Man. I took the article to peer review. Do you have any suggestions for another GA nomination for it? Wikipedia:Peer review/S&Man/archive1. SL93 (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

A reviewer's lack of tact is no reason to feel insulted. Yes, he was incorrect in his desmissal of suitable sources, but it does give the opportunity to expand and further source the article. Balance. Information. History. Reviews. Critiques, Analysis. In looking at other GA examples, it essentially seems that the larger and more sourced an article, the better chance it has to make GA. Tell ya what.... I'll look into it over the next few days and put in some work. Then we can go for it again. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I nominated it for good article status again. It might have been a mistake, but I will see. Crisco reviewed it and gave me a week to fix the errors. I renamed plot to summary, split part of summary into a new section, added information about the fictional subplot, explained what Midnight Madness is, started working on describing what all of the major people in the documentary do, moved film references to production, changed the template for the quote, removed Dread Central as a reference, and am working on it more. SL93 (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

S&Man

With the help of Crisco 1492 and Mark Arsten, S&Man was promoted to Good Article status. SL93 (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• EXCELLENT !!!! One never has to edit alone. :) Time to send out a few barnstars. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Cameron Finley

		The Citation Barnstar
		Great work on the Cameron Finley article! In particular, including his background, listing his filmography, and citing his award nominations as you did really helps to remove any previous ambiguity about his body of work not meeting WP:ENT. Multiple leading roles in film, plus his regular voice role on TV, is enough to clear the bar in my view. I've added a few offline sources to the article per your recommendation. Thanks so much for your help - enjoy this barnstar for your efforts.  Gongshow Talk 00:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Triggermen

Orlady (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Attack of the 50 Foot Cheerleader

I brought Attack of the 50 Foot Cheerleader back to article space because there is another article on it plus it has been confirmed that the film will air on television this August. SL93 (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice, now that airing has been announced! Decide on a DYK. Keep an eye out for additional sources as August gets closer. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Crisco said that Dread Central is not reliable even though I think that it is. If it is reliable, there is http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/54986/roger-cormans-attack-50-foot-cheerleader-3d-promises-be-epix. SL93 (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Dread Central has long been found both acceptable and suitable for citing such genre films. Go ahead and add it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

And so is Bloody-Disgusting. Check with me about any others of which you may be unsure. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformers 4.
Message added 00:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

EW_ikist^Talk 00:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Lakshmi Putrudu

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Monster Mutt (film)

Hi MQS, I've reviewed the nomination and there is a small issue that should be dealt with before I pass the nomination. Could you reply at the nom, please? Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Monster Mutt (film)

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The thought exchange (film).
Message added 03:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Dhoom 3

Hi, Michael. I don't think I ever congratulated you on your mop - welcome to the janitors' tearoom! A user has argued on my talk page that this article I incubated to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Dhoom 3 is ready for the main space even if it doesn't formally meet WP:NFF. As that was two years ago, he may well be right - would you like to have a look and de-incubate it if you think fit? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:NFF speaks about the vagaries of films in the pre-production stages, and yes... there are those occasional exceptions to that guideline. The project has not yet begun principle filming, but the topic of the planned film does have enough coverage to merit being spoken of somewhere within these pages... so per policy instruction for such, I think at the very least, the user should expand and source a section at Vijay Krishna Acharya#Dhoom 3. I'm off to work, but will return and take a far closer look in a few hours. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, You still saying Dhoom 3 cannot be moved into mainspace? I hope you took a closer look on it. I've done some edits btw.. And, i didn't understood the importance of section "Dhoom 3" in Bio of Vijay Krishna Acharya. rahul (talk2me) 18:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Still too soon. I thought it could be at least mentioned at the director's article, but perhaps the paragraph Dhoom (film series)#Dhoom 3 (2013) is already the best place for it to be mentioned at this time.

I appreciate your wishing the article to be returned to mainspace, but I'd like you to carefully read the guideline WP:NFF, and a clarification toward what might allow consideration of rare exceptions at the essay WP:FFCLARIFY.

Policy allows that a topic of a anticipated future event might be written of, the film notability guideline NFF tells us that due to the vagaries of the film industry, it is rare that films have their own article until they have actually completed principle filming. For Dhoom 3, we have an anticipatory 2013 release date based upon projected hopes, not actual filming.[20] Just one day ago a source reported that "Aamir Khan said he is looking forward to working with Katrina Kai" and just six hours ago another source said that Dhoom 3, "like its previous two editions is likely to be a package of drama, action and music". So it appears that at least two main actors are contracted, but neither has worked together (yet) on the film's set. So it has not entered principle filming and is still in pre-production preparatory and promotional stages. The growing coverage allows the topic to be written of in some manner,[21] as it is in the series article, but not quite yet as a separate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Michael, it's nice to know where to turn for an informed opinion! JohnCD (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

List of film accidents

Can you think of any?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I immediately thought of Vic Morrow. He and two children were killed horribly on the set of Twilight Zone: The Movie. I did a search and found many others."killed on set on-set disasters

Hey congrats on the mop an brush, sorry I was oblivious to your RFA!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I know you would have stopped by if you had known. I think the last few months have found the empty "fears" (of some few others) over my having the mop to have been not at all justified. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Top 10 Tragic Movie Set Deaths 7&6=thirteen (☎) 09:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For the excellent work in expanding the article When the Night. Lugnuts (talk) 08:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. More to do. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That's superb! Thanks again, Michael. Another film saved from deletion and expanded in ways I could never have guessed. Lugnuts (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Fun to do. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Iraj Ghaderi

What about this guy? While he shows up in some compendia it's not clear to me if there's any significant coverage or awards. (I removed a context-less laundry list of films directed by the individual, but the filmography is in the history and at IMDB.)

Hope all is well in Tinseltown.

^Bongo_matic 11:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow. A textbook case of WP:UNKNOWNHERE dancing hip-to-hip with WP:Systemic bias. Is much being done to determine the reliability of curent Iranian sources? On April 12, Radio Nabz posted a slightly more-then-trivial blurb about his being hospitalized that stated he'd appeared in over 41 and directed over 71 films,[22] so we may have verifiability of WP:ENT and WP:CREATIVE. And there is further verifiability of his works in Google books.[23][24][25][26][27] and others without snippet views.[28] This [29]one specifically states his films "had been popular in the pre-Revolutionary period" and that his controversial film Doozakhiba was a "defining moment in the cinema of the early 1980s". Better perhaps, is to transwiki and translate fron the Farsi Wikipedia.[30][31] that give clues as to where we might find additional difficult-to-find sources for this actor/filmmaker who was popular during the Shah's pre-revolutionary Iran when then-available sources were not proscribed by a religious government. Looking at Farsi language recent news,[32] and Farsi language news archives,[33] my concern is toward how much was lost under the decades of Iran's religious rule... pre-internet coverage that was then never archived in online databases. As we have plenty speaking toward he and his work having impact during his early career, I would think this an instance of WP:NTEMP being affected by WP:NONENG and sadly, WP:WORLDVIEW. As this is NOT a BLP issue, we can consider his having (at least through books) made it into the enduring record. Enlist the assist of Farsi reading Wikipedians in rebuilding and replacing what you removed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks MQ. ^Bongo_matic 23:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism by new member

Please check the edits of new member VJose2012 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/VJose2012). Most of his edits are vandalism, changing the status of all Mammootty films as hits and editing the gross to high values and changing the status of all Mohanlal films as flops and changing their gross and small values. He even removes the references which are not favourable to his vandal activities. Can something be done ?
Anish Viswa 01:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

If the removed information had existed sourced for a while, unjustified removal could be seen as POV pushing. BUT if it was unsourced, then there is a case to be made for its removal. If he added unsourced information to push a POV, there is a definite problem. If he is violating WP:NPOV and has not responded to dicussion on his talk page, then it is cause for administrative action. First step: Speak to the editor. Leave a note on his talk page. I do note in looking there, that others have attempted discussion with this new editor over some of his questionable edits without response. So a prepared case at WP:AIV or WP:ANI may be the next step. BUT there must be evidence that you have tried discussion and the editor has been warned. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

This is typical of Indian cinema articles where we have fanboy edits promoting one and dissing the other. We had this Mammmooty-Mohanlal issue a while back, AtticusX spent some time cleaning it up and getting rid of the socks, but he hasn't been around in a long time. I'll take a look soon, but I'm not familiar with current Malayalam cinema so I'll need to spend a while on it. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 08:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at two articles. On Pokkiri Raja (2010 film) he was changing what the source said to something unsupported. On Pazhassi Raja (2009 film)‎ he was partially correct in changing the gross figures, but he didn't source the edit and in fact left the older source in and removed the source for a different one and added a cn tag. And then describes everything he does as reverting fan vandalism. So, clearly something's out of line. I'll let you deal with the rest of the articles, but I've left a warning saying that if this behavior continues he's likely to be blocked. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 09:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

MQS, while you're at it, add Arziyan (talk · contribs) to this list, these are two opposing fans who are the root cause of the problems here. —SpacemanSpiff 15:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Given that I've edited the page (Pazhassi Raja (2009 film)‎) at your behest I will not take admin action now, but it is required, you're still uninvolved and the editor's talk page speaks for itself, he's been doing this for months now. —SpacemanSpiff 15:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

A good example of this continous fanfight is Twenty:20 (film) article. Since both Mammootty and Mohanlal acted in this, the fans keep editing this article to put their favourite actor's name first.
Anish Viswa 04:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You've been quoted

Thought you would like to know, I used your famous quote at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 May 8, all this complaining over a redirect...sigh. I don't think you need to chime in on the discussion, just thought you should know your brilliance has not gone unnoticed. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Used it. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Michael, regarding this edit, you are an administrator now, why wouldn't you just delete it yourself? Or don't you have an option to move the page without leaving a redirect (the latter of the two options I am saying based on what I have read in edit summaries). Just asking. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Mopped. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering if you had forgotten about your RfA. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Due to someone MFd-ing something userfied, I have been doing some research and housekeeping.[34] Found myself lots of work to keep me busy for the next few days. Gonna either fix stuff or lighten the load. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I hear ya, sometimes I go look through my subpages, and see stuff I haven't though of in ages. I have to do a clean sweep one of these days. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I need a big broom (or shovel). You'll only need a teaspoon.[35] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to take out everything in the CSD category with my name as the prefex, should you be feeling like a deletionist today.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

After I'm through straightening out my furniture. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Aaron Schoenke

Hello! Your submission of Aaron Schoenke 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! Mentoz86 (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Incubator for film articles

Film articles are usually made by IPs or SPAs. When made prematurally we have a AfD for it if the primary photography has not started or if it hasn't yet received enough coverage to stay. We then userfy or put these articles in incubator without redirects so that we can keep the same history of the page and use it ahead. Is this correct? But do we get to use the incubated article? You incubated this article Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Bhaiyyaji Superhit. Some new user has recreated it at Bhaiyyaji Superhitt. What to do? I am assuming this happens every now & then. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, we have film article made by users with accounts as well... but yes, when an IP does it it can sometimes be a problem. The article that was incubated as being Too Soon was "Bhaiyyaji Superhit" (one T) and the recreated one was "Bhaiyyaji Superhitt" (two Ts). Not surprisingly, the film is sourcable under both spellings. So when the user recreated the article, he may honestly have been unaware of the incubated version. As circumstances are always a little different we take recreations of incubated articles on a case-by-case basis. Generally speaking,

When an article is prematurely recreated, we simply notify the new version's author, advise him that there is one awaiting work in the incubator, and politely suggest he 1 blank his new version, 2 tag it with a {{db-author}}, and 3 assist in prepping the incubated version for return to mainspace. If his version is itself premature, and he does not wish to do so, his version might then be sent to AFD.

BUT... when the a version is based upon the incubated-as-too-soon film now being sourcable as having begun principal filming, we have less a concern toward WP:NFF and must then consider if the topic has enough coverage to be notable under WP:NF.

In this instance we have an example of the latter, with evidence that filming has begun, and wide enough coverage to arguably meet WP:NF. So the bigger issue here is to decide which title to actually use, and delete the one which will not be used. I ask that you check sources under both Bhaiyyaji SuperhiT and Bhaiyyaji SuperhiTT and advise on which title it should best be. We can then take care to ensure the correct title remain in mainspace and can redirect the improper title to the correct one. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

So sorry for the late reply. I get it all now. But i still am not able to find out if single or double "T" should be used. Will probably be best to wait till its poster releases. But i would suggest TT; just gut feeling. And thanks for the Silk Purse. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It's an ongoing problem and concern. I have noticed that Anglic translations of Indian names and titles frequently interchangably use double or single consonants and vowels... or not... very haphazard. No set rule. Confusing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Its mostly for numerology, luck and such things rather than translation problems. Do you know about the K-phenomenon? Some producers, directors make films/tv shows with titles starting from K. eg. Rakesh Roshan, Karan Johar, Ekta Kapoor. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 04:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks, it is always a great honor to receive a praise by you! Cavarrone (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Alwways happy to praise those willing and able to push the boulder to the top of the hill. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I need your help good sir.

I created a page for Douglas Tait a couple years ago and it was sent to deletion by an editor. Another page was created for actor Douglas Tait by X4n6 and Novaseminary nominated it for deletion again and failed. This editor is now actively libeling his page with nonsense to try to discredit the actor. X4n6 has been actively fighting to keep Novaseminary's from doing this, and since my Wikipedia knowledge is limited, I have taken a back seat on editing. I am asking for you to take a fair look at these edits as you are a master of Wikipedia. I would greatly appreciate your help in this matter. Thank You, (Trekkieman (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC))

DYK for When the Night

Shubinator (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Aaron Schoenke

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia notability

I created http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_Prejudices:_Essays_on_American_Writing and it was tagged for speedy deletion despite it passing WP:GNG which is the exact same thing there. The tag is A4 for "people, groups, companies or websites that do not claim to be notable." Even worse, the tagger is considered an experienced editor there. Is the SEW notability really way more strict than here? It doesn't even meet the A4 criteria. SL93 (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

While the article there does not have much content or context, it DOES have enough so others might expand it. The placing of QD:A4 tag there was incorrect, as even by their own definition, a book is NOT a person, group, company or website. I do not edit at SEW, so it may be that the editor IS "experienced"... for there. A pattern of repeated misagging would not fare well here at all. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Now it's nominated for deletion by the same editor. The website is a joke anyway. SL93 (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Apparently he now wishes content and context to show why its notable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Too bad notability is subjective. That is why guidelines exist and three notable publications reviewing the book does show notability no matter what is in the article. Here, articles can't be deleted in AfD just because the article is a stub. I found some coverage in Google Scholar as well, but I'm not expanding it because of one editor's odd interpretation of notability. By a joke, I found many people making fun of it on Wikipedia Review, in blogs, and the Wikipedia was even nominated twice for closure as worthless. I also don't like their set-up now. It says it's for people learning English and people with learning disabilities. A wiki like that coddles people that have trouble reading English and they may not move on to here. An admin that I saw was only a member for a few months before becoming an admin. An editor even said that Simple English Wikipedia is a haven for editors who were previously blocked here. Simple English isn't even a language. Every single article that I look at is written simpler in a variety of ways. There is no common MOS. SL93 (talk) 03:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The commonality is that they are intentionally written in simple English and grammer, as if intended more for (from their main page) "children and adults who are learning English", than for those with a bit more education under their belts. Write the article as if for a six-year old and it would likely be appropriate... there. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bin Bulaye Baraati.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bin Bulaye Baraati.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

User_talk:Ron_Ritzman#Re:_Deletion_of_Jed_Rose

This guy thinks he has a new source that ups the case for notability. Since you were the only "delete" !voter, what do you think? (Damn, I can't believe I fell for the old "format your nomination statement to look like the first delete !vote trick, I usually catch those) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh what the hell, I've reopened the AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Donkey Xote

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Congrats, MQS. Drmies (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you. I was beginning to wonder if this got lost in the cracks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

User talk:LadyofShalott

I made an observation that you might find interesting there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Licht (film)

Please reconsider.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Ooo a medieval looking purse, reminds me of the purse on Knightmare, love it! Yeah not sure how the non notable short got put there, I started a bunch of stubs long ago based on Dutch wikipedia..♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

When I first checked the Licht page before opining at the AFD, I checked the history,[36] and it indeed began as a stub created by you back in 2009 with content (director/actors) about the non-notable short. I am glad you now improved as you had no doubt originally intended. Nice job! And glad you like my special award... something better than just another boring Barnstar. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah I see. No worries. I associate nothing but polar bear mauling with Svalbard now! After that British kid was killed camping out there of course as well.. Still having connection trouble, I was lucky to be able to edit it without interruption. Its fine early morning but then it messes up, getting a tech guy later this evening..♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Licht

Thank you for notifying me about the massive changes to Licht (film). I changed my vote on the AfD. NJ Wine (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You may change my vote to keep (I tried, but don't now how to do that). Neanderd (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Inconsistent Truth

Michael, you may want to correct your comment at this AfD, where you wrote, " we do sit in judegement over the truth or not of a film ". From the context, I think you mean that we don't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Tired eyes. Thanks for catching that typo. The omission of a single word changed the entire context. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II: The Movie

Hi Michael,

Thank you for taking an interest in expanding this article! My initial search for sources proved unsuccessful because of the fact that the article was incorrectly titled at the time; I don't put articles up for deletion if I believe their subjects to be notable. I don't know of a method for nominators to withdraw an AfD nomination, but you are welcome to close the AfD. Neelix (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

As an opining editor, it is best I not close the AFD, but you might use <s></s> and do a stikethrough of your nom statement and offer an !vote keep opinion with a comment that you feel notability has been established. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your spectacular (and fast) expansion of the article Pope John Paul II (1984 film). Impressive work! Cavarrone (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. There was so very much available, it would have been a sin to not. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk back

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 16:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GALES

Dear Michael Q Schmidt,

Thanks for the advice. I shall try and find better citations.

--Bonkers The Clown (talk) 06:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI

This Drug Guitar SPI is very likely the same as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Akshata Sen/Archive. Quite prolific with hoaxes. —SpacemanSpiff 13:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

GALES (Part 2)

Yeah and thanks for the heads up. I shall try my best to find such references. --Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Good luck. Without them, the article will have problems surviving. Since this organization has member schools in Beijing, France, Denmark, Korea, Pakistan, South Africa, Taiwan, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Prague, and Bangkok, please keep in mind that non-English sources will be acceptable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Zada

Suggested minor edits as shown

Hi Michael. I've fixed a few typos and corrected a wrong number. I would suggest to mention either "Elf Yourself" or "Take This Lollipop" in the DYK hook. Both the films/apps became very popular on the Internet and I think you could emphasize that in the hook. Mr Zada claims that "Elf Yourself" "received more than 194 million unique visits in six weeks", however, I'm a bit confused, as the website ClickZ has 36 million and other sites show different numbers. In November, 2011, "Take This Lollipop" became the fastest-growing Facebook application ever! [37], [38] Perhaps it could be mentioned in the article on its creator. Thanks for another nice article. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Pope John Paul II (1984 film)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at M0rphzone's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

...forgot to let you know for the previous replies. M0rphzone (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Writer's barnstar

		The Writer's Barnstar
		For creating and expanding many articles (without sacrificing quality). M0rphzone (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Many thanks! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Fain Skinner.
Message added 04:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible hoax

What do you think about J. X. Williams? There are a lot of comments on the talk page that it is all a hoax or a "project" of one Noel Lawrence, and in any case the notability seems to me marginal in the absence of considerably better sourcing. I am inclined to take it to AfD. JohnCD (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the article was hijacked back in 2008. This was the original version. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted. I suggest we revert to that version - though even that links to this Noel Lawrence who the talk page commenters are doubtful of. JohnCD (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC):

Best solution would be that the content AFTER the "hijacking" can be moved to the newere topic of Noel Lawrence... and the content before the hijacking can be moved to J. X. Williams (pseudonym) as the sourcable pseudonym for several individual, including the aforementioned Noel Lawrence. Such will encourage that both Willimas and Lawrence can be expanded separately, and may prevent another unforunate hijacking. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Okay guys... I decided a bit of boldness was the answer, so I performed the split as I suggested (see bluelinks above): We now have one article about the name as a pseudonym used by several (few original edits), and one article about the filmmaker curently using it (after article's focus was changed, this version had the greatest number of edits). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for !voting

	at my successful RFA
	Thank you, MichaelQSchmidt, for !voting at my successful RFA; I am humbled that you put your trust in me. I grant you this flower, which, if tended to properly, will grow to be the fruit of Wikipedia's labours. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Elf Yourself

 !Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Jason Zada

 !Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Log Kya Kahenge

Expanded..♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll have to open a medieval museum. je really spoilin me! Yeah, some people don't get that lack of content doesn't equal lack of notability. A google and google book search usually makes it obvious.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I always appreciate those whose work builds and improves the encyclopdia for others! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Kind Hearts and Coronets

It's been nearly a week with no sign of Lugnuts following through. Mind taking a look at my assessment of the current version of the synopsis on the talk page? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks to be a quite interesting film, specially with Alec Guinness playing so many inter-related roles. While the IP has a point in plot being preferred in "simple" language, MOS also understoods that for some works, over-simplification detracts from complete understanding, rather than aid it. Although plot sections usually do not require citatons, when there is a diagreement about what was said or done and by whom and for what reasons, or how to reveal them here, my suggestion would be to cite those phrases which were otherwise being "simplified", so as to better underscore the neccessity for accuracy over generalization. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Natpuillai

I'm not really sure but [39] this link suggests he has been banned indefinitely? Don't think there was any sockpuppet investigation though, but is extremely evident through the edits. Editor 2050 (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

‎Possible Queue 6 late substitution or addition

You an administrator who is listed at WP:DYK as willing to help, so I wanted to call your attention to a particularly timely hook for the next queue Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Possible_Queue_6_late_substitution_or_addition. You may want to make a late addition or substitution since the Tony Awards are tonight.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Appears concerns were addressed a few minutes before this note. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

No hard feelings

I think it may seem we are in a battle. But I wanted to say I hold your opinion of high regard. I know of alot of the work you have done. From what I have seen, I have nothing but respect for you. I swear you were the only one at AfC for the longest of time. Bgwhite (talk) 06:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

No hard feelings. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 14:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

This might be a bit late but thanks for helping out with the poster in the 'A Bahraini Tale' page, I'm still fairly new to the uploading images bit. Cheers! Droodkin (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy to have been of help. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for The Taiwan Oyster

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Leonora Moore

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this AfD

I just wanted to apologise for the nomination. Just prior to it I had been involved in a similar incident where I tried to radically change the article and the author just kept blind reverting. I couldn't be bothered to go through all that again straight away, and I suppose combination of impatience and laziness led to me taking the easy way out with this one instead. I'm learning, gradually. Thanks for the advice. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Your withdrawal was courtesous and well-done... and if you ever have problems with another editor, always feel free to ask for advice from a third party. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

LF's notability tags

Hi Michael, I write you for an help as you are an administrator and expertise in cinema-related topic.... could you take a look at [40]?

In the past days, between 13 and 15 June, this user tagged for notability hundreds of films in a small lapse of time just because currently unsourced, including films by Otto Preminger, Oliver Stone, Ernst Lubitsch, Wes Craven, Mario Bava, almost an half of the whole filmography of Roger Corman, Herschell Gordon Lewis, Christopher Lee and so on. I spent much time to review them and remove the inappropriate tags (about 99% of them). Despite User:LF was warned about that behaviour by me and by User:Oakshade, despite he said us he finally understood, shorty after he tagged for notability this article, so I posted in his talk page a sort of final warning. Now he seems to have restarted his tagging-activity ([41], [42], [43], [44], [45]). Basically all the tags appears wrong, and the Die Screaming, Marianne notability tag looks "spectacularly" wrong, over 1000 book sources plus news articles, internet reviews and so on. I abstain from writing further in his talk page, as he does not seems inclined to listen to me. I would also abstain, for now, from opening a topic on AN/I. If you want to use your persuasion to explain to him that unsourced article does not mean unnotable film, maybe you will be luckier. My best, Cavarrone (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Sad, as he is a good editor and article's creator... thanks for your efforts Cavarrone (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: warning

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at LF's talk page.
Message added 06:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

inre the matrimony

Well... This is embarrassing. I have no idea how to withdraw it. Instead of me having to look through the guidelines on how to do it, could you just kindly explain to me how it can be done? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 06:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Anibar International Animation Festival

Hi! Just to let you know, I made an NAC on Anibar International Animation Festival's AFD. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Shawn Welling

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Shawn Welling. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawal

Thank you indeed for your help, Michael. Though, by the time I read your reply, the discussion was closed. But if such things happen again in the future, I will know what to do. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No doubt we are in far different time zones. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you help me with a page pls

• Kali_Bowyer · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

I am new and been working on a page for a few years now, someone the other day is trying to get it deleted. I do know the person outside wiki and they are doing it just to be mean to me. I am disabled and only have one arm so difficult to figure out and type codes, can you help me try top the page from deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali_Bowyer is the page i am talking about. I do not know how to put the news sources in where they need to be and trying top make it more noteable. I use a voice activation and it does not pick up coding because there are no words to use. --PeterPiperPickles (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You should know that there's been an ANI discussion about this issue. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

What does that mean? --PeterPiperPickles (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC) I never said they are all after me, etc. Yes, the individual that I was speaking about I do actually personally know, so I think that is unfair. I am trying to learn, and it seems a bit unsettling that when someone reaches out for help because they have a disability to those who are supposed to be here to help make fun of it. --PeterPiperPickles (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Cambodia women's national football team‎

Hi. Can you help continue to improve Cambodia women's national football team‎? --LauraHale (talk) 06:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting topic, and in an area that does not have suitable representation on Wikipedia. I'll be happy to look into it. And might you like to offer pro or con input elsewhere? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I've asked a Cambodian who has found some Khmer language sources. As I found one of their youth national teams played in a FIFA recognised match, it should qualify better. (Long term goal is to try to take as many African women's football teams to GA to make a featured topic of the whole continent. This is my second AfD on a woman's national football team. It is frustrating. FIFA recognises their federations in almost all cases. A team can be created at any time. There is a lot of international pressure and funding assistance intended to help country's set up team.) So yeah, I want to try to improve them to make it harder to do this sort of thing. --LauraHale (talk) 06:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

"... since Our American Cousin"

Sorry, don't have a link; it was a friend of a friend kind of thing (I've got some friends on the fringes of Hollywood [due to my involvement in science fiction fandom] who collect that kind of quote). --Orange Mike | Talk 13:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. At least enough non-blog decent sources have covered the film. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

image

I just want to get this over with..and you have a passion to film articles..so can you decide if this image qualifies as a constructive image for the certain article. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention that know guidelines. Guidelines that can override essays sometimes even. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Just as does the image File:Ridley Scott Prometheus Set.jpg depict a special circumstance of director Ridley Scott, the image in question at File:Marcwebbdirector.jpg specificaly depicts Marc Webb performing a special circumstance duty on his film The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film). If no free image depiction is available, the argument becomes, can words replace the information offered by the image? The marked-as-historical essay Wikipedia:Publicity photos attempts to deal with such images, released by organizations for the intention that they be distributed and used... but it is not policy, being only an attempt to clarify that situation. Under Wikipedia:Non-free content policy, the file would require a detailed non-free use rationale. The image does appear to be a constructive one for that article, and lends itself to a reader's understanding of the topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Phew! I am glad you think so. If you are a administrator can't you clear that up and contest that deletion tag? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 12:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you use that against the deletion tag if you feel that way. I sure hope so. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry! I know I sound desperate for asking twice...but I really want it over with already. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll see what can be done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I will take your word for it. You're killing me with the suspense man! lol Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I've expanded with a more detailed free-use rationale.[46] We must await June 1 to see if the speedy is declined. If declined (as seems likely), someone might then take it to Wikipedia:Files for deletion and we'd then have an actual discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

IMO It all depended on what administrator was involved on the decision to delete it...and a administrator deleted it without backing up your points. He said it only is there to depict the camera...and he said there is one to back it up. I looked it up there is nothing to depict a behind the scenes director and a image of that camera filming this film. But what else could we do. :( Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Take it to WP:REFUND. Explain politely that the image did more than simply "show a camera", but instead showed a notable director himself working with the camera in its first use in a feature film... and explain that the deleting admin inadvertantly erred in that THAT depiction has no free equivalent, which suggests that the deleting admin might not have read the expanded FUR or the talk page. If that fails, then naturally the immage File:Ridley Scott Prometheus Set.jpg should itself be imediately speedied under that same precedent. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the biggest excuse they have is that the image could be replaceable by text which they might have a point on. What do you think? If this image happens to stay (which I doubt it) I wish that could be the result of bringing the Webb image back...because it's the same administrator who deleted it with his opinion. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 13:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I really wish it would have been taken to the files for deletion instead. This administrator has filed it F7 while another retired administrator has turned down F7 on the Prometheus image way back. They both definitely deserve the same fate, whatever the outcome is. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a reverse application of "one pictue is worth a thousand words", and the preference that sourced prose is preferred over a non-free image that does the work. The point of NFCC #1 on which deletion relied, without the deleter being required to do the more extensive work to see if it is possible, is "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?"

In defending your wish to use the non-free image under NFCC, the burden returns to you to do the searches yourself. Look for citable information in reliable sources that specifically speak toward this director personally using this type of camera in this particular film. And if at all possible, give the article well-chosen, sourced prose describing excatly what the one picture shared, and all will be happy.

However, if your diligence shows citable sources toward that specific circumstance are not available, and that sourced prose cannot be used in place of the non-free image, an assertion that the image is replaceable with sourced text is incorrect. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 14:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk about ignoring a request. I have used a image for the section so I guess it's not too much of a loss. But I don't mind a undeletion if it happens. I just don't think it will happen. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ready for mainspace?

Hiya! I've been monitoring the film Smiley in the incubator and this might be just ready enough to go to the mainspace, but I'm not entirely certain of that. I thought I'd run it by you to see if it's ready or not. I'd hate for it to get put out there, only to have to go back into incubation. Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Smiley (2012 film)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the sources, and they do discuss production in enough detail so that the article can be expanded some. I'll take a hand at some additional work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)