User talk:MichaelQSchmidt/Archive 006

One more thing!

I came across John Brancato and Michael Ferris earlier. I've given it a touch up n removed a couple of links that were little more than spam, but I'm struggling to find solid information for it. There's good material there, and I've referenced most of it but it seems to be having something of an identity crisis! I was tempted to move it to "List of films by...", but it seems to be an (albeit half- arsed) attempt at at a biography, so I'm not entirely sure what to do with it. If you'd take a look... Cheers, HJ Mitchell (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

you might find [[1]][[2]][[3]][[4]] of some use. HJ Mitchell (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to kibbitz -- I was passing overhead and couldn't help butting in. My advice is to first break the article into two separate bios -- they'll each been mentioned in the other's bio page as part of a writing team -- but trying to combine two bios with separate filmographies and infoboxes will get pretty messy. Also, in this book there is ten separate pages for each of Brancato and Ferris. That should provide a nice boost for their bios. Good luck. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Cw makes good sense. When I have time later this evening (you'll probably be asleep), I'll take a crack and creating a new bio for man 2 and trimming and renaming for man 1 using the sources you and CW provided. Each lede might be like "Man 1 is an Amerccan screenwriter besy known for his partnership with man 2" and "Man 2 is an American screenwriter best known for his work with Man 1" Or something in the vein.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds sensible to me. I haven't yet checked out CW's source, but I struggled to find so much as a DOB for the second bloke. There's definite notability by his association with the former, though I'm not sure it's enough for an article in his own right. As for the former, there should be no difficulty there. If you do what you will, I'll have a look tomorrow at finishing it off. I'd be bold and do it now, but it is getting late here and I'm just working on some (badly written and very boring) baseball articles, but I promised my services so...! HJ Mitchell (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Gleaners

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For going the extra mile to save a charity related article from deletion by uncovering sources only available by library visit or pay per view. A wikki hero! FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Article rescue

Hi, you seem to be the resident expert on article rescue, so I wonder what you make of Argentina–Pakistan relations. There seems to be a movement nominating such articles for deletion based on whether or not the nominator knows of any relationship! Anyway, this one seems perfectly notable to me, I've given it something of an overhaul, which, I hope, should scrape it through AfD, though any tips you could lend me on polishing it up would be greatly appreciated! Kind regards, HJMitchell You rang? 21:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Award of a Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		The Barnstar of Diligence is hereby awarded for extraordinary scrutiny, precision, and community service, especially in regard to article improvement. Awarded by PhilKnight (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources for horror films

I think it's best left as an essay. You could just do the same as User:Uncle G (his essays rock!) by spreading the link as oft as you reasonably can. I'm not a proponent of overcomplicating guidelines. A few well-explained mentions of the essay in deletion debates should make it clear that current rules accept these sources without the need for exceptions or expansions. I'm afraid I can't lend a hand. I need to finish GA reviews first. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking in. Keep checking back... as I'm getting closer. Rarely have I spent so much time in researching the background of a potential source. Whew. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

ARS

I was initially skeptical, after yet another appearance at AN/I, but i found this section impressive. David D. (Talk) 02:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I list some of them as examples of what a little perseverance can deliver, and hope to set a good example. Thanks for looking in. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

New idea

Michael, your horror specific source page gave me the idea for User:A_Nobody/Inclusion_guidelines#Table_of_notable_fictional_universes, i.e. what fictional universes really are those for which fictional elements meet a common sense standard of notability. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Billy Lo

The AfD closed as no consensus; I'd have thought a relist would've been better, but now you've got the chance to expand and source the article. Fences and windows (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and I understand. Its on my list. So much to do. Yikes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Challenge

See what you can find on Adata Wadiya Heta Hondai. If nobody else does, don't remove the {{prod}}—convince me it should be removed instead. Bongomatic 16:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Still working on Clifton's. Do you know it was written of in On The Road? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I do now! Bongomatic 22:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

WeeMee - kudos

Nice job on the WeeMee article - it is now a rather nice little article from something that I had thought deserved to be deleted. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I will grant the original was simply unsourced fancrap (no offense to contributors) and can understand why it went to AfD. But in digging, I found so much more that allowed creation of a properly encyclopedic article, I just had to keep trying. It may be an essay, but I belive in WP:POTENTIAL. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy Notice

Hi, There was a WP:ANI thread about the conduct of User:DreamGuy, I have since reformatted it and move it to Arbitration enforcement and it can be found here. You may be interested as some of the evidence used involves you as a party. Cheers   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 09:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. However when visiting I noticed it had been closed. Are thse things only supposed to last a few hours? I would imagine a few days might have allowed input from all parties involved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That was a very abrupt closing by a clearly non-neutral admin. And no sanctions whatsoever! Now that DG and his gang have put that one to rest, they are right back at it with there old tricks. Now DreamGuy and MuZemike have started a complaint about me, once again, claiming that I am (once again) a sockpuppet here. This is the 2nd time this a week. It looks like a full-out phishing expedition this time. They have also thrown the relative newbie User:Granite thump into their complaint. This is a huge assumption of bad faith. MuZemike and DreamGuy's accusations, the approval of a CheckUser, and no notification to either myself or User:Granite thump, is completely against wikipolicy (as I understand it). Varbas (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Be polite. Maintain decorum. Wait and see. A checkuser may decide it is a fishing hunt, as Granite Thump has not been involved in vandalism nor in incivil behavior... just simply disagreeing with DreamGuy... and as far as I know, that is not yet a crime. Again, keep your cool. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Many users have been blocked for the crime of disagreeing with DG; but your strategy must be correct, for being polite, maintaining decorum, and keeping cool have all be hallmarks for DG, and he tends to float through all reviews unscathed. Varbas (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand WP:SARCASM, but still suggest decorum. Civility usually wins out over incivility in the long run. You may wish to consider a polite rebuttal in the "comments from accused parties section", as might Granite thump. If the checkuser finds no connection, you have vindication. If checkuser finds a connection... well... bad form, and OOPS... as I for one was extending benefit of the doubt. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

John Ng

Hi Michael, just a quick note to say thanks for what you wrote on my talk page - not sure if you spotted that I replied there. Also worth mentioning that I'm quite impressed with this idea of rescuing articles on the brink of being annihilated, and I've decided to have a go at some more... -- cheers, Hebrides (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw, and appreciate your comment greatly. Have you considered joining the ARS? All are welcome. Dispite the occasional furor, improving the project is why we are here. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Daeg Faerch

Hey Michael, there's some edit(warr)ing going on over this guy's birthdate. I cannot find a reliable source for it. Can you have a look? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, since I have worked with him in films, might that be considere a bit of COI (chuckle)? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha! But I wouldn't worry about that. Hey, I'm conversing with greatness! Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

See this. I believe the 1992 date is likely incorrect, and would err to the 1996 one as I'm pretty sure he ain't 17 yet. However, since he has that "baby face" and young appearance, he may be advertising himself as younger than he actually is in order to get decent roles. I do have a confirmation call in to both his management people and the director of the film Delaney. I expect to have confirmation of his true bithdate before the day is out. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

An interview in Hollywood News (probably not the most reliable source on the block) says in 2007 he was eleven (they asked to confirm, no solid answer), which translates to 1996. Best I could find. Cheers. --kelapstick (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the 1996 date is most likely corect. Will await confirmation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there was one other reference in the article where a similar claim was made, leading to 1996, also not incredibly reliable, and I didn't enter that because the editors had been going back and forth between 1992 and 1994. Thanks for being on the case, both of youse! Drmies (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm playing policeman for a boy actor's page? MQS, that edit was a derogatory remark toward your additions, wasn't it? Drmies (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Funny remark too, considering that (from personal experience) some of the "microbudget films" ARE indeed available... either through production, Amazon, or certain video outlets. I left then as redlinks to encourage follow-up articles. For instance, Coming to Town (and yes, I own a copy) is a hilarious film from young director, that has itself received acclaim [5]. I have myself stayed away from writing it because I have worked with him and there would be screams of COI. As far as Daeg's age, the best thing would be to state in the article that "Daeg's age has not yet been confirmed. Various sources show his birthdate to be either 1992 or 1996." Many actors create such minor mysteries in order to create interest in themselves. Easiest thing would be to check birth announcements for his birthtown in 1992 and in 1996 to see just when his name first pops up. That would be the solution. Of course, some fans perfer tabloids to actual reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

However, there is THIS from back in 2007 that does show the 1992 year. With his youthfull look, his representation may be promoting him as 4 years younger (1996) in order to gain certain roles. Someone needs find that birth announcement. Just where in Canada was he born? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha, let's put Kelapstick on the case! I agree with your proposal re: birthdate. BTW, I am, by now, in agreement about those redlinks; I used to feel differently, but here they are an obvious invitation and someone will write the article. Thanks for the help, Drmies (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There used to be this crazy notion on Wikipedia that redlinks encouraged the writing of new articles so as to expand and build the project. And now I often see an argument at AfD "look at all those redlinks... it can't be notable". When did the paradigm shift take place? Where was the birth of this sense that this project was anywhere near complete? Yikes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Redlinks are like hot links.(a savory Chicago sausage). Delicious! An invitation to enjoy the act of eating...or editing. Take your pick.--Buster7 (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW...Just noticed that redlinks lead to the easiest way to start an article. The box provides a link to your own "article under construction" page. --Buster7 (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The Final Inch

Go live! It looks good to me. You definitely do fine work! If I over did any of the attributions assigning perspectives and opinion to the movie unnecessarily, feel free to revert or modify. I know it's an article about the movie, and not the disease, so maybe it's obvious and I overdid it, but I'm cautious about including statements presented as fact that aren't attributed as such, and I think the disease itself is best covered in its own article. I have no idea if there is much controversy, but still. I definitely agree with the statements, but I still think they were assertive in nature. Moviemakers are not scientists. And scientists are not moviemakers. Speaking of which, what do you brewing in the lab? Some exciting projects I hope. Maybe Doc will write us a script. He's making big bucks this summer, so funding one of our projects should be no trouble for him. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Its live. Any suggestions for a sweet DYK? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

David Zolkwer

I was more concerned for the COI of the author... but went through and did some major cleanup of the advert and added multiple reliable sources that show the fellow actually does have coverage that meets the WP:GNG. I then removed the prod, moved it to the proper namespace, and advised him on his talk page of concerns with COI. It still needs work, but as long as the author does not try to puff himself up, it is probably okay to let it stay and be further improved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Micheal. The author was indeed a clear CoI, but i marked it for rescue anyway since a quick search revealed clear notability. I will keep an eye on the article\creator for a while to see if he makes any CoI edits to the article, or if he tries to promote himself in other articles. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 06:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films May 2009 Newsletter

The May 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Sergio D. Acosta

Userfied, responded to your query at my talk page, and wishing you luck getting it up to scratch. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Common sense

Following up on my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alcides Moreno (2nd nomination). As you know, I respect your content creation, your diligence in sourcing references, and your devotion to a body of knowledge. However, I really wish you wouldn't be so condescending to people with whom you disagree as you were at the above-mentioned AfD. It's not just a question of WP:AGF (although it's that too), but also about assuming that the opinions of others are automatically wrong if they disagree with you. Bongomatic 14:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Moldova–Spain relations

Can you help find references for Moldova–Spain relations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for coming out MqS!

I would like to thank you for coming out and supporting me in my Request for Adminship, which closed unsuccessfully at (48/8/6) based on my withdrawal. I withdrew because in my opinion I need to focus on problems with my content contributions before I can proceed with expanding my responsibilities. Overall I feel that the RfA has improved me as an editor and in turn some articles which in my eyes is successful. Thank you again for your support (and I hope some day I can support/nominate your adminship request). Cheers and happy editing.--kelapstick (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC on Kim Greylek and Chester Lake

Hi, Michael. Since you were the only other user besides myself and Collectonian who commented in the discussion regarding the merge of the Kim Greylek article, I thought I'd let you know I've initiated a RFC on the matter since Collectonian has still not provided evidence of consensus in the matter and continues to revert all attempts to restore the article. I just thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to voice an opinion. Redfarmer (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

All work and no play

I hope you had a good weekend Schmidty. How'd your show go? I had a nice time Uptown and saw some interesting sights. Have fun. And don't let the bastards get you down. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A Heartfelt Thanks

I came to Wikipedia today feeling overwhelmed and like I didn't know what I was doing, and instead of one of my pages being deleted (as it probably deserved to be based on the lack of referencing), it had been made beautiful. Moreso, the way you did the references is amazing, and I'm going to use this page as an example for all of my other edits. Thank you for giving me more proof that the Wikipedian community is incredibly supportive! You rock! (for you work on the Melody Gilbert page, which, like I said, is now penultimately professional and informative). Sloggerbum (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The Final Inch

On June 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Final Inch, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 03:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Rescue

Hi, Michael,

I just made a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Arcuri that was partly addressed to you. I don't think, unless you can see sources that I can't, that that one's rescuable, but how would you like to have a go at David Blatherwick (AfD discussion)? I know you are good at cinema but can you deal with the other visual arts? I would try to add some sources myself but I really can't face looking at any more reviews of art exhibitions after spending all my free time for the last couple of days fixing up Sergei Isupov. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look and see what might be done... as I do like a challenge. Keeps me sharp. Sadly, Wikipedia seems to have a systemic bias against artists, as their works are by neccessity displayed at for-profit galleries... and unless its a Big Mac or Happy Meal, commerical items do not get support in these pages. Kind makes one wonder at what priorities are being set.... when a low quality consumer food product is more "notable" than a work of art... clogged arteries being seen as more notable than an enriched mind. Tried to save Tim Cotterill a few months back. Got it userfied as I still have hopes for ol' Tim. I think though that Blatherwick may be salvagable as he has had intallations and public works that received attention. As for Acuri... I suppose the line is being drawn on notability and she's on the wrong side of it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Malaysia–Sweden relations

Do you have time to peek at the changes I have med at Malaysia–Sweden relations? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Took a look and studied the hisrory and improvements. Nice work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

Internet Art movies

What do you think? Could it be merged with those flip books and other technologies using this technique? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Simply a diferent way to share some very old techniques... going all the way back to the Mutoscope and the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company. Nothing new here. Just a different package for a very old idea. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Screen shots for MASH

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 4 has the images from MASH up for deletion. They are being held to a higher standard more than any South Park episode. All the SP have screen shots and none are mentioned in the commentary as specifically notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

An AfD discussion you might be able to help with

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_patriarchal_cultures_that_have_been_claimed_to_be_matriarchal Can you give it a "look-see"? Thank you. --Buster7 (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for the barnstar. It's my first one in almost fours of editing. This one means a lot to me.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I Hope it is o.k for me to leave you a message here

I left you a message over at the other discussion. I just wanted to thank you for your help and your contributions, and I'm stepping away and I will let the pro take over. That being you. Sorry, I don't know all of the rules and ways of Wiki yet, but it is such a great feeling to contribute to something like this, and I can hardly wait to edit more articles, and contribute and create. Thanks for all of your help Micheal, and I hope you get the chance to read my message over on the other discussion. Take Care, and I really want to learn how to become a good Wiki contributor and do everything properly, but it will take a little bit of time.

Your advice is great, and I will be looking at your other message more closely after I get some sleep about adding references, and not listing blogs, and things like that. I really don't know how to thank you, other than by saying THANK YOU. It's people like you that make the world a great place to live in...

--Americanmoviecritic (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Americanmoviecritic

Hold that thought, as there are all kinds of personalities here on Wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yay! A shiny barnstar!

		The WikiProject Films Award
		I, -- Banjeboi, hereby award MichaelQSchmidt the WikiProject Films Award for his/her valued contibutions to WikiProject Films. For your steadfast improvement of many sad, sickly orphaned stubs into fledgling articles that serve our readers and editors well I hereby award you this shiny barnstar for all to admire and be slighty envious of. Your thoughtful work has helped rescue many articles and thankless contributions build good articles towards being great ones. Keep up the great work! -- Banjeboi Awarded 11:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Congrats! Well deserved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Daughter of the Nile

Thanks for your work on the article and for the barnstar. Gigs (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

re:Cool

No problem at all :), It's a shame how often that happens (in this case it was something to do with two pages being created and one of them being nommed, or something), but often it's after a page move, so it's good to have another someone (i.e. you ;D) who is more active in AfD knowing how to add that to the templates :). Happy editing - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Estonia–Luxembourg relations

Hello, I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Jeff Hullinger AFD

Hi...I noticed you commented on this AFD. I was wondering if you could put in some input on:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tammie Souza
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Smith (news anchor)

--CFIF ☎ ⋐ 05:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

THINGS (1989) Afd

Hi there. I just closed this AfD. I split the baby, with a keep for THINGS (excellent job there btw) and a delete for Barry J. Gillis. Since you were working on it, I went ahead and userfied it at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Sandbox/Barry J. Gillis. Please let me know if you don't want it and no one else is going to work on it. Cheers. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

whoa!

Would you believe that I had to create an article for Stanley R. Jaffe? Anything you add would be appreciated. Surely there's a DYK to be had here! You doing alright? Drmies (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Good work. Thanks! To Legend and CoM also. Now...how about a hook? Did you know that...I have no inspiration here. Low bloodsugar, haha. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Fun Little Movies

Sir, I appreciate your hard work. I was wondering who had done so much to the page. You are amazing. Do you have any advice for me? I will be working on the Mobisode page next, probably.Thesupersfox (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)thesupersfox Wow, your ability to work in this field is amazing. I do not log in nearly often enough to have caught the debate, so your hard work was incredibly beneficial.Thesupersfox (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)thesupersfox Thesupersfox (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)thesupersfox

Sir? The Queen has not knighted me yet. Mike or Michael will do fine. My best advice will be to create your article on Mobisodes in a user workspace... such as User:Thesupersfox/sandbox/Mobisodes (click the link and start creating). Working in a sandbox allows the luxury of time and when you need advice you can simply ask an editor to take a look. Many will be happy to offer input. Then, when its as strong as it can be made, you'll be instructed how to move it out into mainspace. Simple, really. This way the article can grow and be strengthened, before being set lose. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Fun Little Movies

On June 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fun Little Movies, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 08:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		I would like to thank you for rescuing Tammie Souza and Hugh Smith from oblivion. Your clear devotion to making the encyclopedia inclusive rather than exclusive really shows and you deserve kudos for it. CFIF ☎ ⋐ 17:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Now certainly there are artcles that need to go... and I am not adverse to voting delete for such... but if due diligence shows something CAN be improved for Wikipedia, it should be. Throwing it on the trash heap is supposed to be a last resort and only if all other options have been considered. So thanks... and happy editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Gatorface

Hiya! I'm glad to hear you put some legwork into that article. Now, I'm a bit unsure of the necessity of withdrawing the nomination. Honestly, if it's all that fixed up, then the motion will fail anyway, and if it's not sufficiently fixed up, then it needs to be removed anyway. I'm not saying that it does, mind you. Rather, I'm just saying it won't hurt to just let things float onward. If it's worth being kept, it'll be kept. I am however willing to look at it again and possibly double back to the AfD nomination and voice that I've personally changed my mind. That might help steer consensus a bit. I hope you understand where I'm coming from here. Basically, I think it may as well go ahead through the process since it's been submitted, but if my opinion's changed (I haven't looked just yet), I'll be glad to change my input as to what I think the outcome should be. - - Vianello (Talk) 03:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick followup. The article's definitely acceptable now. I've stated my change of opinion on the AfD page. Not a lot of input so far, but it's unanimously in favor of keep at present. I don't think its future is in much jeopardy. - Vianello (Talk) 03:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for those supportive words. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Rodger Bumpass

Wow, good work. Sometimes you have to prod people with sticks repeatedly before they, you know, do anything. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It was fun to be able to give the article a reason to stay. Thank you for the "wow". Means a lot. :) Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yair Qedar

The article's looking much better; thanks for your efforts. If there are no more comments within the next couple days, I'll withdraw the nom. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Her Day

No problem. Article is restored. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 11:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

But please see my comment on the AfD page. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 11:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Helen Gloag

Michael, don't know if you're interested, but I just spotted what I think will be a fascinating article to rescue: Helen Gloag, currently AfD. I've made a start, but am a bit short of time at present, and don't mind other people chipping in. It's not every day that you get a chance to work on an article about a 16th century Scottish girl who runs away, gets captured by pirates, becomes Empress of Morocco and abolishes slavery! -- Hebrides (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Just looked at the article again - you did an amazing job (as you always seem to do :) - thanks. Another successful rescue. Hebrides (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Examiner.com

Per your comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twilight: The Musical I tried to establish whether this was a reliable source by asking at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, you can contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Examiner.com. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

R. M. Engelhardt

Hi Michael, I've done my best to get R. M. Engelhardt, an article produced by a new WP editor, into an acceptable form, but it's just been marked AfD. Do you think this one can be rescued? -- Hebrides (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Gareth Penn

Michael: Would appreciate your help preserving, as it were, the carefully cited details in Gareth Penn. Gareth Penn is a controversial figure who has received a great deal of recent publicity, and having seen your thoughtful work with other controversial Wiki entries, I'd trust your judgment on what makes sense there more than most. 173.30.129.164 (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The Gareth Penn article is too long... says too much about non pertinant information that some would consider superflous. Some careful trimming and copyediting would/could make it look better and give it a beter chance to survive an AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Trimmed it back considerably and rearranged for better flow.173.30.129.164 (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Much better. Sometimes too much information works against an editor. I did not feel overwhelmed by the streamlined version. You will notice I have gone through it to set sections, wikilinks, tweaked the lede, and made minor copyedits. The refs will need format fixing, but it looks quite nice. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Also... the in-line URL links should be converted to in-line cites per MOS. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks excellent! I had noticed your work on other articles, and you do something many other editors don't: you preserve the information that makes the subject notable. What I've seen with lots of AfD's is a recurring Catch-22: Over-eager editors start deleting stuff. Pretty soon, they delete the very things that make the person notable. Then the article gets marked for deletion because the subject isn't notable! The quote from movie critic Mike D'Angelo in the Penn case is a great example. He's basically saying that Penn is so well-known among true Zodiac aficionados that he -- not Robert Graysmith -- should have been the protagonist in David Fincher's 2007 film Zodiac. That kept getting yanked, but it's great evidence as to the subject's notoriety. Anyway, thanks for the help and keep up the good Wiki-work! 173.30.129.164 (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It was your judicious trimming that helped make ir easier for me to make it look pretty. As long as you have solid sources toward notability and an exemplary format, articles usually survive. You might also consider a section where Penn and his views are written of by others... similar to the critical response section in films. As long as he is covered in-depth and in reliable sources, the section will double-cinch notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the Barnstar. I appreciate having the opportunity to help. Best regards, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy criteria

Your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slag best enemies seem to misunderstand the way that speedy deletion works on WIkipedia. I was surprised at them since you ordinarily have a good understanding of policy. Each criterion is an independent reason for deletion and an article should be deleted if it fails any of the criteria that apply to its namespace. These are the G, general criteria which apply in all namespaces, and whichever namespace specific one applies, A in the case of articles. Thus articles which are attack pages, vandalism, blatant copyvios, etc., can be speedy deleted without regard to the applicability of any of the A categoris of speedy deletion. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes indedd, "A" is the criteria for articles. I understand that very well even if I was not able to communicate that clearly. I was responding to the repeated opinions at AFD tha a certain article was not speediable as it specifically did not meet the criteria of G11 and that AfD as a result of A7 was correct. The article they kept opining speedy for was not (at this time) copyvio, nor an attack page, nor vandalism. I hope you sent a similar note to those who were mis-interpreting G11. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

G11 is for blatant spam and any article can be deleted for that. You seemed to be saying that a film article cannot be deleted as spam because they aren't an A7 category. They are immune from A7 deletes but G11 spam still applies. The question of whether or not to delete under G11 has nothing to do with any of the A categories and whether or not an article is an A7 category. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I am seeing at the AfD is repeated cries of SPAM when it does not contain such. It's an article that sadly fails WP:NFF, but is no more "spammy" than any other film article, and indeed a lot less. The votes seemed to stem more from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Had they simply said "fails WP:NFF" I would happily agree. But to call something SPAM and then tell me I am wrong to state that A7 is for articles... Yikes. I read A7 thoroughly and asked advice from several Admins with extensive film knowledge in order to best know my stance. If it were blatant SPAM, then yes... a G11 would apply. But as it is not blatant SPAM, and simply a sourced article of a film in production making a credible claim to notability, A7 would apply... sending it properly to AfD where it will be properly deleted. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

G11 was perhaps a poor example - an article on a film that met CSD G12 (copyvio) would be deletable under that criteria, even if it was not eligible under A7. The A-series of criteria are only applicable to articles, but the G-series apply to any page, in any namespace (including the mainspace). Your arguments in the AFD were a bit confusing, but you explain it a bit better here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC).

My fault for not being clearer. The film needs to go for now, and I had opined its removal for what I preceived was the correct reasoning. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

re: Nathan Parsons

Hi, I'm little unclear why you removed the repost CSD tag on Nathan Parsons. No worries, but I feel none of the original issues with the article have been addressed. - 2 ... says you, says me 23:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I am/was currently expanding and sourcing it. I had hit "review" several times, but not "save". I removed the speddy as it instructs I should do if i were intending to improve the article. I respect your good faith and agree that the article does not yet meet inclusion criteria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I wasn't aware you were working on the article, I saw you posted a delete comment at the AfD - I couldn't find any sources on it to take it out of a G4 condition, which was why I originally listed it as a repost. - 2 ... says you, says me 12:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I had an amusing circumstance some weeks back were someone tagged an article for speedy. I began improving it and found a few nice sources. I kept "reviewing" to see how it was coming together and when I finally hit save, I had an EC. It had been deleted as I was working. So when I saw your speedy, and the instruction to remove the tag if an improvement was ro be attempted, I did just that. I am curious... how were you able to "see" the prior version to know issues had not been addressed? I could not and simply had to make what I found as pretty as possible. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Black Field

Hi, I've closed the AfD for Black Field and as you requested I have userfied the article for you at User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Black Field. Have a nice day! Cool3 (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films June 2009 Newsletter

The June 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The Mandrake Root

FYI Simon M Woods the producer seems to have joined up as user:Simonmwoods. Also, Mandrake Root probably needs to be disambiguated? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yikes! The BLP might actually be salvagable. I hope he takes heed to your caution. And I know see that the article itself had had two sections removed rather than repaired. I'll fix that, then see about the BLP. And yesm an disambi for The Mandrake Root makes good sense. Could you do it? I do not (yet) know how. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I added some disambigs. Perhaps a disambig page is needed at Mandrake Root, but that's over my pay grade. I ignored your in use template. Sorry if I messed you up. I'm about to go offline so I wanted to get it done. Be good! Catch you later. Maybe Simon needs you in London? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Stedman

Thanks for notifying me of changes to the article. ive withdrawn my delete nomination. unfortunately as a relatively new editor with not a lot of experience in weighing notability on independent film makers, i dont feel qualified to make a recommendation, the information in the article now is in a gray area for me, and any decision i would make would possibly be more colored by emotional bias than facts, (i could go either way, but i dont think it would be a rational decision on my part. either: "yay, go indy filmmaker!" or "gee, its not star wars" totally unfair to filmmaker for me to mostly use my emotions.) but i acknowledged the references. i dont know what all that other talk is about, but i hope the article is treated fairly by those who do make recommendations. good luck.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Inuse

You tagging an article "inuse" while another editor is making an edit does not give you carte blanche to revert those edits, as you did here[6]. Also, tagging the article as "inuse" when another editor is actively editing but you yourself had NOT edited for two hours was really rude. You saw that I had started to edit, then immediately jumped on the article causing edit conflicts for me, then claimed it was inuse. Again, that was just rude. If you want to improve the article further, fine, but please do not do so by inserting non-WP:RS "sources". There are more than enough reliable sources to use for this film without such additions and adding non-RS sources does nothing but leave unnecessary work behind for other editors who will have to remove them before the article can achieve any higher class than Start. Please respect that other editors do have valid opinions, are allowed to edit, that other editors actively editing generally precludes you shoving an inuse tag on an article, and that I do have an idea of what is and is not an RS source. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Have fun MQS

And thanks for all your great contributions to Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Stanley R. Jaffe

On July 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stanley R. Jaffe, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 08:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

User:ChildofMidnight/Exploding chicken

What do you think? Is there a broader subject we can merge it into? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a section of American Humane Association, Animal welfare, or Animal cruelty? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Alan Mruvka

On July 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alan Mruvka, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Evil Town

Hi MichaelQSchmidt. Thanks for contributing to Evil Town. Please check the external link to Rotten Tomatoes. I did not found the film there, I found just an older film with the same title. --Ilion2 (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Check the cast and production credits. Its the same film. You found one of Rottrn Tomatoes' typos. There was no film by that name in 1977. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Marilyn Vance

Hey. I had originally put it in the queue, before it was put back on T:TDYK by Backslash. When I saw that he had done so I had just removed it completely, since the hook I put in had zero problems and I don't know why my putting it in was undone. Wizardman 18:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

My discussions with Backslash led me to understand that its return was dependent on a Shubinator response. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Civility

With great interest, I have become involved in a discussion about Civility that ADmin:Casliber has started...seeWP:Civility/Poll. If you would go to the talk page and refer to a thread regarding a survey [[7]] I was very surprised to see your name on the results as a "incivil" editor. I knew right away that the results were skewed and that there had to be another side to the story. Having seen your work at the various ARS attempts to save articles, I would consider you one of the MOST civil I editors I have met. For what its worth and just to let you know. You might want to participate in this important discussion..--Buster7 (talk) 03:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a good opportunity to clear your name AND forward the discussion. I'm sure you have views and opinions re; Civility/Incivility. Your predicament shows that the current system can be abitrary and misinterpreted by future "researchers". Your eloquence is needed. --Buster7 (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I just posted in agreement with Cerjota that we both had our blocks lifted with an apolgy from the blocking admin, and should not be on that list does does not share unique circumstances. I will go back and read the entire discussion and see what I might offer. By the way, I like that one civility admin, but the poor sucker would get quite overworked. Is there a Wikiproject Civility? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Not that I know of. This all stems from a rewrite of the WP:Civility page over the past few months. But it still has no bite, no enforcement capacity. The bullies don't listen...unless they are told to leave the schoolyard.--Buster7 (talk) 04:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Then there are the ones that step right up th the line without quite crossing over... of course, that might then weakly fall under WP:Disruptive. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Marilyn Vance

On July 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marilyn Vance, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC) 08:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The BLP Barnstar

		The BLP Barnstar
		For your outstanding work on Gareth Penn! To one of Wiki's best editors, thanks again! 173.30.129.164 (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Kraken: Tentacles of the Deep

On July 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kraken: Tentacles of the Deep, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 09:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Baba Ramdev (movie)

Can you take a look at this? I added one ref to the Encyclopaedia of Indian Cinema, the movie is one of 1450 Indian movies featured in it (up to movies released in 1994). I think that's a credible enough claim, given that India produces over a 1000 movies per year. I'm not too familiar with Rajasthani movies (unlike Tamil or other south Indian movies) and this was the only thing my search returned; Pablomismo, in an earlier movie discussion, suggested that you're a good source for movie rescues, perhaps you can find some additional sources for this one? -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Perfect, I couldn't find the Screen India resource despite using multiple search strings, glad I came to you! cheers -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 20:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I get lucky. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't think this pertains directly the AfD, so responding here; reg your note on Thai Thangai Paasam AfD, I actually do read/write/speak Tamil (my native language) which is why I was actually comfortable nominating the articles, since what I found in Tamil weren't exactly refs either (similar to the English refs, but news archives don't go back as long and gbooks doesn't exactly exist. However, I lived in Tamil Nadu when three of the four movies were released, so I'm quite familiar with the reception to the movies (WP:OR) which leads me to the conclusion about sources though. That said, the director of the movies is clearly notable, he acts in all his movies, makes a lot of them, and is generally in your face, although most of his ventures tend to be flops - he has a reputation of being a notable flop - many flop movies, a flop magazine venture, a flop political party etc. cheers -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 04:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

...which is why I have not offered a keep or delete opinion for your nomination, only whined a bit about the anglo-centricism of en.Wikipedia. Hmmm.... your comment might tend to suggest that a merge to an article about the filmmaker might be of merit, as he would then have a sourcable notability as a flop-maker. Perhaps? Are you in that part of the world? And do you then have access to hardcopy news sources for such? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I live in sunny CA now, but here's the page of the guy Vijaya T. Rajendar - it asserts that the quality of his movies started dropping after a while, I'm guessing that was around the 1985-86 time frame, as that's about the time he started his focus on a magazine. I'd say the one hit movie could be a merge for now, but Monisha En Monalisa is probably better off merged to the actress Mumtaz (not the one with a WP page now). Other two, I'm not too sure a merge would be justified as there's really nothing to merge other than the name.

I also opined a redirect. Saves the history. Allows recreation if any ever become sourable. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

PS: I'm in SoCal as well. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually in NorCal; I've also added to the AfD as to why I didn't do a redirect - there are at least 10 pages currently with exactly the same content except for the name; I just researched four to bring to AfD, the other six will probably be similar save an odd notable one. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 05:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

With your knowledge of the director and the language, a bold redirect of the others you found should not get you any flak. I trust your judgement and appalaud your civility. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Just an FYI in case you didn't notice, the AfD was closed as redirect and articles redirected. The pages have all been un-redirected now, as were a couple of the other redirects that I did with the remaining six. It's just my opinion, but it's some of these kind of articles that feed part of the systemic bias because they create an inability for the unacquainted to distinguish between what deserves that "extra consideration" v what doesn't. Quite obviously six extra pages isn't going to do any harm to the encyclopaedia, so it isn't a big deal. cheers -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 23:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy Bastille Day!

Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not!  :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Calendars for RS on movie premiere

Living With Fibromyalgia The movie was scheduled for premiere, there is not verification it was shown. A RS is a review after the movie, it has a person review the film and say, here is where there was the premiere, blah blah. A calendar is an advertisement for the movie, it is published before the movie is shown. RetroS1mone talk 05:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Where the premiiere WAS... as the article date is 2 years old. The WP:BURDEN is on you to show it was never premiered. Thank you.MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No you are using a calendar from before the event, and you are edit warring. pls stop. RetroS1mone talk 05:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

And to be clear... a RS is an RS. The simple fact of date and location is not an assertion of notability and per policy must be sourced. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Living With Fibromyalgia

I take out warnings, i do not think my warning was constructive, sorry Michael. I leave every thing rest below.' RetroS1mone talk 05:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Citing an interview with the fimmaker herslf is not original research... and neither is a screening date announce in reliable sources. Please cease placing unhelpful comments on my talk page. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You did four seperate changes that were not consecutive i should report you to 3RR!! But i just put a warning bc i am being nice and so you go to my talk like a childish person and do a 3RR warn to me when i was under.

OR is, you say the film happened, no RS for it. You can say, "the premiere was scheduled to be held at blah blah" any thing more is OR. I do not know, these sources are RS any way, is a newspaper advertisement RS, is a schedule of movies RS? I am thinking, RS in newspaperes is when a person researches, writes article, these scheudles are, a person phones in and says hey I am showing my movie next Tuesday pls put it in the paper. RetroS1mone talk 05:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

When improving any article, I often do much more than 4 non-consecutive edits... as I dig through sources and do research... and point here is that if you had not yourself been so detemined to prevent changes to the article and had not reverted my edits one-by-one, immediately after they were made, they would likely have been consecutive. The histories clearly show that I have not performed 3 reversions. That was you, and that was why I sent the friendly warning... not because you had sent one to me. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Pls assume good faith, i am not trying on preventing changes, i am trying, to have article use RS, blogs and marketing and advertisements in a newspaper is not RS. RS is news articles, reviews. I can not find RS for this film, that is why i took to AFD. It can be greatest film from all history, no RS it does not for Wiki. RetroS1mone talk 05:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Please assume good faith yourself. I made an edit... and then a second one... and then a third... only to look back and find you had reverted my first two right after they had each been made. If we both slow down, the article can be improved... by both of us. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, thx. RetroS1mone talk 05:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

For instance, the premiere date is not exactly a controversial point. Why tag it for a cite?... as such are needed only if something is controverisal or likley to be challanged. If the cite tag is removed and the date is left, the minimal sources for that date have no need to be there. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

...four "announcements" of the premiere: March 12, March 20, and two from March 21 [8]. It is a safe bet that they checked their facts over the 9 days since their initial announcement. Not a big deal, really. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, thank you for removing also! RetroS1mone talk 06:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Care to help me do an archive search on each of these to seek additional coverage? 4 eyes are better than 2. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

NFA article, i put more sources in and long quote from the New York Times, i do not mean the quote needs stay there just more information about Matallana. My advise, the big RS like NYT and WSJ and FDA are emaphasize, how NFA is helping patients and drug companies with the new drugs Lyrica and Cymbalta, the article should talk about it with these sources. Did NFA have another name, i found some old sources, said Matallana found "National Fibromyalgia Action Campaign" was it an old name. My opinion, important to say Matallana and Richards are both patients, they have personal experience w illness. RetroS1mone talk 23:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

All input is welcome. I will visit the article when I return home. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Night of the Living Bread

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		I see that you've already won one of these types of Barnstars recently, but I still wanted to award you one for Night of the Living Bread. I think your work there demonstrates the type of behavior Wikipedians should demonstrate more often, showing that putting forward just a little bit of work can make excellent articles out of those other editors would jump to delete. — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterloo Road Comprehensive ‎

Hello Michael. Thanks for your contribution to the above discussion. I wonder if you would like to look again at the substance of the search results you offer. I maintain that this article cannot get to acceptable standards with the reliable sources available. The JPS^{talk to me} 07:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Fibromyalgia

Outstanding work my friend. I will do a little copy editing and upload an image for it. I used to do quite a bit of fundraising and I'm confident it will be most helpful for such an org to have a decent wiki entry as it helps establish creditability in the eyes of donors and generally raises their profile. The articles just the right size to for it to have a good chance of being read all the way through. God bless you for taking the time to make that. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Good work! The JPS^{talk to me} 08:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Other editors are doing the copy editing, i will come back later, but anyway its definetly good enough to go live in its current state! FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Bongomatic 08:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/National Fibromyalgia Association

Hey Michael, that looks pretty good. I made a few minor tweaks, to borrow CoM's word. I would probably drop "2002" and the way-back machine reference; I'm not sure how much it helps and it kind of messes up the sentence. Congrats and take care! Drmies (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael, the FNA article looks pretty good -- you have a lot of great references. I am going to alter the language in a couple of places to more neutral POV and to reflect the language in the sources. The only big problem is the first reference is actually not Fox News, but rather a press release by Eli Lilly (see the source at the bottom of reference). Eli Lily is promoting their anti-depressant drug, Cymbalta, for treatment of FM. This is not a good source, especially given the criticism in the news of the drug companies' promotion of FM (see [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29085643/wid/18298287// this recent MSNBC article). I haven't seen any criticism made directly at the NFA, so I don't believe it's necessary to include the overall criticism of FM in this article. However, you should be aware that some editors might find some and make a good case for inclusion. Otherwise, nice job with the article. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 17:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, while writing my note here, I see that you moved the article already. I think that is a fine move given the quality of the article. I'll just make any additions there. — CactusWriter | ^needles 17:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nabil Abou-Harb

What do you think about the notability of this person's biography? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look and fixing up the article. As a favor to me could you remove your comments about the "first" nom? I'm not seeing a comment about a first nom in the AfD and it seems to inflame the discussion a bit unnecessarily. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I did not see that and couldn't figure out what you meant. I'm not sure a defensive approach is helpful, but I understand your frustration. :) Thanks again for checking it out and working on it. Seems like an interesting story. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks MQS. :) I was going to do some clean up also, but there was an in use tag and I didn't want to cause edit conflicts. By the way Law is moving up into your area. We must make him welcome! ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)