User talk:MichaelQSchmidt/Archive 007

Casanovva

Cite this diff if you need it later: once you have a citation that indicates that filming has begun, coupled with the sources that indicate notability, you may return the article to article space and the article should not be deleted under WP:CSD#G4 since it will be substantially different to the deleted article. I may not be around to defend the move when you do this, so if you get any aggravation, cite this diff. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I had planned to make a note on the talk page something like:

"This article was deleted on March 18, with a consensus to wait for filming to begin befire returning it. Filming has now begun and with respects, I have returned the article... now sourced to show just that. Thank you"

However, I will most definitely refer back to this diff. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For outstanding guidance provided to less experienced Wikipedians, and serving as an example for their future part of the project! You have my sincere thanks! Ks64q2 (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Recovery

		The Barnstar of Recovery
		Thanks for the help rescuing and improving Jim Brandstatter TomCat4680 (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Michael Schmidt, I just want to say thank you for your help with fixing references of the Wołów bank robbery article. I appreciate you help. Tymek (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Barry Snowdon - good job

Good work on the clean up. Not sure how the AFD will fare but at least it is now in a position as an article to be judged more fairly. Pedro :  Chat  22:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite welcome. I have to leave now to go to work (real world) but will continue in a few hours (short day). MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I just added 5 more sources to the AfD (two are primary) that can be used to build the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Make that 7, bringing the total to 20. If I included all the other local stories I skipped we'd be at 30+ sources available. Granted they all say pretty much the same thing (plus or minus some details), but that isn't the point. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Add 'em to the list on the article's talk page. I'll be working on it tomorrow. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 09:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Black Noon

I know you like to "save" the movie articles, so I thought you might be interested in Black Noon. The article is currently PRODed and I didn't really find much so left the tag in tact. If it is deleted before you see it, the article consisted of one while sentence: "Black Noon is an American television movie directed by Bernard L. Kowalski and broadcast in 1971 by ABC as a segment of its Movie of the Week series."

If you decide to write a proper article and use that sentence, make sure to have it WP:UNDELETEd.

Also, that you for the vote of support on my RfA. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

IMDb list 1 external review: TerrorTrap.com - no idea if that is a notable source or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

AllMovie gives it 3 stars, but only offers a plot synopsis - no formal review. It just occurred to me that since it aired on a major network, it is presumably notable per WP:OUTCOMES. The idea being that there are bound to be contemporary coverage in newspapers that are not available online. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

With its re-airings 1972 through 1978 and later commercial re-release on DVD, it meets WP:NF, even without multiple reviews online. The cast itself kind of surprised me. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Even better. I tend to forget about the "other criteria" since reviews are usually the easiest way to prove notability. Thx for the reminder. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I now have you back on my watchlist for a different post; but I just checked Gbooks - the movie aired on TV in 1981 and in 1982, has a wee bit of a mention here and in this the asterisk leads to a mention about the excessive dark photography. cheers -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 03:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. There will be quibbles anout it being a "TV Movie", but being re-aired 10 and 11 years later are further note of "commercal re-release more than 5 years after it's intial release. Nice. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Michael, I started the Black Noon page, can't have a film like that disappear! Thank you for your correction -- --keithy BX (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Schmidt

		The Special Barnstar
		This is to thank you for bringing National Fibromyalgia Association to Wikipedia. I am very impressed with your work on this article. Keep up your fine work! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comments welcome

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. [[1]] Thanks, Smatprt (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism fight

Hi MIKE, VASCO here, longtime no "see",

I knew it would happen man, this vandal i two or three times have discussed with you, User:Pararubbas, has this account which went unblocked, Edc018. In the last few months, he had the custom of opening two at a time, and maybe this went unnoticed, even though i notified User:EdJohnston. I imagine the vandal's surprise when he found out he had no need to open a new sock, because this one was still available.

He immediately started to contribute, gluing all sentences at F.C. Paços de Ferreira (here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=F.C._Pa%C3%A7os_de_Ferreira&diff=next&oldid=303911157, anon) and Rui Bento (here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rui_Bento&diff=303746064&oldid=300668721) - i already reverted - and be sure, he will remove player infobox stuff if he is "given the chance" (latest "contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Edc018). He has worked anon for the vast majority of the last months, with a neverending supply of IP. Look what he wrote, here as anon, in same ball club (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=F.C._Pa%C3%A7os_de_Ferreira&diff=prev&oldid=303948228). Are these "people" needed here?

Have also sent this message to Satori Son and Ed, whom have greatly helped dealing with this issues (and this "person" in particular). Only reason i'm doing this (i'm sorry if this causes any inconvenience) is because i need help urgently and (at least) Ed is on a wikibreak and Satori is only a parttime editor here, so i don't know what to do, man. Checkuser is done, but "user" is still unblocked.

Attentively, VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for National Fibromyalgia Association

On July 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article National Fibromyalgia Association, 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) 06:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

BQ

I have added my 2 cents to your statement. We need to get the page protection fixed. It is at the wrong version. If only they would look at the history and see what the right thing to do is. Isn't there someway to have this looked at by others. It seems like we are being ignored? Disgstngfatbdy (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

List of actors who have played animated characters

The AfD was closed 'no consensus' here, challenged by Powers here, reopened here and closed Delete here. King of Hearts caved in to Powers like a December Jack-o-Lantern. The argument that the AfD should be reopened to allow an editor to insert a last comment is unworkable and unsound. AfD closed, X requests the right to comment, AfD reopened, X adds a final comment, AfD closed, Y requests... When the second closure is considered, it's also having it both ways. Either one believes that it should have been opened to allow comments from Powers, and it shouldn't have been closed before replies to Powers could be addressed, or one believes as I do that it shouldn't have been re-opened for a user to get the last word in the first place.

My comments on User talk: King of Hearts for more on this. (much the same sent to DGG) Anarchangel (talk) 03:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Silip: Daughters of Eve

I just dePRODed Silip: Daughters of Eve as it appears to be a notable horror film. I did such very basic cleanup and such, but it needs work. Feel free to help if you like. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Began with a bit of copyedit and sourcing. Found that it had commercial re-release on DVD 23 years after original release. MichaelQSchmidt (talk)

Feel free to move to Silip if you think that title is better - I just created that as a redirect earlier today... although I see just now that there is another Silip which also appears to be notable, so maybe best to keep the main Silip page unused for now. [2] might prove useful for expansion on this Silip, as there are several quality reviews to choose from. According to Amazon the defunct VHS-survivors.com said "If there were a prize for wildest film of all time, I'm pretty sure this one would win" - it might be nice to find their full review somewhere. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Found DVD Talk. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:RetroS1mone

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of RetroS1mone (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RetroS1mone. -- RobinHood70 (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ThaddeusB

I wanted to take a moment to delivery a personal thank you (not "thank spam" :)) for your involvement in my RfA. (It passed 117-2-7 in case you hadn't seen.) I have long found your article saving work to be amazing and was an honor to have your support. I also appreciated your attempts to defend me over the Barry Snowdon rescue tag thing (and also for cleaning up the actual article). I know there would be questions about your occasional biteyness if you ever ran for adminship, but you would certain have my support. In any case, if you ever need an admin assistance (such as copies of deleted articles) let me know and I will be glad to help. There is no one I'd trust more to save an otherwise hopeless article than you.

Thanks again, ThaddeusB (talk) 05:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Resistance (Terminator)

I don't know if you're interested in a preemptive rescue. This article was prodded as it isn't based on reliable sources. I deprodded. Unless it can be sourced better the prodder will probably send it to Articles for Deletion. Some rewriting based on reliable sources wouldn't go amiss; I'm struggling with finding sources focussing on this aspect of the Terminatorverse. Fences&Windows 19:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The best choice might be to pre-emptively suggest various sections of plot description be merged into their various related articles, else as you rightly figure, the original prodder might just slap the whole thing into AfD and get it deleted. As a seperate term, I honestly do not believe you will find enough independent notability to save it, IMHO. A good start to stave off the inevitable AfD is to officially begin merge discussions on the article's talk page to make it a team effort. Thus saving the content and putting the pieces in the places where they have context and sourcing. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films July 2009 Newsletter

The July 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Irbisgreif (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Irbisgreif (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Maple Palm

I just deproded Maple Palm. There isn't much there currently, but the film is notable. (Reviewed by LA Times for example.) Seems to be a pretty horrid movie (1.4 imdb rating), but I figured you'd be interested. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Skullduggery (1983 film)

Another de-prodded film for you. There is a fair bit of info around - mostly about how bad it is - but it also appears to be a bit of a cult classic. IMDb lists it as an 1983 movie, but it appears it was actually 1979 with a re-release in 1983. (Amazon & Allmovie list the date as 1979 & IMDb's accuracy isn't the greatest.) I would suggest moving it to Skullduggery (1979 film) with a redirect from the 1983 title.

Plot summary from Allmovie. A few reviews are around, including this extensive one and this extensive one. IMDb lists about 5 others. Film was distributed internationally as Warlock and possibly also Blood Puzzle. Enjoy! ThaddeusB (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A barnstar for the man with a barn full of them :)

		The Horror Barnstar
		For saving numerous horror film related articles from deletion, and otherwise greatly improving Wikipedia's coverage of film, I hereby award you this barnstar. Congratulations and keep up the great work! ThaddeusB (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Figured you had enough article rescue and film ones, so I found a seldom used one instead. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There are gobs of seldom used barnstars on Wikipedia:Personal user awards. Looks like this one has only been given a dozen or so times --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Anthony Smee

Take a look at this actor & let me know if you think he's notable. Has a ton of bit parts with a few somewhat more significant roles mixed in there. Not sure if he has enough for inclusion or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say he was. Started in theatre. Is covered in news [3], a few books [4], and among his rather long television career, was recurring in at leat 3 different British soaps. He meets WP:ENT. The article is a mess though. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't You Forget About Me (2009 film)

Hi MQS. I've created a stub for the above-captioned film, which may already meet notability guidelines (or may not), but will certainly do so soon, in any case. Care to have a look? Bongomatic 02:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Honored. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You've created one of those rarely found exceptions to WP:NFF. Nice job. Crystal does not apply since it has finished principal filming and is completing edit. Its coverage of a notable person through interviews of other notables give it the coverage that meets the WP:GNG... and with the (very sad) loss of Hughes, this documentary will now become one of the hottest properties of the year... and it is plain common sense that this is an instance where continued and extended coverage in RS is a certainty. I gave it a few minor tweaks and added a couple more sources. Modify if you wish. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Tweaked a little grammar. Thanks for fixing my template, and making the obvious connection to the song that I left out for who knows why.Bongomatic 07:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Forest for trees perhaps? Watch that little guy grow over the next few months. Nice job. MichaelQSchmidt (talk)

Yes, on its way, thanks to your help. Bongomatic 07:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Dead In The Water

I got another PROD save for you to take a look - Dead In The Water. Article contains a massively plot summary, an info box, and not much else. It won big at New York International Independent Film and Video Festival (I added that fact to the article) and has been reviewed by a few RS: [5], so notability shouldn't be an issue.

If you are so inclined, it is waiting for your magic touch. ;) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

On it now. Have just trimmed away a horribly lengthy plot section. Despite claims to the contrary some of the reviews on IMDB are from respected and quoted reviewers. Working. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yah, I know they are reputable. I was surprised to see it immediately go to AfD, but it appears Collectonian has, as you would say, "a bee in his bonnet" today. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I under covered a few more RS that aren't listed at imdb - they are in the AfD in case you hadn't seen. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll look in. Collectonian does great work and I like her contributions. Before adding the reviews I have so far done, I went and checked on the background of the authors of the reviews and included that in my edit summary. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Portal vs Project

Just a minor note, but when you do these[6] edits, you are adding a project banner, not a portal. Portals are very different :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. WOuld a beter summary then be "project tag"? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Patricia Lake

On August 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Patricia Lake, 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.

WP:DYK 20:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

International Film College

I'm not sure on notability. But thought you might care to have a look. Cheerios. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

And checking out your work on sauerkraut candy is on my to-do list. I'm looking forward to it. But you know how one thing leads to another and it's easy to be side-tracked. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Inherited- nice

thanks for cleaning/expaning this article

Re :Inherited

It does not seem to be deleted.Tim1357 (talk) 03:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

oh i see, you have tagged it for deletionTim1357 (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I was not the one to tag it for deletion. I was referring to the current discussion about it possibly being deleted, and what steps might be taken to save the information. It was tagged for deletion by User:Joe Chill. Sorry, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

[Trans (film)]

I appreciate you offering to help with the Trans (film) article. This was my first article and I'm too proud of it to have it deleted! I agree the plot summary was too long. I looked at other film's plot summaries and they were around 500-650 words. My summary for "Trans" was about 850, but I though it'd pass inspection!! Timothyapetty (talk) 09:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Are there any tips you can give me on cleaning up the plot summary section other than just shortening it?

Well... yes... but it will require shortening it too. A plot summary should be just that: a summary. It should not include such great detail. Curently it reads like a film treatment, and essentially recites the film's story. Let me take a good look and get back to you with specifics. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The edits you have made so far have are a real improvement. Timothyapetty (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: A question...

I have 007 granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. decltype (talk) 05:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, please don't tell me you are planning to become a full-time vandal fighter. The other work you do is far more valuable. Regards, decltype (talk) 05:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yikes! Gosh no. Just thought it might make life a little easier for thos few times I might need it. Thanks, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle and Friendly are even more useful (and include rollback in three forms, better yet), in case you don't have them activated. ^Bongo_matic 06:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

More nice tools. Time for study. Thanks all. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Oooops

I forgot to remove the template from the article when I did the withdrawl. Thanks for catching that. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Might you check to ensure I did it correctly? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Trans (film) edits

Hey, MQS! I've edited the "Trans" plot summary down quite a bit and I'd like your input if you wouldn't mind.

Thanks again for your help with this article!

Timothyapetty (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you take a look

I just dePRODed Don't Be Afraid of The Dark although the film isn't scheduled to be out until 2011 it likely to pass WP:N. Apparently Katie Holmes was in an on-set accident that has generated a good deal of coverage. (see [7]) There is also some additional coverage of the movie. The film is based on Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (1973 film) and the article is actually duplicate of Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011 film). Could you take a quick look and let me know what you think?

Assuming it is notable, would you prefer I merge the two copies together or move the large one over the top of the small one? --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Tim Maile & Douglas Tuber

Both of these fellows had their pages deleted via PROD today. In both cases the article consisted of "X is an American television producer and writer" and then a full list of their credits. They seem to always work together and were nominated for a Daytime Emmy for Lizzy McGuire twice (as producers, along with about 4 other producers for the show). That is a pretty weak claim to notability, but probably enough. They are also duelly mentioned in a number of news article. Usually only brief and usually in reference to Lizzie.

So I have several Qs: 1) Do you think they are notable enough? 2) If so, would one article be better than two (since they apparently always work together)? 3) Even if notable, can an article that goes beyond a mere list of credits be made?

LMK what you think, ThaddeusB (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Its always tough to have an article about a writing team, as there is rarely enough about each as an individual to support seperate articles, and editors seem to hate teams. The two are also book authors [8] and may have notability through their juvenile fiction as well as coverage of them as partners. [9]. They would have represented in one article... a team article, as that IS their notability. In other news, do you think improvements here are bringing snow here? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I plopped it into my userspace under a combined title for now as the article really isn't suitable for mainspace: User:ThaddeusB/Tim Maile and Douglas Tuber. When it goes back to mainspace, I'll create redirects from each of the individual names. That's how I handled Ryan Higa and Sean Fujiyoshi some time ago and no one has complained, including at its landslide AfD keep.

I'd say the Mike AfD has about a 0.0% chance of editing in delete, but it only has a bit over a day to go so I'll just let it run its course. I wonder, are there really any 1920s movies that are still known to exist that aren't notable? --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What's your opinion of this...

Hi Michael, I stumbled across this article just now and thought it a prime candidate for a redirect. The choices are to redirect to the film-maker or his filmography. There's a few more films in that filmography that are similar one-line-of-info type articles as well. So my question is - do we redirect to the filmography (and un-wikilink the film in the filmography) or redirect it to the filmmaker? Cheers. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

My thought would be to redireect to the filmmaker's article. This way readers get a much better understanding of his films in context to their creater than they would if the redirect were only to his filmology... and such would allow that they could always then go to the filmography linked from the article. If such time as one of the one-liners can be expanded into a decent stub, allow recreation of a seperate article. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Michael, I knew I'd get a logical answer from you! I'll get that done when I have time :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone keeps deleting my article

MichaelQSchmidt,

This is cerberusrunning (newbie). Thanks for the tremendous work on the Charles Dennis article.

I put up an article for Kim Eveleth, but someone totally deleted it (I think, since I can't find it.) Will you please explain if you can undelete it, and how to make an article that won't get deleted? I'm working on articles on producers/directors, and put up a template on Kim Eveleth, producer (you can see it on my cerberusrunning/entertainment industry template page.

Also, where do I look on the internet for your answer? Should I check back on this page?

Thanks. cerberusrunning 19:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Your edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cerberusrunning

• I can see that you have indeed been working an an article for her in a workspce User:Cerberusrunning/Kim Eveleth. A word of caution... keep working on it and when you wish to move it main space, just ask. It's easy to do. I have just moved it to a dedicated sandbox for you so it will be less likely to be prodded or deleted as you work on it. See User:Cerberusrunning/sandbox/Kim Eveleth Best regards, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I took a moment to take a look at Kim Eveleth and you are correct that the page you created there was deleted. The reason was that it was just a template:

“ First Middle Last (born March 99, 9999) is an award-winning American film director, screenwriter, producer, cinematographer and actor... ”

Since there was no actual information about the subject it was deleted. As Michael says, it is best to create articles in user space and then use the move button to bring them to mainspace when they are ready. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Harvard Beats Yale 29-29

Hello! Your submission of Harvard Beats Yale 29-29 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Allen3 ^talk 09:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've added some additional comments at this discussion. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 00:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Network television schedules

Hi Michael,

Your input at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Per_station_television_schedules would be greatly appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It's Complicated

I should've probably made my vote more a Keep & Move rather than just a move; my intention was to keep the article but under the correct name. I apologize if within my vote my intentions weren't clear enough (but as it was kept, it's all moot now :) ). Nate • (chatter) 06:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm just happy that it was worth saving. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter (September 2009)

		The Writer's Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to MichaelQSchmidt for his incredible help on the very first Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

congrats! Thanks for your help! Ikip (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Interview

Hi, Michael. Just wanted to let you know I enjoyed your interview at the ARS Newsletter. (I'm not officially a member because I have some difficulty working with large groups... and I've even had as heretical a thought as this: "consensus" can be wrong :) I particularly agree with, "it's important to not forget that growth is the goal of wikipedia and not the bane." The blistering contempt that many users-- and many with some "authority" here-- hold for content-creators has never ceased to amaze me. Vandal-fighting, deletion, rule-making, "drama-tribunals", etc. are all necessary evils at some point. But any editor who makes one of these activities their primary activity here has lost sight of the goal of Wikipedia: to create a free encyclopedia of "the sum of human knowledge". Santayana's definition of "fanaticism" comes to mind. Thanks for the interesting read, and happy editing! Dekkappai (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Dekk, you may find this section of the newsletter facinating. It is journalists' views on wikipedia deletion. You can join the squad and simply rescue articles by adding sources on your own. have you thought of adding the {{ARS/Tagged}} template to your page? To keep updated about those articles which have been tagged for rescue? Also we have already started work on a new newsletter, if you are a member, you will be assured of recieving it (or, if you wish, I can put you on a special list on non-members to recieve the newsletter)

Best wishes. Ikip (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ikip. Yes-- that was also interesting and agreeable reading. Thanks for the invitation. I did consider joining at one point-- I may actually have, I'm not sure-- but after doing the AfD work I found it just wasn't for me. I found many articles I could, and did, source and save, but I was frustrated by seeing so many other articles on the chopping block that I couldn't save just due to time constraints... Eventually I became so frustrated I quit Wikipedia for a short time. Since coming back I've decided to stick to my happy little niche, and close my eyes to the AfD boneyards, and that's worked so far. I have been saving some unjustly deleted (I think) articles to a specialist Wiki-like project. (Don't even have to give Wikipedia credit, since that article has been deleted :) Anyway, I admire the work you guys do, but I just don't have the temperament for it. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was a wonderful interview. Congratulations! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel honored to have been the first, as the ARS has many terrific editors. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You are a role model for all of us Michael.

Dekk, I have pretty much given up arguing AFDs, I get too emotional. I have quit wikipedia numerous times myself out of shear frustration. Now I am involved with simply building our project, and learning tools to help the project. I want to do so many technical things. Thanks for talking with me. Good to see you again Pastor. Ikip (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, I fully hope to see you adding content as well. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's an idea: Next time someone sputters, "B-b-but, if we don't strictly exclude articles on subjects that don't pass our home-made definitions of 'notable', then, we'd have a WHOLE BUNCH of articles!" suggest that we could free up valuable server space for those articles by deleting our Notability definition pages, their corresponding talk pages, and the AfD brouhahas, Deletion reviews, Wikiquette alerts, RfCs, etc., etc., etc. that these subjective standards create... :) Dekkappai (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No Hair Day

The short film No Hair Day was deprodded by Fences and windows today. Though it may be of interest to you. Evidently it was shown on PBS. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

His deprodding was a good one, and he did terrific work with expansion and sourcing. All I could do was pretty it up a bit. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yah, evidently he was working on it as I sent the message. :) I did also deprod a clearly notable Chinese actress - Ng Hui‎ - yesterday. Not sure if you can do anything with that one or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Working on it now. There's enough in English to show notability. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Other...

Thanks MQS for being GOOD. I don't know how to generate a "star" page, so that's the best I can say for now. Cramyourspam (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)CramYourSpam

Another future film for you to take a look at

I just deproded The Wild Bunch (2010 film) as it appears to have already generated plenty of coverage ([10]). I added the fact that it will the first CGI film made is Israel to the article, but it good use some fleshing out if you are up for it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome

In this edit to Eric Leiser, you added the statement: "Anna has a rare form of autism called Asperger’s Syndrome." This isn't really accurate; first, it's Asperger syndrome, not "Asperger's Syndrome". Asperger syndrome (AS) is indeed an autism spectrum condition. However, while a few researchers think the AS diagnosis should be merged with high-functioning autism, most believe that AS is a distinct condition, separate from classic autism. Also, since there are no clear statistics on how prevalent autism or AS are, there is no factual basis for referring to AS as "rare" in relation to other autism spectrum conditions. I have edited Eric Leiser to reflect these statements. Thanks for reading. Whatever404 (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with assistance and was simply repeating the term as written in one of the sources. Your correction is apprciated. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I must be frank: whoever adds content to Wikipedia is responsible for verifying the accuracy of that content with sources. A filmmaker's personal views on a medical condition are not an appropriate source for a factual description of that condition. Leiser also said that his character's Asperger syndrome rendered her "unable to cope with reality": this is a gross misrepresentation of life with AS.

Please consider how such inaccurate portrayals and descriptions affect the people who live with these conditions. One of the best ways to be an ally to persons with disabilities is to refrain from perpetuating harmful stereotypes. Scrupulous fact-checking on Wikipedia is just one small step in the right direction. Whatever404 (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'lll be frank in return. While I accept the good faith or your comment, you must please understand that I was specifically quoting the source itself in the plot summary for that film when they wrote "...Anna has a rare form of autism called Asperger’s Syndrome, rendering her unable..." (see source)... (their words, NOT mine}. While I appreciate your correcting the term based upon your personal knowledge, I chose not to mis-quote the source's summary of the plot for that film. It is what they wrote, not me. It was their words, not my correction of their words. It is always of concern when an editor deliberately mis-quotes a source... raising accusations of WP:OR and WP:NPOV and cries of "that is not what the source said". And if you'd care to look at my work on Everybody Is Different: A Book for Young People Who Have Brothers or Sisters With Autism, you'll see that I am aware of the difference. Again, thank you for making the changes you feel appropriate. If you further choose to expand and source that article, your assistance will be welcome. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand the reason for your foray into the issue of "misquoting sources". It strikes me as off-topic, because there is no need to do this in order to be accurate.

Putting aside, for a moment, the issue of whether medically inaccurate information should be propagated through Wikipedia, the issue we must address first is that of attribution. With the phrasing you used, it was not clear that this was an opinion, solely attributable to a young filmmaker, rather than a factual description of AS. If we were to include Leiser's inaccurate description of AS, we would need to attribute it as such, and provide contrasting, factual, medical information from a reputable source, to avoid any confusion about what AS is. Anything less does a disservice to those diagnosed and non-diagnosed readers, alike. Whatever404 (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note the spelling of Asperger syndrome; you spelled it incorrectly as "Asberger Syndrome" in this edit. Whatever404 (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Your keen eye is welcome. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Blogcritics

The site is not Blogcritics. It is Blogspot. Joe Chill (talk) 02:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I see the link now. That was added after my comment. I was talking about Blogspot. Joe Chill (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I just saw that you added a Blogcritics link today. Did you somehow confuse the Blogspot link as Blogcritics when you added a Blogcritics link even though I said that Blogspot was a blog on August 24? Or something? Joe Chill (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes Blogspot is not Blogcritics. Sorry for any confusions. I just hate when a reliable source has such a non-reliable sounding name. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

IMDb information

Hi Michael, I came across an article on the (rather obscure) English actor David Proud and discovered it was mostly unsourced. I've tried to verify as much as possible of the article, and stripped out what I couldn't, then rather tentatively stuck what was left up for WP:GAN (the good article review is at Talk:David Proud/GA1 if you're interested). His more obscure credits, and his date of birth, can only really be sourced to his IMDb profile. I know you use IMDb professionally and was impressed by your input at WT:Citing IMDb, so I'd like to ask your guidance on a couple of issues:

• Judging from IMDb's help pages, the credits will probably have been supplied by the film and TV production people. To what extent would it make sense to treat them as "reliable"?
• I can't work out who is allowed to submit date of birth information. Am I right in suspecting that they come under the IMDb Resume service, and therefore (like the publicity photo) can only have been submitted by Proud himself or his agent or other authorized person? I find it hard to believe that a random fan would be allowed to submit such information.

Any advice would be appreciated, thanks. TheGrappler (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Short answer.... Don't count on IMDB, and don't use it to source an article. You may include it in External links, but not as a cite. If you find some nice piece of information there, simply use it as a guide in your search for other locations that provide the same or additional informations.
• Long answer.... It does appear that certain informations on IMDB do indeed go through a vetting process, but because IMDB, in protecting their employees from outside harrassment and preventing any chance that an IMDB employee might be compromised by outside influences, does not give full disclosure to their editing/vetting processes (they do not even go so far as to allow their staff to use anonymous or funny usernames), Wikipedia has not been able to agree on what parts are acceptable (if any) and what parts are not. From dicussions, you'll see that some editors feel it is mostly okay. Some feel only limited portions are okay. And other feel that absolutely no portion is reliable. The argument has been going on for many years and will continue into the future. So all I can advise here is to use it as a guide to give you hints about other sources, but not as a source itself. Far fewer headaches. Less arguments.
• Now in looking at your work on the David Proud article, I'd have to say that you have done a nice job. For birthdate, perhaps use UK TV Guide. Further advice... though there are certain limited esceptions, best to avoid like the plague any website that resembles a blog or a press release. Keep your sourcing as powerful and mainstrean as possible. The Digital Spy article is quite a decent source, and itself well supported by the informations in Screenrush, Telegraph, View Sheffield, Guardian, Metro, Guardian, Telegraph, The Sun, Scottish Sun... and other sources [11]. You have a great start. If anything is the least bit "iffy", it's best to leave it out until you find it supportable.
• Feel free to ask anything else. Good luck, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that. Out of interest, why would uk-tv-guide.com be any more reliable than IMDb? In particular, their underlying source seems to be MTEDb, a site which is part of the [12] Digiguide group (a non-reliable confirmation of that is here). Having trawled around there, it's not at all obvious where they get their information from, as they clearly aren't just an IMDb clone (they use a similar credits-based database, but they don't seem to separate the individual episodes of TV series out, so it doesn't seem to be a straight copy-over of the information). They don't release their source information: though it doesn't seem to be user-generated, it might well be imported from somewhere. For the date of birth my suspicion is that they will have taken that from some other available source, and IMDb sounds likely since it is the most accessible (without knowing more about their sourcing, there's also a risk it could have been copied over from Wikipedia!). Just as a question to someone who uses IMDb professionally, does the date of birth come under the "IMDb Resume" service, like the photos do? In which case, could it only have been added by the agent or actor? (I guess the fact that IMDb are not very open about where they get which information from, and how it is vetted, makes that a hard question to answer; but it seems even harder to know where MTEDb is getting its information from or how accurate it is likely to be). TheGrappler (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Any comparisons to IMDB are just not worth making... for good or bad... as a slight majority (consensus) on Wikipedia feels that that particular site is totally and completely unreliable. Arguments to the contrary may have merit, but they have not (yet) swayed consensus. An interesting sidebar: When I myself asked IMDB managers for input at their messageboards, I learned that many at IMDB hold Wikipedia in low regard... and for many of the same reasons. [13]. As for UK TV Guide, I brought it up only as possibly comparable as RS to the US TV Guide. I note that they are not an SPS, being administered by GipsyMedia Limited [14] and not by an individual ot fanbase... and yes, GipsyMedia created Digiguide [15] back in 1999. So... the place to specifically ask if they might be considred RS for an actor's birthdate would be the Reliable Sources Noticeboard... since reliable sources are allowed to be considered in context to what is being sourced. As for my own date of birth on IMDB, when I submitted the date they sent me motification explaining that they would not accept my submitted date unless and until I sent them an unredacted copy of my birth certificate. Coinversely, birth dates in an actor's resumes are submitted by the actor or actor's representatives... who pay to have a resume up there. The date of birth on the actor's credits page is handled differently and not taken from the resume... and it is not accepted without proof. If you were to go to any actor's personal resume on IMDB Pro, and try to submit informations, you would be entirely unsuccessful. If you were to go to the actor's IMDB main and submit a birthdate, it would not be accepted unless you provided suitable legal proofs. While other informations require differing levels and types of proofs... for birthdates, they hold to a very strict protocol... and have for at least the last 9 years. But discussing IMDb is kind of moot. Better to go ask at WP:RSN about this instance of birthdate and MTEDb. Until then you will be quite safe using the numerous sources you do have to state that "as of August 2009, David Proud was 26 years old". MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the advice. TheGrappler (talk) 02:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad if I was of any help. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to The Hidan of Maukbeiangjow, without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 20:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• If I remove a template and offer a valid reason to do so, it is improper to assume bad faith in my actions. Your continued incivility to my good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia could result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Discussion is always a better recourse that hostility and incivility. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• And so with no regard for my good faith reasons for removing them, you have placed the tags back on the article. Please do not edit war. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• You did not "offer a valid reason to do so", and you have stretched the assumption of good faith well past breaking point. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 20:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Actually I did offer a reason, but arguing with you about it would not be helpful. If you feel my attempts to improve that article are somehow an affront to aesthetic sensibilities, then please... by all means file an WQA, ANI or RFC. But please do not be rude to me on my own talk page. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to say this is a bit ridiculous, Hrafn. MichaelQ certainly made an attempt to address the tags by adding two secondary sources, which is the normal definition of notability. Perhaps you felt they were still warranted, but you crossed the line both by assuming bad faith and by jumping straight to a level 3 warning for no reason. You also violated WP:DTTR. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The Suburbs (web series)

Hello! You and I both argued in an AfD to keep this article, which did close as keep. The other day it was deleted because ONE of its creators requested it be so. That does not seem right. If the creator of any article on a notable topic wants it deleted, it really should not trump the validity of the article's subject, no? Anyway, I am not sure what the request was, but please note that it survived a consensus discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Suburbs (web series) and so should we not go more by the consensus reached by multiple editors rather than one of the writers? I have asked the admin, but he/she is on break until Novermber/December! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

If the author were the only contributor to the article, his request for deletion was properly honored. However, if others feel the article notable enough to remain (as the AfD might seem to indicate), any editor might ask it undeletion by any admin and continue improving it, as interests of other editors have just as much bearing as interests from a single author. Remember... once it is in mainspace, it no longer belongs to the author... it belongs to all of Wikipedia. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I have decided to restore the page. See this edit for a full explanation of the situation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Rupini (actress)

Might you be able to use your magic to come up with some sources? I know she's notable, but for the love of Darwin, I can't find any pertaining to her specifically. I've seen quite a few of her movies. I'll try to find some too. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 03:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll use those to dePROD. It's very difficult to get Indian news refs for someone who was mostly acting prior to 2000. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 05:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Always happy to help. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Neila

It was. Joe Chill (talk) 11:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Harvard Beats Yale 29-29

On September 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harvard Beats Yale 29-29, 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.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 05:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)