User talk:MichaelQSchmidt/Archive 021

Through November 2011

Dudaktan Kalbe

Hi MichaelQSchmidt. I'd apprecciate your contribution to this discussion . Thanks in advance. --Cavarrone (talk) 09:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Washington Post Article

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-cubias/are-the-banks-still-comin_b_1076388.html "anonymous (street meat)" Regards -- Mig --Mig (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be government-sanctioned theft, and likley not brought to task because the writers of those "laws" are themselves bankers and ex-bankers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes. And here is something below I got from BigDom -- Thanx for taking a look at all this. As you will see, the Huffington Post article links to "anonymous (street meat)." Just finished shooting "Ninth Floor." I need a nap, Michael and I'm now doing something else, which is house-related.

anonymous (street meat)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Migdiachinea/Anonymous_(Street_Meat)

Mig (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

the Huffington Post article needs to be referenced in the "anonymous (street meat)" page. The images restored -- I don't know where they went. I took a nap, but I look like death warmed over and was again doing house-related stuff. Not to mention -- I've got to do the edit for this thing -- "Ninth Floor." Lots of work when you do everything. Mig (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Kleyla and Indyfans

Hi Michael. Truth be told, I think the film article should also be deleted but I know that my interpretation of what constitutes significant coverage is stricter than average. And I have to admit that your write-up is excellent so this would easily survive AfD. I also agree that redirecting the Kleyla article to the Indyfans one is the best solution. Best, Pichpich (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

PS: If you'll allow me a quick rant, my problem with articles such as Kleyla and Indyfans is that a very good writer with loads of experience with markup, references, infoboxes and whatnot just spent hours writing a carefully crafted, detailed article about a documentary that wasn't good enough for theatre distribution and was pretty much ignored outside Indiana Jones fandom in order to rescue an article about a non-notable individual most likely written by the non-notable individual in question (or his girlfriend). Meanwhile, we're still missing articles about the directors of Genocide (film), Broken Rainbow (film) or Best Boy (film) and missing articles on winners of the Boston Society of Film Critics Award for Best Documentary Film, the Satellite Award for Best Documentary Film or the Los Angeles Film Critics Association Award for Best Documentary Film. It just drives me crazy. </rant> :-) Pichpich (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Rant allowed... specially as it has given some terrific sugestions for new articles. Many thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

New Message

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detroit Center Studios for a comment left by me in response to your vote to this AfD. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

An even newer message awaits you...

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detroit Center Studios for a new message I left you on this AfD page. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The Lone Ranger

Now that The Lone Ranger is in your userspace, don't let it sit too long, someone may recreate the article without knowing it exists. Trust me, i know. RAP (talk) 17:51 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've been thinking that it should be expanded, cleaned up, over-sourced, and then moved to the incubator. Wanna help get it ready? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. RAP (talk) 20:01 9 November 2011 (UTC

At User:MichaelQSchmidt/The Lone Ranger (film)#Setback, we need to source that ir has re-entered production... filming slated to begin in February 2012 for a May 2013 release. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Michael, RustedAutoParts just moved this into mainspace but I have reverted because its not obvious that the draft has addressed the crystal arguments and the consensus of the afd was that this was sufficiently covered elsewhere. Obviously, if you can source the fact that it has moved into preproduction it may be possible to review that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that, as my suggestion was a move to the incubator for collaborative editing and only after its return to pre-production was sourced. No sense to make it a target for AFD per NFF. My own thought is incubation serves for now per WP:Planned films and WP:NYF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Joe Napolitano

Do you think can give your two cents on this AfD please: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Napolitano. QuasyBoy 22:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the article, Mike. Just one more thing, about the birth info, I believe that it is incorrect. Mr. Napolitano's himself (who edited the article using the user name Joenap (talk · contribs)) put down that he was born on November 22, 1948 and that he is from New York City: [1]. I know him editing the article was a COI violation, but being that he is the subject of the article, might as well get the info right. Like you, I also used the info that I found in the Encyclopedia of Television Film Directors reference, until I saw Mr. Napolitano's edit, I removed it and just left the birthyear. I mainly added that reference just because. QuasyBoy 19:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

As notability is not dependent upon it, let's keep it as the reliable source states... March 4, 1948. If User:Joenap wishes to go through WP:OTRS to offer and validate a different date, he is welcome to do so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I was just letting you know about that, though. QuasyBoy 19:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Time for another RFA?

Your previous run looks pretty historical to me right now and, while we have come to deletion discussions from different ends of the spectrum, I can't recall seeing a single recent AFD where I have not considered your contribution to be extremely authoritative, well-argued and firmly grounded in policy. Your approach to other editors is very patient and calm and I think that the project would benefit from your holding a few extra tools. Despite the drubbing you got last time, are you interested? If so I'll do some due diligence and consider a nomination. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks... for the kind words. I'll grant that another drubbing is not a prospect to which I would look forward... but if someone with whom I often hold opposing views feels the time ripe, I invite that due diligence. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure though why you would need the admin tools. I don't.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

A few more buttons that allow mopwork elsewhere. I note that since my RFA of 20 months ago, I have been quite happy just plugging along... helping the project grow and encouraging newcomers. Whenever I needed something done that required the "tools", I'd just ask someone else to do it for me. And as long as they did not mind doing it, it got done. But admittedly, there are times when a request that another wield the mop does not get a timely response. Having the mop would eliminate a dependence upon others in assisting newcomers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I would support a run, but I think it would be best to set yourself up for success by dabbling in the XFD and AN/ANI boards. See how things work and make sure that's what you want. Buffs (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, Michael is already very active at AFD and I wouldn't encourage anyone serious of standing to spend time at AN/ANI as they are a drama cesspit. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, as even AFDs can become cesspits if one is unable to step back and use perspective and reason. There is a lot of mopwork that allows one to assist new editors without placing oneself in the heart of contention and drama at ANI. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Michael, It will take me a few days but I'll be in touch. Cheers Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

  Will let you do your diligence. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Re:If you have a moment...

Essay is good, got potential to help new editors. Good work! Thanks and regards! -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 05:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey and I would like you to comment on Ra.One, which is now considered for peer review. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright, can you tell me which websites I can trust?

It's not the fact that I don't know how to do my research, it's the fact that I don't know what sites are being honest and what sites are bullshit. Even official websites have their share of lies. So let me ask, how do I know which site I can trust? I would read an official policy article about this, but the problem is I don't trust them either. BlazeTheMovieFan (talk) 12:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The rules to trust are set out in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. You can trust major newspapers if they deal with the topic, and various authored books that show the topic being discussed in an historical context. Independent websites can give you hints as to where to find reliable sources even if the indie sites might themselves lack editorial oversite. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

180 Documentary

		The Barnstar of Recovery
		I commend MichaelQSchmidt work on the article 180 Documentary and wish to thank him for his hard work. MichaelQSchmidt took a biased article lacking references and patiently worked to resolve the article issues and save the article from deletion by Afd. MichaelQSchmidt is representative of a core of dedicated volunteers that helps keep Wikipedia alive and at a high level of quality. MichaelQSchmidt my hat is off to you. reddogsix (talk) 05:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. Keep up the great work! CharlieEchoTango (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both and best regards. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

180 Documentary

The early closure per nominator withdrawal didn't give me time to change my vote. Excellent work as usual.--Cavarrone (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at Bongomatic's talk page.
Message added 07:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

^Bongo_matic 07:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Ice House (film)

Hi MQS

Just tagged the above-captioned article for notability after news archive and book searches. Anything notable about it?

^Bongo_matic 16:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll look into and report back. Thanks for the heads-up. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it has a decent chance to meet NF, and will continue work. One of the very first things I had to address was its original plot being a word-for-word copyvio of IMDB. No longer though. More to do. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Expansion seems OK, but don't think notability is established. Is the article still under construction? ^Bongo_matic 01:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yup, still UC. Real life has kept me away from the keyboard. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the {{under construction}} template as the article hadn't been edited for an extended period of time. ^Bongo_matic 22:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No harm, no foul.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Michael. Can you please try and save these three articles? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_break http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_LeMay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Marilyn can you help us? help us, please. I also added the required notes on the website of the copywriter so the images wont be deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Suzannegawel let me know if there are any mistakes and if I'm allowed to fix them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzannegawel (talk • contribs) 22:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Much love and regards suzannegawel@gmail.com

Suzannegawel (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Kittens or no, all I have for you is bad news. While appreciating your asking for help in improving these three articles, there is a hurdle that cannot be overcome: Their meeting the criteria for notability as described at WP:PEOPLE. As a model, Emily Marilyn would have to have coverage in reliable sources. I found only 5 sources... [2][3][4][5][6] and none of them give enough coverage or detail to show notability and I cannot find any evidence that she has won awards for her work. Actress Lauren LeMay would have to have significant coverage or have won awards or be verifiable as having muliple significant roles in notable productions. And before you came to me, I had already done my work in researching her and under each of her AKAs, to no avail. She exists. She has been in theater productions, television, and films. But the only article I found that dealt with her in detail was the one in Back Stage... and while it is quite decent article, it is the only one... and being one, is not enough per WP:GNG, and her career as dancer in films, and one-ofs in television series fails to be significant under WP:ENT. Things are just as tough for the article on Kevin Break. He exists. But he has not won awards nor received significant coverage for his work. Goodness knows that I do my best to save articles seen as unsuitable, and have a decent success rate for rescues... but that is only because my I do my research and attempt rescues of only those that have a reasonable chance. I am sorry to give you bad news, but the three of which you asked for assistance are unsalvable. I encourage you to study WP:Verifiability, WP:Notability (people), and WP:Identifying reliable sources. And to aid in your uderstanding of article requirements, please spend some time over at WP:A Primer for newcomers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

ok. Suzannegawel (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC) SuzanneGawel

Do not be disheartened, as the situation may change if any of these individuals receive media recognition for there work. if it does, the article would be welcomed back... if properly sourcable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

) ok. we'll get some sources.Suzannegawel (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)SuzanneGawel

Good reliable sources... not blogs or personal websites or twitter or facebook or listings in unreliable websites or forums. Be sure to study The general notability guide. And when the articles are deleted, as seems likely, do not take offense as none is intended. You can look at the top of the deletion discusions to see which admin it was who performed the deletions, and on their talk page request that they WP:USERFY the article to you in a user workspace so you can work on improvements "out of mainspace". When you think the articles inmproved enough, do not sinmply move them into mainspace, but instead as that same admin to evaluate it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

he said I'm not allowed to touch those articles because of conflict of interest and that I am being reported, so I'm afraid to do anything. Suzannegawel (talk) 01:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)SuzanneGawel

Wait it out. Under WP:NOTPROMOTION, Wikipedia has serious concerns when someone appears to be promoting themself or people or projects with which they have a close relationship. And if you read WP:COI, you'll learn that while not strictly dsallowed (as even Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales will occasionally edit the article about him, in an encyclopedically neutral and well-sourced manner), it is strongly discouraged. Please read WP:NAU. If you are not yourself Kevin Break, Lauren LeMay, or Emily Marilyn, there are ways to show this. And if you are not any of these person and do not have a close relationship with these persons or their projects, anyone's asserting in error that you do have a COI would have to prove his case... kind of a "put up or shut up". But if you do have such a relationship, and do have a "conflict-of-interest" because of that relationship, you'd do best by copying your work to a document file outside of Wikipedia where you can work on it without breaking any Wikipedia rules. And if the persons above become notable through application of our Wikipedia notability guidelines, someone else will probably write about them. So wait it out. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

ok I'll do that. Thank you for your time. Suzannegawel (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)SuzanneGawel

On Wikipedia, patience is almost always see in a good light. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

:) 75.82.184.106 (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)SuzanneGawel

Hi Mike

Happened upon this, which I may fix up at some point, but if you fancy a go, have at it! pablo 21:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I won't be able to do anything until much later tonight. About to make a looooong drive to a filming location. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries - reliable info seems a little thin on the ground, but I know you have your methods ... pablo 21:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Please adopt me

I'm inviting you to adopt me since several Wikipedians hate me for the sole reason I contribute to AFDs. --Madison-chan (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

As I have never adopted anyone before, let me look into it and get back to you. One piece of advice I can give you at the outset is that editors only get one "!vote" at AFDs, so you might wish to go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradlewood and do a <s>strikethough</s> of one of your two votes. And a second piece of advice is that you might consider involving yourself more in areas other than only AFD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

MQS, what is a little odd about Madison-chan is that he literally only contributes to AFDs, without any listed experience here otherwise, and has come just 2 d. ago. . But I wonder about that claim, considering [7] DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I've decided to vandalize Wikipedia instead, it's much more fun than contributing to the community and having people hate you for it. --Madison-chan (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't do that, please. If you wish to contribute, then contribute. But vandalizing will surely result in you being blocked. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to AGF after this and the message on his talk p. Blocks are to prevent such damage, and I have blocked indefinitely. DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand and agree. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_Blind_Perspective

I'm still a little iffy on this RTS award-- I've left a comment on the AfD about a national vs. regional distinction that makes me a little reluctant to call it a "major award." But, as always, I'm open to hearing you out. I'm glad you said something about the award in the first place (I should have checked it out in further detail!) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punnaram Cholli Cholli.
Message added 04:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Would appreciate your help on Corruption Gov

Would appreciate your help on Corruption Gov. You are great at finding sources for the articles and hope you'll find some for this one too. ASHU^IND 16:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Michael, can you explain the spelling of the film title in this edit? See this page under the Film Notes tag; the filmmakers refer to the film as Corruption.GOV, not Corruptiondotgov. The "dot" is only spelled out in URLs as far as I can tell. (Regarding userfication, that doesn't make much difference to me either way.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

  You found my own quandary. As the article is premature, I chose to do so for four reasons:

  1. Searches under the IMDB title, with it being so similar to an actual "URL" gives editors too many false results to make searches productive,[8][9] In my own case, I got results only after searching for actors and production in relationship to its production title of Conflict of Interest.
  2. The production company, Ranch Studios Film, does so in their own URLs [10] so as to prevent those same false positives.
  3. I have not yet determined the best way per naming conventions to handle this unusual case, and
  4. I wish to keep the author remian aware of the title issue even when userfied and will continue to seek the proper manner of naming.

  My edit is temporary as I think removing the article from mainspace for now is the better option, and as a soon-to-be draft in userspace and not writ in stone, the name is not a pressing issue. I am quite willing to accept a suitable title change if someone comes up with a better or more producutive search engine parameter. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corruption Gov

I've no objection to Corruption Gov being userfied for further work. However I'm not in a position to close the AfD on those grounds. We'd need an uninvolved admin to do so. Sparthorse (talk) 04:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

All you need do is state just as you did that you concur that deletion is not the only option. And thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Jennifer Lim (theatre actress)

Hello Michael,

Thank you very much for the barnstar. It means even more coming from you, since I am aware that you know a lot about show business. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Cradlewood

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Cradlewood (and yes, I agree). Thanks, Black Kite (t) 18:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prosper Masquelier

Thank you for clarifying the differences between notability criteria across different wikipedias. Kudos to you for your research and for the major improvements you made to the article. Peter Chastain (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem. While other-language Wikipedias exist, they not answerable to the policies and guides set up here, using us only as a rough example and pretty much setting up their own rules. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MichaelQSchmidt 2

I added my co-nom. just now DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

My respectful thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Its live. Good luck. :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Good luck Michael, fully deserved nomination :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Well played. Todos contendos y yo tambien. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You've helped me as Schuym1, Joe Chill, and now SL93 (Joe Chill and SL93) are the same account. I think that you would make a perfect admin. I don't know if I told you this, but I had a username change to SL93 because of "Chill, Joe" jokes made towards me by admins at ANI multiple times. Because of that, I stay away from ANI now. I don't think that you would be the type of admin to make dumb mean spirited jokes. SL93 (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. VERY glad to know that you're still around. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Question about Lincoln (2012 film)

Hello Michael,

I've been working on this article about Spielberg's biopic now in production, and am in a disagreement with another editor, Rusted Auto Parts. I want to include photos of the lead actors, Daniel Day-Lewis and Sally Field, as well of the characters they play, Abraham Lincoln and Mary Todd Lincoln. The other editor has raised a variety of objections, all of which I've tried to address. The editor then raises new objections, and keeps removing any version that includes the photos. His latest objection seems to be that cast photos are only allowed if taken to promote the specific film described in the article. Is there any policy, guideline or established consensus that would discourage or forbid adding cast photos in this case? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd take a gander at existing bipoc articles to see how they handle it there. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Rusted Auto Parts concern seems to be related to unreleased films. On the talk page for Lincoln (2012 film), I pointed out five articles about unreleased films that now have cast photos. "Unreleased biopics" seems an exceptionally narrow category to have its own unique standards about cast photos, don't you think? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no standard that can be applied other than the ones we have. I'll look futher into this specific situation as able. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I would be grateful if you could express an opinion in this matter one way or the other, or refer me to a neutral 3rd party who could. The other editor and I are seemingly unable to come to an agreement ourselves, at least so far. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I took a look at another notable biopic, JFK (film), and was surprised to see no images at all... not even a poster (hard to believe). Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Free licence images allows that cast images may be used as long as they meet image criteria, but appears to define just which type of cast image to use when it states "The cast and crew can be photographed at the various premieres of the resulting film as well as any components of production on display." "Can be" does not mean "must be", and it can be argued that these are the only ones available until filming commences... specially as that guideline's section on images does not specifically state that cast images "must be" be only so. I believe his interpretation may be that the "can" as a "must" and is that cast images are fine only so long as they are from parts of a film's production or promotion. As Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images does not offer instructions for film articles, and as this is a disagreement related to usage of allowable images in film articles, I suggest that you and he take this to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film and ask for input there. I am offering this same suggestion to RAP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your suggestions and feedback. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Always happy to assist. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Wow. Just wow. I take my hat off to you. All the best in your actions as an administrator (touch wood) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 05:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the good wishes. If the RFA fails, it will act as further instruction on weaknesses that I need to address. The opposes are already giving me food for thought and clues to where I might still improve. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I somehow doubt you'll fail. Indeed, RFA shows exactly where one can improve. My RFA showed me that I need to work on content, as admittedly that's my heel, so that's something I'm working on. All the best, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Content work can be quite satisfying, and can go rather smoothly... articles sometimes seeming to write themselves. Take a look at the film article Rome Sweet Rome, see the deletion rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rome Sweet Rome and then look at my response as inspired by the premature article. If you go to the edit history of User:MichaelQSchmidt/Rome, Sweet Rome (short story) and click the diffs one by one from inception to now, you might get a sense of how some topics have a life all their own, and how approching a topic in the correct manner works to the community's benefit. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

APME

Hi -- the previous content of APME was not for the Associated Press Media Editors, but for an unrelated game. If you still want the old contents, let me know. - RedWordSmith (talk) 12:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Great bit of news! I had come across bits and pieces of the game with those initials when reseraching Associated Press Media Editors, but discounted them because there did not seem to be enough reliable ones for anyone to build a decent article and because of my focus, the APME I was concentrating on sources about the AP group. I have no need for unrelated contents of the old article, and fee assured that my eventusal usurpation of the APME shortcut will be met with glee and not a groan. Thanks big time. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 12:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

rome sweet rome

I have merged over most of your content. Gaijin42 (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll head over and fix the citation formats. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Ray Bower

Hi, MichaelQSchmidt! although you are very busy for the adminship-election, I would be interested in knowing what you think about this AfD. Bye.--Cavarrone (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)