User talk:Schuym1/Archive 2 (September to November 2008)

and more thanks....

Its a pleasure to work with you. You have been able to point out weaknesses in articles that others are able to address. Good looking out! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Electro Homeopathy

I've done some work on this page with is currently an AfD. Nonsense though the science behind the topic almost certainly is, it does have some interesting history and might be saveable. Have a look at the rewrked page and see if you think there's the basis for an article there. thanks Brammarb (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Uh Oh Dynamo

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Uh Oh Dynamo, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. treelo _radda 22:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You contested the prod, good so let's discuss seeing as I'm not really looking to push it to AfD unless completely necessary. Sure it won an Annie but is it notable for any other reason? Can you or others expand it well enough? Basically, I'm just trying to figure out why it needs to exist when it never had a reason to before. treelo _radda 23:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why does it need to be notable for several reasons? It won an award and that should make notable. Just like The New York Times makes articles notable. Schuym1 (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Not several, just did it win any other awards? An award on its own doesn't give a subject notability though it is good for the main PPG article and getting an Annie isn't an equivalent to the NYT making an article notable (notability isn't inherited anyway). Anyway, it's a bit soon to be wanting deletion on an article which has only existed for a day so I'll let you expand as you see fit, Paper Luigi will be able to do a great job with you. FYI, TV.com isn't a reliable source so cannot be used and the infobox needs to go, a bunch of other PPG episode articles do have it but they were written by a indef blocked user with scant regard for MOS so it's not best to use something geared to shows as a whole for episodes. treelo _radda 23:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add the infobox, Paper Luigi did. I put it up for csd-g7. Schuym1 (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No but I reckoned you'd have removed it. Gone now so it's a bit moot but why did you put it forward for speedy? I jumped the gun and reckon I should have given it a chance. treelo _radda 23:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Because I doubt that it's notable for anything else. Schuym1 (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Box Hockey

An article that you have been involved in editing, Box Hockey, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Box hockey. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you point me to the procedure to withdraw AfD nomination? -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If you don't know how to close AFDs, you can make a comment that you withdraw and someone will close it for you. Schuym1 (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The Cat Who'll Live Forever

Please don't remove the AfD template while the discussion is still open. It will be removed after the AfD closes. Cheers, JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that! The cache hadn't updated and it still appeared to be open. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Locallectual

Hi, Schuym1! I have added a note on the Talk:Locallectual to support the removal of the speedy deletion tag. The article may be in need of some clean up, but I believe Emmabon has made a good faith effort to describe a new sociological phenomenon.WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 07:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Włodzimierz Klata

And you would remove this article also? This is my article and I want his removal. Please! Klejas (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. If you want it removed, put csd-g7 with {{ }} on both sides of it. Schuym1 (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolmer's Boys' School

Just a friendly heads up, I fixed your closing tag for the {{afdbottom}} template. Please be sure to use the preview button when you're working in noticeboards and logs. Have a good day! Protonk (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

non-admin close

Hi. Not to be a pain but, I think the non-admin close on the Cristy Candler might be abit premature. We probably should wait until an admin hass actually deleted it before closing the AfD. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

18 Fingers of Death!

This was Pat Morita's final film before his death. I do not think I should improve the article becaue I was in the film (very, very, very small credited role) and there will be problems with WP:COI. But sources to show notability are out there. If I provide sources at the AfD with a disclaimer of COI, might you consider adding them yourself? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing in WP:NF that says that final films are notable. If you find reliable sources that show notability, I will add them. Schuym1 (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I should have know that eventually the situation might arise. Thank you for your courtesy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As much as I respected Pat Morita the film received more attention because of other cast members and it's concept as a martial arts mocumentary or spoof. So my thought about a "final film" can be disregarded. The film seems to have gotten enough coverage per WP:GNG to pass WP:NF. So, per WP:NTEMP, I placed the source links over at the AfD in decending order of reliabilty. Thanks you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Fast work! I admire a person of integrity. Thank you much, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Three to See the King

Noticed you've tagged this new article as being part of WikiProject Children's literature, however I don't beleive the book is primarily aimed at Children or Young adults (though they would enjoy it !) What critria have you used to warrant its inclusion ? Thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I made a mistake. Schuym1 (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Animal Experimentation: Opposing Viewpoints

I found some reviews for Animal Experimentation: Opposing Viewpoints. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Experimentation: Opposing Viewpoints. --Eastmain (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Stalker (2007 film)

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Stalker (2007 film), you tried to G7 the deletion discussion. If you do not want it to be listed anymore, you can state that you withdraw your nomination. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

FMBlogger

I've left them a request on their Talk page to stop until they fill in the articles. Corvus cornix_talk 03:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete veridian credit union

I have been instructed by my professor for a college class to create a wikipedia article, I chose to do mine on a local credit union, I am in no way shape of form trying to advertise for them. The purpose of my page was to give some background information on the company how it formed, and how it got its weird name, that is it. I have gotten my information from their website, as well as other websites and have included this in my references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuamccabe (talk • contribs) 02:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It reads like an advertisement and it fails WP:COMPANY. Schuym1 (talk) 02:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

How about we move it to a Sandbox for him? He keeps working to make his professor happy and it may either grow into an encyclopedic article or eventally be deleted? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on with the article. At first, I added db-spam. He recreated it and I added db-spam again. He recreated it again and removed all the spamming words. I added db-company because of what he said on my talk page. Someone added a notability tag and sources. Schuym1 (talk) 02:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed. He's apparently new. Would it be proper for me to copy/paste it to here and inform him where to keep working on it? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why you're asking me. Schuym1 (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted your opinion, as you always make good sense. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that you should. Schuym1 (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tusk (film)

It's been taken care of. Needs more expansion certainly, but long term notability has now been established. Good find. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going to check it before the AFD ended. Didn't you notice the message I left at the top of my talk that said, If you came to my talk page to ask me to revisit an AFD discussion, don't. I always revisit AFD discussions that I start or vote in. Schuym1 (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Missed that... sorry. I have found you be quite consciensious and simply wanted to let you know. Thanks much. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Stuart M. Pepper

...also Stu Pepper, and Stu M. Pepper... That's okay. I have found out that before his retiring to do films he was a pro ball player. will be adding that little notability factoid with cite to the article in just a few minutes. Kind of a fun hunt. Also, the film "Royal Faceoff" received 11 nominations. Its all just a matter of digging. No harm. No foul. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice job with the article. I would add that comment to the AFD discussion, but that would make me sound like a dumb ass after saying I should withdraw then getting rid of that comment. Schuym1 (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks... the article is going through changes. You might wait an hour or so and simply remark it has gone through changes since you last looked in. Being able to change your mind... pro or con... based upon efforts to improve an article is all of Wiki is about. I myself have made statements I had to retract a day later. No one would judge you harshly in either case... as it shows an open mind. But again... thanks... and I'm still on it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate your efforts. Though I tried, it looks like the article is going to go. Thank you for having an open mind. Regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the AfD format, is that editors can choose to ignore the rules though Pepper specifically did quaify per WP:Athlete. The reason this "latest" was speedied was because it was simply the original under a modified name... as created by BigOrange when I pointed out the "Stuart pepper" was an incorrect spelling... and it was that one which the consensus did not want in. I agree that it met WP:Athlete, but that boat had sailed. Thanks friend. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed and that's why I tried to do a NAC as Speedy Delete, but an admin undid it because he said that I couldn't close it as delete. Schuym1 (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I hate that there are lots of editors that participate in AFD that don't have much of a clue about what is considered notable. Schuym1 (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Or worse, that either ignore guideline or mis-interpret them to their own ends. That's why I try to alert other Wiki Projects... like I did "sports" and "baseball" for the Pepper article. If no one comes forward... or does not care to speak up, a lot gets lost forever. I'd rather fight and lose than be a sheep. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Like this for instance. It has gotten worse. Now someone is saying that it is a Youtube video and that it still isn't notable. WTF? Schuym1 (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well... anybody can put stuff on Youtube. But using that as an argment against notability in light of all the evidence that is IS notable is a method to try to falsely color an argument. I call such claims "non-arguments" as under WP:ATA. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Family Guy (Movie)

Thank you, friend. I lament that reference are not in English, i hope that it's useful. Bye --Ravave (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed my comment because actually it isn't helpful. The details of the film are unknown which is a WP:CRYSTAL issue and production hasn't begun, which doesn't pass WP:NFF. Sorry. Schuym1 (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't worry. xD --Ravave (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Kiss My Ass (Jadakiss album)

I wasn't trying to make you look stupid at all, I've just never crossed paths with you before that I can recall, and didn't know if you were aware of the relevant guidelines. AfD has been very busy lately, so I have been trying to get some of the more "cut and dried" cases closed. Now if you had ignored my advice, then I would think you were stupid. (kidding) Beeblebrox (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Piggie Pie

A tag has been placed on Piggie Pie, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. UltraMagnus (talk) 09:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Miranda rights for a talkpage

Gotta admit, I love that! You don't actually have to tell people that you can ignore them (though it is considered rude) and you're free to remove anything, even this, from your talkpage but be careful with these warnings. It might be seen as confrontational telling people the in and outs of what can and cannot go on your talkpage even if a lot of the time you are right. Still, I like that a lot and hope you'll get to know the flow of things over time better. treelo _radda 10:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Piggie Pie

I have nominated Piggie Pie, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piggie Pie. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. UltraMagnus (talk) 10:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely no reason it should be deleted now, as it was 37th on the NEA list of top childrens books for 2007 and 99th overall for a 4 month period from November 1999 to February 2000. And it won several wards, bothe facts I listed and sourced in the article. Take a look. Then too, taks a look at THIS page. See if you can track down these 6 other wards. For a kid's book... most definitely notable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks a bunch. I really don't see what was wrong with just having two reviews. Schuym1 (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
    • If they are good ones, they should be fine. But there is always somebody who thinks that a review must be "handed down from on high" in order to be acceptable... however, it'll be hard to argue with it at least twice being on the NEA top 100 and it having won at least seven literary awards. Better a review too many than one not enough. Anyways... I was glad to help. I think the keep should now be a WP:SNOW. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I even tacked on a section for awards and nominations. Its a keeper. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Added a few more awards to your article. No one will mess with it now. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Nice job. I think that it was fine the first time you edited it, but it's better. Schuym1 (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
            • My friend, you asked for help and I was happy to provide. I hate it when something gets speedied or AFD'd when notability was so easy to find online. The guidelines do not say that articles must provide notability (though providing it is always helpful), but they do state that an editor should not speedy or AfD something without at least looking for notability. You did good. Glad to help. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
              • INRE the WP:IAR, I wholeheatredly agree. I simply did not want anyone to start moaning about an author closing an AfD about his own article, which is why I visited User talk:SchuminWeb. Your article, even with only 2 reviews, should never have been offered for speedy... and when that was denied by User:SchuminWeb should never have then been sent to AfD. You done good. You done real good. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Abe Lincoln Crosses a Creek

Sorry, I was going through a list of new literature articles and had done the same to several articles in a row and I obviously was not paying close enough attention. Thanks for the notice. Have a good day. --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep up the fight!

		The Writer's Barnstar
		I wish to acknowledge your tireless work in bringing new articles to Wikipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! Wow, a barnstar. Schuym1 (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

opposite day afd

Please check out the sources I've provided for opposite day. Still might be on the weak side, but... Thanks, Hobit (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Eyes Beyond Seeing

Cleaned it up and even found a nice TV Guide quote... but it's still weak. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I tink that one reliable source is fine, but I doubt that others will agree. Schuym1 (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, someone actually agreed. Schuym1 (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

A place to grow

Its looking better. Still iffy.... but looking better. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Good thing that there is no delete votes, so that I can withdraw it. Nice job. Schuym1 (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Avan Jogia

I think notability cab be shown through RS. I'll take a crack at improving that poorly sourced article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Just did a cleanup of the article, adding cites and a few nice links. I think his notability just squeeks by. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Beatific Vision (2008 film)

I would have !voted to delete in the AfD anyway due to lack of RS, as I couldn't find any significant ones either. Maybe later, although independent films don't always get the press or significant film festival attention they need for notability. Pity. Surprised no one noticed the copyvio before, but that made it a slam dunk for deletion. Nice catch. Regards, — Becksguy (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The Audition (short film)

Searches [1], [2],[3], [4] are going to give me plenty for notability, expansion and sourcing. Too bad the author had not done it himself. However, I am working today and will not be able to get to it for another 6 hours. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll dig throught those searches soon. Schuym1 (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I have found two sources that show notability and I have added them. I have also withdrawed my nomination. Schuym1 (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Good job! I'll do more myself in 5 hoursSchmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

One Hour to Zero

I had fun with this one! Can you suggest any further improvements? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

None of the links that you added show the film's notability. Schuym1 (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with minor notability, but not no notability. Schuym1 (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't matter anyway. I didn't notice it was in an archive, until I clicked on a link in the BFI page. Schuym1 (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

As seen here: http://www.bfi.org.uk/nftva/ Schuym1 (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Burial of Jennifer Rosanne States

Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Rosanne States, and review the references at Burial of Jennifer Rosanne States. --Eastmain (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Barbie as the Sleeping Beauty

Could you please unclose Barbie as the Sleeping Beauty? Some admin, or anybody for that matter, may come along and remove your db tag. db-nonsense is probably not the best tag, anyway, db-vandalism might be better. But if somebody removes the db tag, then we're left with a close AfD and an article that hasn't been deleted. Corvus cornix_talk 21:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I unclosed it, but I messed up the AFD. Schuym1 (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I re-added the afd tag till it's resolved. Corvus cornix_talk 22:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Barbie and the Rockers: Out of this World

Personally, I think even thinking a commercial made into a movie to plug a little girl's dream date doll is a bunch of crap, as Wiki is not for advertising. My gripe being said... what do you think about manbehindthedoll.com, AVClub.com, Cartoon Junkies, Answers.com, Barbies.ws, kinomiyamichiru.multiply.com (Spanish), anaimated-divots.com "Chronology of Animation 1987", Summary at retrojunk.com, overview at New York Times, summary at Flixter, etc. Only the first few are strong. As much as it galls to write this... it may actually be possible to show this as notable. What do you think? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the first two and I think that is enough to show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added sources and withdrawed. I'm surprised that it's actually notable. Schuym1 (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I am as surprised as you. That's why I asked your opinion on those links. I did not want to believe it. (sheesh) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Mary Oliver (violinist)

Check it out bro. I think I proved her notability with some decent RS and cited the facts of her background and education. Any suggestions? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I voted keep. Schuym1 (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In appreciation of your work

		The Original Barnstar
		You are providing wonderful contributions here and you are deserving of praise. Keep up the fine work! Ecoleetage (talk) 01:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Schuym1 (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sign gene

Apparently it is not proper procedure to speedy a film already at AfD. That tag and my hang-on were removed. No matter though. I improved the article as I searched for sources, but they currently do not exist, so I voted delete. The cleanup was good practice. And congrats on the new Barnstar! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Severed

What's your opinion on this one? It was crap and I think I did okay. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I voted keep. Schuym1 (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Barbie Thumbelina

Per this search I do not think its a hoax.... just non-notable outside the Barbie universe. If this goes to AfD, I will definitely suggest a "Merge and set Redirect" to Barbie film series. I'm willing to accept that this "cultural icon" has a notability to somebody, but these individual articles approach WP:SPAM or WP:ADVERT and have no real notability outside the Barbie universe. If merged to Barbie film series and a redirect set, folks can find the information right where it belongs. Wiki is improved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have merged and redirected it. Schuym1 (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Works for me! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherwood Pictures

I have learned to appreciate your incite and opinion. But in this particular case, DGG has it correct. Though notability is not inherited, that is not reason for the notability in this case. I am not using WP:WAX, but one still must consider the bigs like Sony Pictures or TriStar Pictures. They make films that have notability, but that is not what makes them notable. Same here. That's not the qualifier. The notability is in who is doing it and what they have accomplished. This production campany has earned their notability. The good coming out of the AfD is that others are now doing their best to make certain it is apparent to readers... and thus improving Wiki. And this is not a matter of quoting the letter of guideline, for even WP:N starts out by reminding us that "...it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception". You have used the "common sense", and here is "the occssional exception". The phrase here is that "their accomplishments is waht has given them notability"... so artilces about their films which also name them and give details about the production side of it, can be considered as supportive RS of notability. Your arguments though have been very keen and straight-forward. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The article still doesn't pass WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I still don't agree that every film company with notable films is notable and that there should be exceptions for them. Schuym1 (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

A do not think every film company is notable either. Notability must be considered on a case by case basis. And it is in that case-by-case consideration where guideline suggests an occasional exception may be considered... not for every instance... just that it might exist once in a while. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Why should it exist for this article? Schuym1 (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You have convinced me, but it would be a different story if it was trivial mentions. Schuym1 (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, if the mentions had been trivial, I would be fighting for a speedy delete, right alngside you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I hereby award you the Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		You continually show insight and dedication in your efforts to improve Wikipedia... and you show graciousness in both victory and defeat. Keep up the good work Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Schuym1 (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

And yes... I have noticed you are impatient (chuckle). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Young Films

You were spot on with this one. A diligent search only finds that the company exists... no one has anything more to say, good or bad. Now THAT's trivial. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

tough battle...

As it is, you probably would have won at that AfD, as you were making some powerful points. Historical articles are among the toughest. As it is, there are many, many more pieces of tripe on Wiki that will benefit from your insights inre there deletion. Keep up the brave fight. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Channel Chasers

After further searches I think pushing this over to Nikelodeon makes sense as it definitely does not stand on its own. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to add the plot to List of The Fairly OddParents episodes. Schuym1 (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

And I already closed it as merge. Schuym1 (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You done good. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Help Me

{{helpme}} How can I merge Channel Chasers into List of The Fairly OddParents episodes? Schuym1 (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Copy the content that needs to be copied into the article, then replace Channel Chasers's content with #REDIRECT [[List of The Fairly OddParents episodes]]--Res2216firestar 23:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I mean. I don't understand the list's markup. Schuym1 (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Schuym1. I will try and assist you with the list markup that you require. You do not need to use the table for this, since it is not actually an episode, but a film based on the show. Part way down the page, you will see a section marked ==DVD and VHS releases== - above this, simply type ==Films==, and add the details for the Channel Chasers film underneath, copying the wikimarkup from the channel chasers article to this area. You may need to clean up the sections, but as long as you get the detail into the List page, that is fine. We can help you further from there. Best of luck and if you need further help, don't hesitate to reactivate the helpme template! Thor Malmjursson (talk) 23:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Blue-Eyed Son

I set the source] link on the author's talk page. Hopefully he will use it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Like I said... let's see what he can do with it. He has his 5 days. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

But none of those sources show notability, so what can he possibily do with it? Schuym1 (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully he will take the hint to expand his search parameters. Like for instance [5], or [6], which are not trivial and tend to show interest and minor notability. But I'm not gonna do it for him. And remember WP:Notability (music) has its own special guidelines. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The eeniemeenie was simply to source the non-contentous facts of the bio. I was able to otherwise find RS for everything it said. I am kinda sad the author gave up so soon. Sigh. But thanks for the withdrawal. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The Rescue Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		I award you the Rescue Barnstar for stepping in and doing what so many others would not. Its easy to say that something should go... and much harder to show that something should stay. You chose the more difficult task and rescued an article that might otherwise have disappeared from the pages of Wiki. Good job. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't deserve this barnstar. I clicked on the search you did, and found lots of the reviews on the first page. Then I did a quick search on Ebscohost. It was simple. Schuym1 (talk) 01:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could reword it? Schuym1 (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Reword it? Hmmm... Nope. You did something good for Wiki. That it was easy for you means it could have been easy for someone else... but you see... NO ONE ELSE did it... or cared to. Its easy for anyone to simply make a comment at an AfD. Going the extra step and sourcing something when others are too busy or too lazy to do so is what makes Wiki better for everyone. Like I just did at Blue-Eyed Son. Have a look. Sources are where and how you find them. I like to dig... and since I did not want to wait for the depressed author to come back.. or even know if he knew how to source something... Sheesh... the thing sat untweaked for months. Now its better. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look at the band article. Schuym1 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I withdrawed it. Only one of the two sources that you said show notability actually show notability. One was the label's site. I withdrawed it because I'm fine with one reliable source that shows notability. Schuym1 (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

See above. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Bitey on AfD

I asked you not to be so bitey because generally speaking DGG and Schmidt know very well what they're doing, as I think the quick refs they found shows. Your remark "Don't try to convince me (...) because I go by policies and guidelines" looks rather rude to me. A) They are not trying to convince you, they're giving their opinion. Big difference. B) For somebody who claims to go by policies and guidelines, your AfD nomination (and withdrawal) of Betty Paraskevas 20 minutes earlier, with your closure "Notability is inherited in that case which is stupid", is not the best example. Chill out a little, I'd say. Happy editing,    SIS  16:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice that on WP:CREATIVE. If I did, I wouldn't have even done the nomination. Schuym1 (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

So it's a sources are out there keep? Schuym1 (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I said that it was stupid because I did a pointless nomination. When notability is proven by somebody or if I find out myself that notability is proven, I withdraw it because there is no reason to keep an article in AFD when the result is easy to predict. Schuym1 (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's okay, I just found your tone a bit bitey. I'm not questioning your actions.    SIS 

Editor Review: Schuym1

I commented out on it. You might want to check out what I said. RockManQ 02:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sunchaser Pictures

Found notability. Cleaned up and sourced the article. Sunchaser's film win awards. Regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

And before you ask... in a case where a company's films win awards, it does specifically give them a notability... not as in "notability is (not) inherited", but in that making winning films IS the notability. If they had all been total bombs, there would be no notablity for the company. It passes WP:Corp for their successes and the coverage of their successes in the media. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Seven Days of Samsara

I've responded to your relevance request on the Seven Days Of Samsara discussion page. worldDownInFire (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Tim Chey

I did a little work on the article. Any suggestions? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beating up (2nd nomination)

I would like to draw your attention to this AfD discussion I have just started. I am leaving this message here as you were involved in the previous discussion about this page which ended just over a week ago. I realise that this renomination is not within the normal acceptable time frame and I have outlined my reasoning for the exception on the discussion page. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Poop

Go ahead and add the sources and reviews I found. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

I will. Thanks for the help! Schuym1 (talk) 05:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

]

Heck.. it was just a matter of a google search and hiting next, next, next.. until I found the two delicious RS reviews and realized that the darn book is being used around the world. I think it will survive the AfD. Always glad to help, as sometimes notability is where you find it and not where you think it will be. Fun. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

And you gotta be thicker skinned. Please. I know you get impatient with editors who seem to poke fun at your article, or who make a judgement without themselves looking for sources, but being bitey will only hurt the outcome. So before you hit the enter key, slow down and make sure its what you really want to have in the record. You did redact some of the bitiness, yes... but it's now in the page history and that ain't good. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

And you may wish to remove that one last bitey word here. That one could get you a short block. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed jerk. Schuym1 (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Best choice. And looking at the article itself, you'll note that you do have editorial assistance in improving it and firming notability. Though an article is not mandated to have full sourcing if notability can be ssso easily found, having such can prevent it being moved to AfD. Good job. Just smile more. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ac acoustics

Hi Schuym1. Just wanted to let you know that I've added some sources to the article, which might address your concerns at this AfD. Cheers, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi. Just wanted to thank you for starting the Rashon Wind Farm AfD, and for contributing so well. Have also enjoyed reading your user page... cheers, Johnfos (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review comment

I just realized that I never thanked you for your comments on my editor review page. So Thank You!--Captain-tucker (talk) 13:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Bride Service (film)

Had fun with this one. I have sourced the hell out of it. The film is used across the country in anthropology courses and is archived at the Smithsonian. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD for Hjalmar Högquist

AfD discussion for this is the one for his brother for some reason, there is no discussion page for this article. Doug Weller (talk) 06:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Turning Point (jazz band)

Nice catch on Turning Point (jazz band); it was apparently a two-year-old copyvio. I checked that the article was copied from the external site, and not the other way around; the Internet Archive has a stored copy from 2005. I was just going to close the AfD, but you apparently beat me to it. —Slowking Man (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesca's Kitchen

Hi Schuym, just a gentle reminder that you shouldn't really be closing AfDs in which you have expressed an opinion. I won't revert your closure - that would just be process for process's sake - but it would be a good idea not to do that in the future. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

millennium Shakespeare

hi, I am completely new to adding information about millennium Shakespeare...I need help and fast;-) I am not good at techinical additions or adding references and links... .>seems I have nto much time to get this sorted before I am Speedily removed !! Millenniumshakespeare (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is promotional and your username makes it even more promotional. Schuym1 (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Strange.... when i type for nformation such as RSC... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Shakespeare_Company Its title is exactly what the name fo the company is...Thats promotional....!! not quite sure ho to rename a subject which already has its name Millennium Shakespeare.....and then start a topic explaining what the MS is all about...Just like when I type Katie Pric...I find a porn star who ahs been promtoed on Wikipedia....Millenniumshakespeare (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The article uses promotional wording and it seems like you have a WP:COI. Schuym1 (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What is a WP:COI  ?

Click on the link to read about it. Schuym1 (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

COI stands for conflict of interest. Schuym1 (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC) OK Thanks... I will re-write it and also try to find the help of an adoptee who can assist me with adding links...It's a miracle I ahve got this far...I dont do technical stuff well....thanks anywayMillenniumshakespeare (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the speedy. Schuym1 (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Ohh Thanks.... I hope I can resolve the text asap and add these wonderful links and references which I would be more than happy to do and infact wanted to add, if I knew how...If I can find someone to edit and do that for me - I might just also avoid the conflict of interest....I do see so many self promotional articles on Wikipedia which are disguised as self promotional campaigns....I simply want to enter information about the Millennium Shakespeare in to the encyclopedia on its own merit. Thanks againMillenniumshakespeare (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Adoptee

My request for an adoptee has dissapeared..any ideas?? Millenniumshakespeare (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed it because it's not your user page. Schuym1 (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

ohhh:-) I'll try to do betterMillenniumshakespeare (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

RE:Recent Warnings

Well, those IP addresses didn't look IP addresses didn't look static; in other words, they may have been used by many people. Basically, the majority of IP addresses are rotating/shared, and cycle through sometimes thousands of users daily (some countries may be blocked by mistake, for example). Even a static IP may be institutional and represent a hundred users. That's why we like to run through at least 3 warnings every time an IP takes a few days' break from vandalizing.

If you have any more questions, feel free to let me know! :) Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 02:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack

Please retract your personal attack from the incidents noticeboard. Thanks. – How do you turn this on (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Imnotacoolguy

Look, you can take this as constructive criticism or just ignore it. I honestly don't care. User:Imnotacoolguy should have been blocked and would have been. My issue is your lack of communication. Instead of thinking he is part of a larger conspiracy to mess with you, why not follow Occam's razor and consider that it was a single jerk mad at you for pissing him off on his article? From there, he went on a fun WP:POINT AFD mess. If you had come to WP:ANI with "at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruet Caelum, I commented on his band and he's been doing pointy AFDs in response", that would have been a warning and then a block if he continued. Instead, it was "This user has been being constantly bitey to me about my articles" (that's not for WP:ANI), please block him, with a link to a denied checkuser report. From there, I ask for a simple explanation as I'm not reviewing the report again. (Note: if you want people to help you, do better than provide diffs like this. I'm not reading those walls of text to figure out what's going on). From there, I notified him, per WP:ANI policy, you told him you were removing the discussion and instead you continued onward. Was your goal to avoid him or me? Either way, he's stopped and moved on. I would suggest letting it go. You want people to help, act like you want their help. Nobody's gaining anything from reviewing piles of diffs and trying to solve what's going on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I told him that because I did remove it, but I decided to go back. Schuym1 (talk) 11:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry to step in, but I thought this diff might help - another user reverted Schuym1's edit and replaced the content at AN/I. That aside, Ricky81682 makes some good points - at this stage it is probably best just to step back from Imnotacoolguy and see if things start up again later. Bilby (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• I apologize for the way I acted towards your articles, although I did believe that they did not show enough reasons for inclusion or notability, I do apologize I've been having a bad few weeks.... take that for what it's worth. again, I apologize. Imnotacoolguy (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Formatting those citations

See WP:CITE for far more than you ever wanted to know about citations. Be conscious, though, that not all sources are considered reliable sources and thus acceptable to cite for Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I know about reliable sources. I know that the books are reliable and the book review is reliable for sure. Schuym1 (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Schuym1 (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And I know that the Utah health link is reliable. Schuym1 (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The citations are still quite ill-formatted. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh well. That doesn't mean that it needs additional ones. Schuym1 (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Now I think that it doesn't matter how it looks. As long as everything or mostly everything has a citation. Schuym1 (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Underfist

Looks like a good start. I was about to ask if you'd asked Treelo, but you already did. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Everybody Is Different: A Book for Young People Who Have Brothers or Sisters With Autism

I have nominated Everybody Is Different: A Book for Young People Who Have Brothers or Sisters With Autism, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everybody Is Different: A Book for Young People Who Have Brothers or Sisters With Autism. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• See my comments at the AfD where I provided numerous reviews and sources that should easily lock notabilty. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Per "Actually, I found several of those sources, but I thought they wouldn't show notability." Quite the contrary, multiple uses by established organizations are extremely useful toward showing notability. Glad to help. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

easiest way to cite web references...

Do a "edit" so you can then do d cut-n-paste of this simple method for placing the informations.

One of your own new cites would look like this

Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Schuym1 (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. There's no reason this stuff should always be so confusing. ;) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

wikifying

Wikifying cross-links key words in the article to other wiki pages and helps the article from being orphaned. Just fixed up the autism book article. Easy stuff. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

So what if it's an orphan? Schuym1 (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Being an "orphan" means its a lot harder to find. For instance, if one is studying Autism, one would never find your article by accident... they'd have to be looking specifically for it. By "wikifying" your article (that is, enclosing the word "Autism" (and others) in brackets to make it look like: Autism, readers who are the pages of Asperger syndrome, National Autistic Society, or Autism, can click "what links here" in the toolbox (on the left of each article) and will find your own article in that long list of links. An orphaned article has no such searchable in-links. Wikifying does this automatically. And wikifying need not be overdone... just to include those key words that have a direct relation to the subject being researched. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Expansion tags

Expansion tags set article links on another list in wiki, specifically where some editors go to see what needs to be expanded or not. The tag invites assistance and improvement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Main Page redesign

The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, Pretzels^Talk! 09:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Bride Service (film)

What are your feelings toward the sources I found or the consolidation idea broughtup at AfD? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what should be done with the article. Schuym1 (talk) 12:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well... the article on the filmaker Timothy Asch has a long list of his films. That list shows bluelinks to indicate that about 12 from that list have their own articles. All those articles are extremely short stubs... barely more than a sentence and sources. I took the list from the article to create a seperate single article and included the sentences and sourcings from those 12 seperate articles to create one article that saves all the other artcles in one place. Better? Or worse? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I know that. I guess it's better. Schuym1 (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum Quest: A Cassini Space Odyssey

I have improved the article significantly and feel it now passes both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF for the reasons I stated at the Afd. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the reconsideration. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

SNOW closure of AfD on Alexander Jacob IPS

Hi,

I think your good faith SNOW was premature after only three comments other than your own, especially given the recent and good faith concern in the article talk page. You should, imo, have allowed those who have commented on the talk page that he is not notable an opportunity to comment - Tony (talk) and Cameron Scott (talk - also poss Lankiveil ^{(speak to me (who declined speedy but said notability 'shaky').}

Regards

Springnuts (talk) 16:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I have undid the closure. Schuym1 (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks - I see that another editor has again snowed it - so I get the message! Springnuts (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Adventures Of Cow

I have nominated Adventures Of Cow, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adventures Of Cow. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. [ roux ] [x] 23:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Already left my opinion. Kept bumping into edit conflicts with you. Check it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

And stick to your guns. Reviews specific to a particular book are not trivial, even if short. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help again! Schuym1 (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Inre Cow Too. Good rewrite. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar! I would have helped earlier, but was at work. Always remember that although a few sources are good, more is better. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Why I Will Never Ever Ever Ever Have Enough Time to Read This Book

I have nominated Why I Will Never Ever Ever Ever Have Enough Time to Read This Book, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why I Will Never Ever Ever Ever Have Enough Time to Read This Book. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. [ roux ] [x] 08:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Z (monster truck driver)

I added a reference from an English newspaper to Bobby Z (monster truck driver). You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Z (monster truck driver). -- Eastmain (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Why I Will Never Ever Ever Ever Have Enough Time to Read This Book

I am relatively new to this, and am surprised to see such a storm of comments on such a minor article.

The editors are debating rules & definitions, but perhaps they are not thinking enough about the user experience - the people these articles are for. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information to general users, and to point to places where more information may be found. There is no value in an article that nobody reads (or, of course, an incomplete, biased or unsubstantiated article). The user experience is the number one concern. Is it easy to understand and informative? Yes, good. No, bad.

There is a balance between tiny snippets of information and huge, long-winded articles. No magic formula, but I like articles with maybe 5-6 sections, each with 3-4 paragraphs, none too long. If I find myself scrolling and scolling and scrolling through one huge section or paragraph, it should be replaced by a summary linked to a main article. But if I click on links that promise more detail and just find a tiny stub, it breaks my chain of thought. I would rather have the stub merging into the main article.

Thoughts? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

My thought about it is that editors have different opinions. Schuym1 (talk) 02:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. The perfect article ... is not attainable ... perfection means different things to different editors. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Introduction of Marcus Cooper

Not that I disagree with your closure itself, but I don't think you should have closed the AFD because you !voted in it. The closure should have been left to someone not connected to the AFD. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

And I felt like using WP:IAR. Schuym1 (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way...

...you are doing great work on Wikipedia! Ecoleetage (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks! Schuym1 (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Cupcake Brown

I just added a few nice reviews of she and her book at A Piece of Cake: A Memoir Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

finding sources...

You might "suck" at finding sources, but I'm always glad to help. I hate seeing one of your articles sent to AfD because a nominator did not consider WP:ATD before sending it. Feel free to ask... and try to keep smiling. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ant and Elephant

Yes, notable enough. But there will be those saying not enough. So I added 2 more sources to the broadway musical adaptation. Here are more reviews: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the sources. Also, two of the sources you added was one I already added. I just gave one of them a different link title. I will add more reviews to the article. Schuym1 (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

One source is unreliable and another two is about a different book. Schuym1 (talk) 02:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually two sources are unreliable. There is no good sources to add out of those. Schuym1 (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Only had a couple minutes (am at work) and wanted to ensure that the adaptation was well founded. THAT is a lock for notability per WP:BOOK. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You're Not Sorry

This song has now charted at #11 on the Hot 100. You might want to reconsider your comments in the afd. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you very much for the barnstar. I appreciate the complement. --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thenk also for the The Editor's Barnstar. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 23:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

AFD request

Would you be willing to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prairie Lights? A user has supplied several significant references, enough to convince me that the article should be kept; and as the article seems not to be the problem that it was when you agreed with deletion, you might profit from seeing it again. Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Pornstar (film)

Its weak, but I have expanded and sourced the artcle per Film MOS. It has a number of notables and might actually be an interesting drama to watch. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

GetCITED AfD

I note that you recently closed the AfD on GetCITED, which you had earlier nominated for deletion. However, as there are other editors in favour of deletion, the AfD needs to run its course. If you wish to withdraw your nomination, you could revisit the AfD discussion and strike out your nomination, with a comment to say that you've withdrawn. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Big Sky Motion Pictures

Found reliable sources for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Sky Motion Pictures. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 13:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I found a lot of those sources and they don't show notability for the company. Schuym1 (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply on my talk page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)