User talk:MichaelQSchmidt/Archive 016

If you have time...

Vanessa is back and applying for more film roles, with a new talent agency. I'm short of time at the mo but will block later today, or any passing admin can do the honours, I think 3 months is the current standard. If you get a chance to clean up her mess, be my guest. :) Franamax (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Following behind with my scooper and plastic bag? Glad to help out. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well you know I think you should be using a mop and bucket... :)

Thanks MQS for cleaning this up while I was out climbing a hill. To keep the "book" up-to-date, I have 65.25.178.154, 65.25.179.39, 65.25.178.59, going back to April 2009. We will need to keep an eye out for when they IP-hop again. Regards! Franamax (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Take a look when you get a moment

Hello Michael, I found some new links on Tait. Take a look at my talk page when you get a chance. Thank you

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

Note

I started Samuel Benedict (film producer) after blue linking Nick Benedict an actor who appeared in the recent Memories of Murder (1990 film) AFD article you know. However I cannot find a single source to support it aside from imdb. Can you help? Dr. Blofeld 16:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If you can't I will delete it. Please respond. Dr. Blofeld 21:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I will do some digging. Pity his name is shared by notable chemists and clerics. I'll report back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Film cleanup

Hi Michael - I've added a section on the co-ordinators page here. Input welcome. Lugnuts (talk) 08:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Michael, you may be interested in this link that identifies newly-created articles about films: User:AlexNewArtBot/FilmsSearchResult. One of the tasks we'll need to do is to assess each new film article in the proper class (most likely Stub- or Start-class for the most part). Some editors who created new articles may be new editors to reach out to and welcome into the fold. I'm still considering the best approach for this, such as having a more casual-sounding welcome template than {{WPFILMS Invite}}. If you have any ideas, let me know. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This may also be useful where article creation tends to be sloppy. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

When I return home from work, I will be quite willing to begin dropping these new users some friendly notes... thanking them on their contributions and advising strongly on the importance of references in reliable sources so as to have their articles meet WP:NF or WP:BLP... and I think it would be prudent to also include (where appplcable) links to WP:TOOSOON#Films or WP:TOOSOON#Actors, a "Find sources" created for their title, and with perhaps links to some of the other various other DIY welcoming pages... plus an invitation for them to review my Newcomer's guide. Friendly enough? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup! :) I was thinking about your newcomer's guide especially. I was just trying to figure how much information to give them. I don't want to bombard them, and I have no idea what first impressions are like for them. Mine was way too long ago. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to say, thanks for this and this! Mike Allen 00:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

December 30, 2010

New comments below this one. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

DYK nomination for The Stars Shine (film)

Hello! Your submission of The Stars Shine (film) 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! Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

And there's more. Please visit the DYK page. --Orlady (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Assistance

Yes, i would. Thank you. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:51 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been your fan even before now

Thanks for the great help you've rendered and still rendering to me especially as I should watch from a distance about the AFD on Jeff Unaegbu. I am a complete greenhorn when it comes to be an editor in wikipedia, not knowing the rules nor the moves, but I do believe I shall improve with time. My reason for being here is to help document authentic history for posterity and to encourage people to become notable and leave footprints on the rocks of time. Your movies keep me happy even now and I quite appreciate your obvious warmth in real life too. Recent efforts have gone into revamping the Jeff Unaegbu article especially painstakingly going for Internet sources. Thank you, Sir MichaelJeff Unaegbu (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read Newcomer's guide to guidelines. It may prove helpful. Best advice is to go slowly, and edit carefully as you learn. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Howes (actor)

Dear MichaelQSchmidt , would you mind if I recreated a page for Thomas Howes (which you and others voted to delete). I am just watching Downton Abbey again - a major (judged by viewing figures and comments) UK TV series, and Howes has what seems to me a sufficiently prominent role to warrant a page. I have added further refs. to his stage and radio career also, which helps I think. I have a draft here: User:Msrasnw/Thomas Howes (actor). What do you think? The Downton Abbey page's redlink on Howes looks anachronistic. RonhJones one of the deleting admins said I should contact you. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC))

• I would strongly advise that you not, as the page has been several times deleted already,[1] else you will likley find the article quickly deleted without discussion under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#General G4. " Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion." What you might do instead, is build youir article at User:Msrasnw/workspace/Thomas Howes (actor) so that you can build the page and add proper sourcing to show notability as described at WP:ENT. And ONLY after you feel you have made the page as complete and well-sourced as possible, then you should ask this question of User:Cirt, the deleting admin, who will then compare the earlier deleted version(s) to see if your newer version has been improved to the point of addressing the issues brought up at the deletion discussion.[2] Best of luck. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi I think I have already done that which you ask here: User:Msrasnw/Thomas Howes (actor). And I am now wanting to put it back to the mainspace. Does it look much better than before. I have asked two of the three deleting admins. I haven't asked Cirt (The middle one of the three) as he seemed to be annoyed with me before on another request for restoration. Anyway Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC))

Only an admin can look at old versions and compare them to new. Get an admin's blessing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM December 2010 Newsletter

The December 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film 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) 04:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Major re-write of the Richard Adams (inventor) page

Hi there Michael, I was hoping to get some advice about what to do. Hopefully you remember the Richard Adams (inventor) page. The page has been severely cannibalized using justifications that have already been discussed and voted on, or outright deletions of sections that he didn't cover in my talk page when he made his intention known on Dec 22. Unfortunately, I haven't been logged in for quite a while. Could you look at the edit done on Dec 27? I would like to revert back to what it was before, but I'm not sure what the proper procedure is.

Thanks for all your help, Eggzactly (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Rathger than immediately revert, take your re-write out of mainspace to give yourself the luxury i\of time in getting it right. Place the removed parts from the earlier version into a sandbox User:Eggzactly/Richard Adams workpace and then study the text carefully. Modify any content that makes use of superlatives and trim and rewite to make it more encyclopedic and less POV. Then go through line-by-line what you have left and find sources for every sentence that might be considered the least bit questionable. And better, if reliable sources make some specific claim that he was a "pioneer" and "innovative" show the sources that make that specific claim. You might even expand on them in a recognition section as attributed quotes. For instance, the sentence "Thus far, seven unrelated instances of his work have been noted significantly by various media outlets starting when he was a pre-teen and continuing ever since." needs to be properly cited, and would likley make a postive contribution to a recognition section. That cameras at home were rare in 1967 needs to be cited and set in context. "Richard established cooperation with several adult friends in industry because of this project, and stayed in touch with them for years." needs to be expanded and cited. Which frinds? What's the source? If his creating an interface to connect an electronic organ to a computer, is considered a pionerring step, then tell us ny whom and source it. If his 16 bit home computer he began building in 1974 had a major impact on the home computer industry... identify just who made that statement and expand on what the source offered. A problem with such true statements as "Many sources show that Scott was a pioneer in the computer game software industry. The start of the process can be traced back to the 16 bit home computer Richard built, as mentioned by the referenced article" is that we cannot simply state that someone else said this. We have to show just who said specifically what and then cite it. Etc, etc. As youi work on it, check back in. No need to revert. Once content is proprly attributed... oversouced even... I would be quite happy to assist in returning the better content. Fair enough? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I will take your good advice and get to work on it. Thanks Eggzactly (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Evil Things

Hi. I'm bringing your attention to the article for Evil Things, which is currently a bit of a mess, especially regarding in-line referencing and external links. As a contributor to many articles, was wondering if you could help clean it up? FilmFan2011 (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

On it now. Have begun cleanup and sourcing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I feel I should also bring your attention to a number of sub-par film articles including Dark Nature, Deadwood (film), Jack Says and Jack Said, with the latter making no distinction whatsoever between the film and the graphic novel, which I feel needs a seperate article.

I'll look in after more work on Evil Things. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

I also noticed that Imogen Toner is now in two movie articles on wiki. One I started - Dark Nature, and also The Inheritance (2007 film). I am toying with the idea of writing an article on her. Do you advise this, and would she qualify? FilmFan2011 (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Imogen Toner's film career is fairly short,[3] so she'll appear a bit weak on meeting WP:ENT... UNLESS you show a more sourcable notability through her theater work, citing positive theater reviews with sourced analysis in a reception section,[4][5][6][7][8][9] and then simply include in the overall article that she has also done films. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Rebecca Cardon (2nd nomination)

Thanks. I really filed the AFD more out of assistance for whover didn't finish their work, because apparently I'm the only person on the planet who can finish unfinished AFDs. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 11:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep on smiling. --Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again

You were extremely helpful in fixing the Matthew (Matt) Bennett article after it was so quickly tagged for deletion on Dec 20. Thank you again. It inspired a number of other editors' contributions as well. Now it seems the AfD finally closed on 2 January (no consensus which became keep), but the deletion tags remain on the article. I fear that if I remove them, I will be summarily chastised (I'm a bit gun-shy after that first one). Any advice? Thanks! --Silentcrow (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes it happens that an AFD is closed and the closer forgets to remove the tag from the article and make note on the talk page of the earlier AFD discussion. I took care of it. And as your username is so similar to Bennett's company in name, you would do well to consider avoiding making edits the article yourself, so as to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Understood. All the very best. --Silentcrow (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

And you may always feel free to drop me a question should one arise... and definitely edit elsewhere. But as it is a learning experience, go slow, and have fun. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking for a teacher...

Hello friend. Im trying to fix some articles about the history of the Spanish presence in Manhattan and the former district known as Little Spain. But my articles are a mess as you wrote on the deleteion discussion of Artur Balder. I will try to do my best, but some rewriting and fixing of code will be more than wellcome, just in case you could read them. Thanks anyway!! --Lolox76 (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll look into both and see what I can do. Patience. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Films

Hey. Thanks for cleaning up Evil things. Looks much better now. I know you're busy, but just reiterating the state of, in particular, Dead Wood (film) and Jack Said. Perhaps an axpert needs to be addressed on the latter? Thank you again FilmFan2011 (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Paulo Pires

Very annoying, respect for your stance against blind Anglocentrism meant I ended up feeling obliged to translate the Pt Wikipedia article! Thanks for being a piece of common-sense grit in the Wikipedia Super high-speed waste disposal unit known as the AfD procedure. Opbeith (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Cat Palmer (artist)

Hello again, Michael. It's a long time since I contacted you, but I just spotted an AfD article (Cat Palmer (artist)) that I think might be worthy of rescue. Numerous references have been added since the AfD, and I've just done a bit of tidying, but I'd value your experienced opinion as to which side of the line it falls on. Best regards — Hebrides (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP, GNG, and CREATIVE are met. I have cautioned the author about COI.[10][11] and as auther asserts NOT being the subject of the article, I have also advised on change of username. It would look bad if the editor simply abandoned the old name and began using another without going through the beaurocratic processes that newbs would simply not know existed. Article will need expansion and furyther cleanup. Will give it some myself. Nice find. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Paulo Pires

I wish I had your faith/optimism, but if you're doing your best I feel obliged to try and help. I'll have a go tomorrow, just off to bed. Opbeith (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate it that you can help more. As it is, your expansion of the stub is terrific. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I've popped in the crucial reference for the 1996 Globo de Ouro. Plenty of references for films etc. but I don't have over-much time at the moment, referencing is so tedious when you're only doing it to constrain the deleters. Opbeith (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, some editors use WP:I NEVER HEARD OF IT, SO IT CANT BE NOTABLE as a reason to want something removed.... reflecting a sad cultural prejudice. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well done, you deserve a Golden Salvage Tug, Senhor Capitao. Don't hesitate to draw my attention to any other need for a Pt translation, much as I will curse and spit at the need for it! Opbeith (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

And well done yourself. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for The Stars Shine (film)

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, I seem to find myself on the opposite side of you on deletion debates much more than in the past. The reason for that is that I've been working on the unreferenced BLP backlog and although I've referenced thousands of them over the past year I do run into quite a few that I can't find enough to save (probably about 10%). I do believe that every article is worth another shot so, unless they are negative and unsourcable, instead of prodding I send to AfD. If sources come out that I missed I reconsider if I believe it is notable and verifiable. Boy, that was a long-winded explanation of I don't know what... The reason that I actually came here is to invite you to consider helping at Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue, I believe it suits your talents and enthusiasm. Take care J04n(talk page) 01:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No, not too long winded (chuckle). Concise actually, considering the scope of the problem. I'll swing by as I can... keeping in mind my google-foo works best in actor and film articles. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

If you just want to work on actors there are plenty to work on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Unreferenced BLPs. J04n(talk page) 10:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reunion Island: An Overview

Thanks Michael, yes, if there are multiple bona fide WP:RS I'd have no objection to you rescuing/restoring the article. I have no desire to do so myself, because of the behaviour of the creator in this case. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

film project

See here for main topic. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Oleg Frish

I saw you worked with this article. Please cast yuour opinion in still dragging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oleg Frish. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

IMDb numbers

Have a look at the DRV for "Ilkka Saari" under Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 January 22. Out of curiosity, do you know on what basis this guy is using IMDb to claim "IMDb ranking around 100000" and "403,410 searchs in IMDb for 2010, so this would constitute for large fan base"? On this basis, such numbers can't mean much, but how does one extract them? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The "how" is explained here But note... the smaller the starmeter number, the better. This week Tom Cruise is 48, Bruce Willis is 55, Will Smith is 68, John Wayne is 212, Jack Black is 288, Lawrence Olivier is 1419, Madonna is 1645, Oliver Hardy is 2677... but like any such indicator, these stats are simply reflective of a computer user's interest in a subject and should at best only encourage a more diligent serach for reliable sources toward the notability of a subject under discussion. A Starmeter ranking of "around 1,000,000" is reflective of near anononymity. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for your email. That figures. Meanwhile, what do you think of this guy? Once again, I have blocked the originator GreenbeltFilms (talk · contribs) as an obvious role account, but I think, though a bit on the WP:UPANDCOMING side, he maybe scrapes through? JohnCD (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The production assistant history is impressive, but PA's do not get any glory. Eliminating the AceShowbiz, I find only 2 mentions in RS: Daily Astorian 2006,[12] and Flagpole Magazine (2007).[13] While The New York Times InBaseline [14] and Allmovie [15] verify his work, PAs do not fall under WP:ENT. I cannot find any confirmation of being listed in any version of a Who's Who. If his films achieve notability, he might merit a return under WP:CREATIVE. If gets coverage in the media he might merit a return under WP:GNG. If he or his films win notable awards he might merit a return under WP:ANYBIO. My opinion, is that this one depends too highly upon name-dropping and is simply WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

discussion.

Hi stranger. Link to discussions you might want to get into Talk:The Dark Knight Rises definitely in the bottom. I recommended you anyways but you had no response so I guess I will have to haunt you again. But it's up to you. These discussions never get old. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The discussion underscores an ongoing debate about the efficacy and application of GNG versus SNGs and a seeming contradiction with application of one SNG in particular seeming set to overrule policy. Some editors feel that if the GNG is met, an SNG need not be met. Others feel that if a SNG is met, then the GNG need not neccessarily be.... or if a SNG (NFF) is failed, then the GNG and policy may be ignored. Personally, I feel that the two are intended as mutually-supportive and not self-exclusionary... specially as WP:NOTABILITY states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below and is not excluded by WP:NOT. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in any of the subject-specific guidelines", indicating to me that in a failure to meet the GNG, editors are encouraged to other considerations. It is understood that WP:NFF was set in place to prevent Wikipedia being flooded by articles on minor unmade films... films lacking coverage or notability. So even if considering a SNG that may seem to disallow a future topic being discussed, it needs be understood that POLICY itself allows such when it states that "articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced" as long as editors do not offer their own opinions or analyses, and (as in the case of films) editors take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims. Again, NFF was set up as an SNG to address CRYSTAL articles on film topics that lack "sufficiently wide interest", for just as the GNG itself states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." So it can be seen that by the very policy and guideline set for measuring inclusion, for some certain future film projects, the enduring and in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources allows a presumption of meeting inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. I see that at Talk:The Dark Knight Rises editors are discussing just what and how to properly address writing an article on a future film when the topic itself has a demonstrated surpassing of the inclusion criteria set by of policy and guideline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate the kind words! Naw, I think the other editors and yourself had it all covered. Glad, as always, to be of whatever help I might have been! --Tenebrae (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Not all the way covered yet. We still have this. But it is safe to assume that it's a keep. The suspense will kill me when I actually come back home from my trip when I can actually see the result. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Godzilla "project"

The fans won't leave the article as a "project", they'll keep trying to make it a "film" the moment you turn your back. Barsoomian (talk) 10:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Fans? Does that IP have a page identifying it as a fan? If not, then let's not make an assumption based on a perhaps good-faith edit. IPs have been editing Wikipedia for years.. We do not automatically assume that every one has some negative agenda. And for either incorrect good-faith edits or for outright vandalism, we have processes we follow. If or when an IP edits a watched page and makes an incorrect edit, we revert... just as was properly done by User:Alaney2k [16]. Simple. And then we politely leave the IP a note.[17] If the IP continues, then we leave them a warning. If they still continue they could be temp-blocked. If other IPs jump in and make additional incorrect edits, we might even semi-protect a page.... but we do not delete pages simply because IPs edit them, or because "watching" and fixing a page is too much work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"Fan" isn't a negative word. I'm a fan. Anyway, I don't feel a need to be over polite in how I refer to an IP user who is making unproductive edits. They mostly don't intend to be vandals, but they often just ignore any guidelines, warnings or comments, and if blocked just hop IPs and continue. You don't need to lecture me about how to deal with it. I've done it. It takes ten times more time for an editor to clean up, issue warnings, etc, etc than for the original IP user to make the bad edit. This page is a magnet for such users, new ones who will endlessly turn up to add their rumours and speculation, who will notice some trapping of a "film" article missing and reinstate it (absolutely no one will see any distinction you try to make between a "film project" and a "film"), or drawn here by the links that other users made to the page. It'd be worth the trouble to protect it if there was any unique content worth protecting.Barsoomian (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you do not consider the word "fan" as a negative, but unfortunately many editors do... and derogatives such as "fanboys" or "fancruft" or "vanispamfancruft" are used far too often in a quite negative connotation. As for me, I will be polite to any editor, registered or IP, until they give cause to not deserve the courtsey that guideline encourages. As Wikipedia is "The encyclopedia anyone can edit", as ANY article can become target to abusive edits, and as unregistered users on IPs are allowed to edit, we deal with it as we are able. Cleaning up messes might take time, but until The Foundation says no more IPs, we do what we need to do. I know we do not see eye-to-eye on the Godzilla article... but how about we simply agree to disagree. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM January 2011 Newsletter

The January 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film 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) 03:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at Phearson's talk page.
Message added 06:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Eskrimadors

Awesome job on that piece. I found the nominator reccomending some very notable and legitinate martial arts for deletion, I saw this article as part of that pattern. Here is the link I found which is notbad at all in its entirety: [18], The 1st para was all I read in the IMDB page, just shows how writing quality in most instances is becoming a dying art.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much. And I see too that that a fairly new WP:SPA IP has done nothing but opine deletes for those same martial arts topics. Glad to help out on that one. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Bigfoot Entertainment

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

DYK nomination of Dreamscape (2007 film)

Hello! Your submission of Dreamscape (2007 film) 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! Thelmadatter (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Dreamscape (2007 film)

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Dominic Luciano

This kid is connected to The Strawberry Alarm Clock! His dad was a founding member! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawberry_Alarm_Clock Just thought I'd throw that out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.216.229.53 (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Give me a reliable source that says that, please. A reference to another Wikipedia article is not good enough. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

http://members.boardhost.com/guruv1/msg/1297498210.html
http://rateyourmusic.com/artist/thee_sixpence

Like those? Or do we need more reliable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.173.163 (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

To confirm the family relationship, rather than sites that can be questioned, what would be preferable would be any article about Dominic that states something like ..."and Dominic was encouraged in his music by his father Mike Luciano, formerly of Strawberry Alarm Clock..." or "...Strawbery Alarm Clock's Mike Luciano was accompanied on the trip by his son Dominic..." or similar. But understand, a father being a founding member of the group does not confer any notability to the son. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll work on that. I understand it doesn't help notability, it's just a cool fact, y'know? Thanks for your time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.101.133 (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Silent films

Michael, some silent film entries who have great posters/or lobby cards you might want to take a look at or work on. Once again links in E.Links section. Hope you enjoy these as much as I do:

• A Girl of Yesterday(1915) Done!
• Raffles the Amateur Cracksman(1917) Done!
• Raffles(1925) Done!
• If I Were King(1920) Done!
• The Enchanted Cottage(1924) Done!
• Three Women(1924) Done!
• Madame X(1920) Done!
• Footlights(1921) Done!
• The Pagan(1929) Done!
• The Goose Woman(1925) Done!
• While the City Sleeps(1928) Done!
• Human Wreckage(1923) Done!
• The Bells(1926) Done!
• A Kiss for Cinderella(1926) Done!
• The Eternal City(1923) Done!
• Aloma of the South Seas(1926) Done!
• Declassee(1925) Done!

• Quincy Adams Sawyer(1922) Done!
• The Mystic(1925) Done!
• Wildflower(1914) Done!
• The Pretty Sister of Jose(1915) Done!
• Hearts in Exile(1929) Done!
• Under the Red Robe(1923) Done!
• The Ghost Breaker(1922) Done!
• The Charm School(1921) Done!
• Rent Free(1922) Done!
• Kick In(1923) Done!
• Adam's Rib(1923 film) Done!
• Triumph(1924) Done!
• The Coast of Folly(1925) Done!
• Stage Struck(1925) Done!
• The Young Rajah(1923) Done!
• The Affairs of Anatol(1921) Done!

Koplimek (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Your tutorial

Hey, I've noticed your Newcomer's guide to guidelines page and I hope you don't mind if I chip in a bit I just wanted to let you know that, if it would help, you can use some or all of the external links and refs advice I wrote, located here. Thanks, --- c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 03:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Super! I would love to incorporate some of your advice, though I may simplify it some for the rank newcomers I am hoping to help... to the point where they no longer need the page. Thank you big time! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem, mate! Once this is complete, I'm definitely going to start linking to it; it's easier than just giving newcomers about 50 links! --- c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 02:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

My next step is to educate in simplest terms the steps to creat an article in a userspace sandbox, and how to check it, get input, and then move it to mainspace. And might you suggest a better title of the essay? I'm feeling the current working title is kinda clunky. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... The title is a bit long. As it stands, the guide is mainly about article creation. I don't know if you're planning on adding more about Wikipedia guidelines in general; if not, it could be titled something like "Article creation: the basics" or "Article creation for newcomers" or something along that line. --- c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 08:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Jordon Saffron Taste This!

Materialscientist (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Superman: Man of Steel userspace draft.

The way the user had it, it would have never survived AFD or being a film project article. The user is not expert on how to create and cite Wikipedia articles just yet for he's new. But I did help out in maintaining and Wikifying his userspace draft. Hopefully that will encourage him that he's a part of this. I still wouldn't go for the "film project" approach even though it qualifies now but that's just me. I am tired of all the AFD's and such. What do you think on how it looks now? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Sadly, it almost seems as if F.R Durant's AFDing of The Dark Knight Rises was in reaction to his own article on the Superman film being set as a redirected without discussion. And good work on the userfied version. And might you like to adopt THIS one? Its been getting coverage and is now in post-production. If you'd like to copy it into your own userspace, I'd be glad to see it get some attention. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. He is the one that started doing a Spider-Man reboot article but it got AFD'd and when a article about it finally came to be when trying to edit he sometimes got reverted. Check Admin and Charecter bios section on Talk:The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film). Starting tomorrow til Sunday I will be on a field trip so it won't be right away but I will be happy to do it. Do you prefer me putting it in my userspace or me just editing on yours. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Putting it to your userspace is perhaps better. When you research the casting, you'll understand why I need to pass it along. It needs a neutral set of eyes. And too, your ability to expand and improve film articles is commendable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok then. Thank you. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It's gonna be an awesome film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I started a discussion on that userspace draft of John Dies at the End (film). Please join me. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brianna Frost Hogan

The ball's in your court. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do and get back to you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Michael Gleissner

Done. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been reading this article since last week and it's so sad it was deleted. Is their other way to retrieve this article and improved it. It seems to be useful and encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahikowriter (talk • contribs) 06:46, February 28, 2011

I have it in my workspace... and will be working on it for a return to mainspace. I'll have to do some major copyedit and format corrections, as well as research into news and book sources about the fellow for further expansion and sourcing. It will be back. No doubt. Patience. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Michael, Thanks for a very quick reply. I've been reading with your articles for a long time! And yes it was all great. I hope that I can learn more things from you. Thanks for sharing here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahikowriter (talk • contribs) 07:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Michael J.G. Gleissner

Hello Michael, If you have time can you help us to review this article. I've read this article before and I was so surprised that it was deleted. This article is useful and shows a relevant facts and information of the person. Thanks! User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Michael Gleissner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahikowriter (talk • contribs) 06:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have it. And again... patience. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Michael, any updates on when will this article be back online? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.64.43 (talk) 04:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking better. More still to do. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It does look better. Thanks Michael! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.64.43 (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Bit by bit. Always good to remember that the artricle is not about Bigfoot, but rather about Gleissner. So you'll have to understand ny removing of the various Bigfoot-related external links, as they are considered self-published. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Michael, the article looks great and much better than before!

I encourage that you look at how I set the article into sections, cleaned up the hyperbole, added a bit more information, and most importantly added references to confirm the article's content. It fine to know that someone is notable, but it is more important to source just how and why that notability exists. Best wishes, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice one

with Frontier boys. Care to cast an eye over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meesam Zaidi? I think there might be notability there (and the speech referenced makes interesting reading as I see it - different from the rabble-rousing I expected. I can't access the videos (wouldn't understand them anyway) - but there must be something somewhere. It just can't stand as it is. Thanks if you can. Peridon (talk) 12:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Will look in later today. Best. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Help Needed

Wazzup, since I've seen you on the Wikiproject Film, I want to request your help for check and fix errors on Rachel Weisz's article, currently on review for featured article. Hope to hear from you soon, thanks for your time.--Gduwen (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll be glad to look in and check it over. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Guideline

Just read your little treatise. Brilliant. Should be linked to the New Article Wizard with a tick box for 'I have read'. I have been cheeky and corrected a typo - proofreading being a habit I find hard to suppress. (I get extremely irritated on other sites where I can't find an 'edit' button.) (I've been known to correct things in articles that were 75% certain to be deleted - just in case.) Peridon (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Just got home from work. Long day. Nothing "cheeky" about checking my spelling, as I make my fair share of typos. I figure the essay is some 97% finished. I just hope when It goes to mainspace that editors respect the nutshell advisory to honor my intentional use of the KISS principle... as it is the obfuscation of so many guidelines that alienates and/or confuses newbs. I intend for it to hit the highights and give a decent hand up. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

List of teen films

Any interest in helping reference List of teen films? It's up for AFD. Check the AFD page for my suggestion on how to research and reference. Quite a few films on the list! Erik (talk | contribs) 15:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

re Dylan Cole

Sorry for butting in here, but I thought I'd mention that User:Alan Liefting may not be able to get the an internet link at the moment. He lives in Christchurch, the New Zealand city hit by a big earthquake earlier in the week, and hasn't been online since then (half the city is still without power). Trying to find out whether he's OK, but assuming no news is good news at the moment. Grutness...wha? 10:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ouch. Hope he's okay. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Just received an email from him. He's fine, but understandably WP isn't a high priority right now. Grutness...wha? 21:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of National Screen Institute

Hello! Your submission of National Screen Institute 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! Yoninah (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to add to this, if possible, as I focus more on individual films. Lugnuts (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for all the improvements. It's ready for DYK now, but I'd like to suggest a catchier hook. Please see DYK talk page. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

National Screen Institute

I am currently working on a paper, however, after I hand it in I will have a look. Hope this is OK l santry (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Since you're also an actor...

An actress whose article got deleted is asking me for help. If the deleting admin userfies or incubates this will you be willing to work on it? So far the 2 interested parties both have a conflict of interest. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Would be glad to help out. As soon as I see the link User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Bree Michael Warner turn blue, I'll have a look and see what I might do... and I'll also advise User:RMPhillips to look in and watch my progress. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see what can be done and report back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Bree Michael Warner page

Hey Michael!

I saw that Ron Ritzman sent you a note above about the page for Bree Michael Warner. Thank you soooooo much for jumping on board and helping out! I tried to keep the page clean and concise but I'm still learning the language of wikipedia and I'm being told that there's a conflict of interest since I worked with this Actress. Let me know how I can be of any assistance. thank you again, it was a wonderful surprise!RMPhillips (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll go through the one now userfied. What is importatnt is to remember to not include extraneous or trivial bits of information, to avoid superlatives in descriptions, and to keep the article neutral in tone and well-sourced. I'll check back with you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

One Night

Is One Night (2010 film) notable? The only source I really found is this, which is not reliable. A search engine test shows nothing in News or Books, but a general search does confirm that it exists; just cannot seem to find any tangible coverage outside of the aforementioned one. I proposed it for deletion, but the template was removed. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree. My searches were just as fruitless. It exists,[19] but with lack of sources I would opine it fails WP:NF, though it "might" merit a mention in the diector's own article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

My very first: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Night (2010 film) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM February 2011 Newsletter

The February 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film 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) 03:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for National Screen Institute

Gatoclass (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Nick Peterson

FYI, these were the references from the original article. Only the NY Times one is anything like independent.

References

• AllMusic biography entry for Nick Peterson
• Digital Broadcast in the New York Times.
• The user-based diary, showcase and networking site for alternative creative opinion and debate, Y2KDiary.com
• DiaryUnlimited.com, evolved from the original Y2KDiary.com website.

External links

• Official website VirtualAlien.net.
• Nick Peterson at IMDb.
• Films by Nick Peterson at AllMovie.com.

It's pretty clear that there is a big self-promotion blitz going on here. The original article was posted in 2008, and three of the film ones in 2009. But this February two new SPAs appeared, two more film articles were posted and twelve articles about albums, no more than track listings, though several of them claimed to have John Malkovich on drums; and over the period 6 to 10 February articles were posted in the German, Spanish, French, Italian, and Portuguese Wikipedias.

He has made a lot more films - see this list. As Starblind said at the AfD, it's distressing that "someone can spend a quarter-century making this much stuff and receive not even a shred of success or recognition as a result", but that does seem to be the case.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I've no problem with the deletion, specially as SPAs and COI have tainted the articles. If notability can be established in reliable secondary sources, we might eventually have the articles. SPA's notwithstanding. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I have got interested in this one. I agree that if secondary sources turned up the articles could be re-created, and I take your point that one director's films often feature the same set of characters, but this is an extraordinarily self-contained walled garden - the writer and producer do nothing but his pictures, the companies concerned (Mnemonics Pictures / Global Films / EdgeImageBank Pictures) do nothing but his pictures, even the people who review them on IMDb review nothing else. The more I look into it the more I think that, if not actually a hoax, this is no more than an amateur using the Internet (and trying to use Wikipedia) to talk himself up.

Clips like this and this are simply, well, Youtubey - not the finished work of a professional, surely?

From his Virtual Alien website:

"And the question many have asked: where and when can we see the films? The short answer is at the moment apart from the official trailers and the pirated clips floating around in space, no one can."

On the Britfilms site you found, one can evidently add a film just by filling in a form [20], but to add someone to the list of directors there is evidently more checking, and he is not there.

All the above is just for interest. What I came to ask you was, what sort of checking would IMDb have done when he added himself] and his films there? Do they need evidence that films actually exist?

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll defer to your thourough research, and if no independent sources show up, the articles will not be back (except if imporoperly recreated by another set of SPAs or worse, puppets... and we know how that will end up). As for IMDB and title submissions, they require proof that a film has been publically screened, theatrically, at a known festival, or through a video release,[21] (though they do not share with readers the proofs that may have been submitted - no transparency) and even then, they quite often balk at new titles. If the Wikipedia submitter of Nick Peterson projects spent as much time in actual distribution of these projects as promoting them here, they might've actually been searchable. Lacking any reasonable WP:V, they will be gone. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm surprised. When you have five minutes, watch the two clips I linked above and tell me what you think. JohnCD (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

All come off as amateurish stuff apparently at one time allegedly offered for sale through Amazon. Not what I would call wide distribution. Yikes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're quick, Amazon UK have got one copy left! On Amazon US I see they are unavailable but marked "DVD-R Note: This product is manufactured on demand when ordered" - I knew about print-on-demand books but hadn't realised there were print-on-demand movies, though come to think of it the technology is much easier. JohnCD (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Escape from Planet Earth

I just saw this headline today. It may be a worthwhile article about a project in development, as we do not have the article Escape from Planet Earth. Here's a headline a couple of years old, too. Might be a good example of a project article with some legal fun looming ahead. What do you think? I had a long day, so I'm not going to create anything for now. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Just heading out to a gig. Will check further in some 6 hours. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of season one episode articles of House for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articles Paternity (House), Occam's Razor (House), Maternity (House), Damned If You Do, The Socratic Method (House), Fidelity (House), Poison (House), DNR (House), Histories (House), Detox (House), Sports Medicine (House), Cursed (House), Control (House), Mob Rules (House), Heavy (House), Role Model (House), Babies & Bathwater, Kids (House), Love Hurts (House) and Honeymoon (House) are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paternity (House) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 14:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Massage For Relaxation, An Instructional Video

Thanks, Michael, for all your assistance on this article. I really appreciate it! ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pattymooney (talk • contribs) 07:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, the article may not survive... but it's beginning to look better. If you know of reviews or critical commentary of the film, even if negative, that are available in what Wikipedia considers as reliable sources, please send me the links. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I have posted the lion's share of reviews that were generated in the 80's and 90's. The ones I mention were big for that era. I think the tape's notability is that it was the first of its kind and helped create a "New Age" groundswell for alternative healing modalities like massage. "Massage for Relaxation" was also among the first wave of home videos produced by entities other than the big studios. Now, massage is quite commonplace (and so are "home videos"). But then, not many people knew about it and "Massage For Relaxation" was the first massage video. Then came the Shari Belafonte video, "Massage for Health" in 1988. They had much more of a marketing budget and made a large splash. I will continue to search through early material to find more sources. If you have any "outside-the-box" suggestions on this article, please do let me know.Pattymooney (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Well the ones that seen like a simple video reacap, without offering any commentary, will likely have to go, as they will be seen as adverts. As for it being the first of its kind, is there any source other that the production campany that can verify this? And have there been any later reviews of the DVD re-release that speak toward the film's background and history? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Michael, The copyright date would verify it... I know that it is simply because I was there at the time and it was the first on the market... But at the time, you wouldn't necessarily see any press that would state "Oh, this is the first-ever massage video!" The next massage tape was the Shari Belafonte one in '88. I don't mind if the video recaps have to go... As my dad used to say, "I'm not married to 'em." As far as recent press, I'm going to generate some press about the latest release and that ought to happen in the next couple of months. I'll just keep pushing ahead on it... In the meantime, it's a lot of fun learning about the ins and outs of Wikipedia. By the way, is there any easy way to categorize photos after they have been uploaded?Pattymooney (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

What a nice surprise to find that you had been editing my entry on "Massage For Relaxation." You thoroughly rock! I'm impressed and grateful. Pattymooney (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

As long as you refrain from further edits, my own editing addresses the call of COI, specially as I have none. But the article may yet be deleted. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		For performance above and beyond the call of duty in saving the Massage for Relaxation article, I hereby bestow the Rescue From Deletion Award. TigerCherry 01:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pattymooney (talk • contribs)

Jack and the Beanstalk

Good work saving an appropriate mention of the 2009/2010 dud of a film with a likely redirect instead of a plain deletion of verifiable information. It sounds like it might be a good choice for a family with preschoolers. The 1952 Abbott and Costello version was a family favorite on video back in the day with songs like "He met his doom, he fall down and go boom, and he never looked better in his life." I've also watched the 1902 Edison version, and it was ok for its era. I like articles with collective coverage of related things which are verifiable related to something notable, rather than a slew of separate stubs of dubious notability. Edison (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

As there are always those "unknown" films that get discovered and reviewed in retrospect, and in consideration of this being a real possibility because of the notables involved, I think a redirect to what I added to the primary article will do us fine. If it ever does receive attention, it would be far easier to rollback and source than create again from nothing. Thanks and regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Blooded (film)

We're all being played here. It's increasingly obvious that the person who created this and uploaded the files, created the article about the company making it, etc., is an employee of Ptarmigan engaged in viral marketing; and that the film itself is a massive hoax in the Blair Witch tradition. We are being exploited by a hireling in order to pimp for a fake "documentary" about a fake incident involving fake extremists. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel "played", but no matter who writes an article, and his reasons for doing so or the hype he uses in the article, if the film, no matter its content, is released when the sources state it will be and recieves critical commentary, it may merit inclusion under WP:NF. As someone NOT involved in this UK production, I have myself begun some cleanup to the article. If the film is not released and does not receive independent critical commentary, the article will not be back. Kinda simple. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The Girl With No Number

Hi Michael, Thanks for helping me in editing this article. Until now I can't find any supporting articles as reference but we can use the IMDB. I'm looking forward for the improvement. Have a great day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahikowriter (talk • contribs) 08:52, March 14, 2011

IMDB is a useful tool for research, but is determined as unsuitable for referencing articles. But as the film is due out soon, we can expect sources to appear. Just takes patience. And you can count on my assistance. And please remember to sign you notes with 4 tildes (~~~~) and put new messages at the bottom of talk pages.Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ray Donn

A great improvement, thanks. Not sure if notability is established, but your edits move the article in the right direction. You might want to look at at Valleyman's other article (Don Smoothey) and do a similar rewrite (or, better yet, work with Valleyman to get him to re-write). Blueboar (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you gentlemen for your assistance and professional advice, I welcome any further help in making both articles WP friendly...hope I've posted this in the correct place! valleyman1970 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valleyman1970 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sir, I have inadvertently removed book referance "Keith Skues (2005). That's Entertainment : 100 Years of Chelsea Lodge No. 3098: The Centenary 1905-2005. Lamb's Meadow Publications. ISBN 0907398049" from Ray Donn, please advise code to replace. many thanks. valleyman1970 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valleyman1970 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the error. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks Michael, appreciate it. valleyman1970 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valleyman1970 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Coordinator notification

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Coordinators#Taking the long view.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AFD

please, do try and go through those news you found on google. see for yourself that they are absolutely useless for an article. of 100 i revised, none of those gave any information on the subject.--camr ^nag 14:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Godzilla (2012 film project)#Changing to redirect

I see you were involved in discussion on a previous AfD. Anything you'd like to add? --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

New Pages and New Users

I've recently been doing some thinking (and a great deal of consultation with Philippe and James at the WMF's community department) on how to keep new users around and participating, particularly in light of Sue's March update. One of the things we'd like to test is whether the reception they get when they make their first article is key. In a lot of cases, people don't stay around; their article is deleted and that's that. By the time any contact is made, in other words, it's often too late.

What we're thinking of doing is running a project to gather data on if this occurs, how often it occurs, and so on, and in the mean time try to save as many pages (and new contributors) as possible. Basically, involved users would go through the deletion logs and through Special:NewPages looking for new articles which are at risk of being deleted, but could have something made of them - in other words, non-notable pages that are potentially notable, or spammy pages that could be rewritten in more neutral language. This would be entirely based on the judgment of the user reviewing pages - no finnicky CSD standards. These pages would be incubated instead of deleted, and the creator contacted and shepherded through how to turn the article into something useful. If they respond and it goes well, we have a decent article and maybe a new long-term editor. If they don't respond, the draft can be deleted after a certain period of time.

I know this isn't necessarily your standard fare, but with your incubation work I thought it might be up your alley. If you're interested, read Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/New pages, sign up and get involved; questions can be dropped on the talkpage or directed at me. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Blooded (film)

The original article was certainly not worthy of Wikipedia, but I'd like you to look at the version now in Incubation. With its debut on the March 18, and with the additional critical commentary that became available in numerous reliable sources, I have addressed the style, tone, content, and sourcing, and believe it is now encyclopedic, properly neutral, and meets the criteria of WP:NF. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I've done an assessment on the talkpage. There are a couple of minor matters that should be dealt with before unleashing it on the public. Give me a ping when they've been attended to and I'll shove it into mainspace. SilkTork *^YES! 23:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Your valuable insights have been acted upon.[22] Please look in again, thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I did a bit more work on the article and have now moved it into mainspace. SilkTork *^YES! 12:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

NICE work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I am both pleased and honored to present you with the Silk Purse Award in appreciation for your improvements to the Blooded (film) article, helping to change what was seen as a sow's ear into a terrific silk purse. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I really like that! Thanks! SilkTork *^YES! 11:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Construing "significant"

I seem to recall you wrestling with similar issues of construction to that at issue here, as to the meaning of the word "significant", though I can't recall what your view was. Feel free to watch the discussion and/or pipe up .... or neither, as you see fit. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin Miller (Czech actor)

Hi. I salvaged this one from deletion earlier. I wondered if you could add a proper fully filmography in a table and I'll conominate it as a joint DYK?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Not good at tables, though this one will give me much practice. So far I have compiled User:MichaelQSchmidt/MartinMiller(filmography) Borrow it now, if you'd like. A proper table will come in due course. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. Its actually very easy, each film has 3 columns the top one you add film name, the second one role and 3rd is for notes. If you study the parameters of what I've done so far you'll get the gist of it. However many films for one year you enter the number at the top of each section in the rowspan, you see here? Cheers. Once its done I'll co nominate it for DYK.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

When I need to, I look to see how it was done by others. I see how you created your table... but in considering the depth of this man's career in both film AND TV, I will emulate what was done over at Tom Hanks#Filmography for film and Tom Hanks#Television for TV. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Films done... now for television. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Television done. Who decided tables were easier?? Whew. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

And now that that tables are in the article, I've had my user sandbox deleted. Again, whew. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice job! Yeah I know what you mean a LOT of cutting and pasting required. There should be a set table somewhere for it I think... Will nominate for DYK later.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It was good exercize, and I learned some things. A win-win. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Nommed, thanks for finding deathplace and his future film.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect Berlin im Aufbau needs another sentence or two to be DYK worthy, Can you find some additional info in google books? Try beyond page 5. I'll co-nominate then. I also started A Berlin Romance, the rest are sub stubs but could easily be expanded in the same way i'll probably tackle a few more but hopefully the German cinema group will endorse them...♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Will nom later, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you see if you can find some info about Piantadino, currently at AFD. It was a notable comic strip character. Can you find some info about it and add it and more about the film if possible? I think the article can cover both the film and comic in one.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Machan (film)

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Uberto Pasolini

Materialscientist (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Superman (film project)

This is just a notice that Superman (film project) is being proposed for deletion. The discussion can be found here.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Monsters University

As one of the more active contributors on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superman (film_project) discussion, I thought I'd alert you to this "future film" article, and wondered whether you had anything to add at Talk:Monsters University#Changed to redirect as fails WP:NFF... --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:NFF

Hi Michael - thanks for contributing to the discussions - I invited your comments at Talk:Monsters University because I thought that you would bring forth a challenging argument and I note your comments and agree that there could be more clarity at WP:NFF. I mostly support your proposals for change - I think I would like to see consensus prior to a split, but why not add to the debate I'm hoping to instigate at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films) to see if we can bring about a change. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I just did so (lots of typing).[23] The clarification that a production of an "as-yet-unmade film" might itself conceivably be seen as notable enough for discussion was actually part of WP:NF some time back. The guideline was the subject of much heated edit warring, during which the clarification then included was removed. See Wikipedia talk:Notability (films)#Brief history. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Your Contribution to Will Bowes - Canadian Actors/Filmmakers

Hi Michael, I noticed you did a great job in supporting and editing the page for Will Bowes. The reason that article was nominated for deletion was it was brought up in a discussion for the deletion of the article for Justin Friesen. I was wondering if you had the time or interest you could help support a similar case. Thanks. Yohowithrum (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Deep Freeze (film)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

OK

I will chip in either tomorrow or after tomorrow but I do wonder if creating this essay will this make WP:Film project less useful. And also now that I thought of that essay you might want to join that essay's talk page as well. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Heck, parts of it might even be incorporated into WP:Film project... but as the use of "(film project)" is getting so much grief, I think it important to specifically address those instances where NFF exceptions may apply and why and how. It must be underscored that NFF is not an ironclad absolute, and that specifically per policy WP:FUTURE and per the guidelines WP:GNG, WP:EVENT, and WP:SPLIT there ARE times when independent articles on the events of pre-filming may be allowed. I stressed this in the section User:MichaelQSchmidt/Future Films#NFF exceptions. I do think that much of what we both put together should become part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Future films... a sub-project of Wikipedia:WikiProject Film that already exists to address future films but does get much input.[24] Use of the disambig "film project" then simply needs an explanation as to why and when it is to be used. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There's only a few user who's got griefs on these "film projects" and I do suggest we talk about it with them too on how we can make them feel better about it too. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM March 2011 Newsletter

The March 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film 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) 21:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Input?

Sorry it took so long but I finally read your essay. It is very good. The only thing that sticks out to me is "the general practice is to add such discussion when possible to an existing and related article. But sometimes a merge target does not exist, or if one does, the sourced discussion would overburden the recipient". This makes it seem as the new article of a future event can not be created until it overburdens the parent article. However WP:GNG makes no such stipulations, an article is notable on its own right so long as it is "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Also Per WP:Merge, an article is not in need to be merged into an existing article unless it is "very short" or if it needs to be covered in a broader context to be understandable. Therefore we don't need to wait until it overburdens the article as long as the topic is not "very short" and most films not need to be explained in a broader context such as Superman in film to be understandable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll make a clarification and then ask you to look in again. I have been the last few days extremely busy with RL work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

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

DYK for Martin Miller (Czech actor)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Full Cycle A World Odyssey

Michael, I am requesting your assistance with my latest article about Full Cycle: A World Odyssey, the Endless Summer on mountain bikes. Unfortunately, I did not name it correctly. User:Pattymooney/Enter your new article name here How can we change the name? And what do you think we should change it to? The full title, or simply World Odyssey? Also, do you want to place it at your User site, as you were kind enough to do with The Great Mountain Biking Video? Hope all is well on your end of the world. Just back from a 10-hour "run 'n gun" video production and I think I'm going to collapse in front of the TV now! TigerCherry 02:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Just got home. At the top of an article's page is the "move" tab... so I used it to "move" the draft to User:Pattymooney/Full Cycle: A World Odyssey per the title listing at Rotten Tomatoes.[25][26] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Michael, that was just driving me crazy! ha ha TigerCherry 19:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pattymooney (talk • contribs)

I have polished it up and now believe it is ready for public consumption. What say you? There may be a couple of redundant references.... How do I fix that? TigerCherry 23:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pattymooney (talk • contribs)

Hello Michael, I don't want to violate any COI in regards to this article. I would appreciate if you would look it over and make any necessary edits, then decide if you think it is appropriate for main space. Patty Mooney (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll be happy to look in. I'll keeo you posted. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Future films

Reply archived now, User_talk:Chzz/Archive_30#Input_please. - sorry; my talk page is busy.  Chzz  ►  00:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Busy is good. Hope you have time to comment in the discussion I have opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Future films#Proposed ammendment to section on Process#Notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Berlin im Aufbau

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the award!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll look at it a bit later.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Good job! Should make it clearer! Happy editing!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

One can only hope.  ;) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I will try to find more on them tomorrow,♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the information and requests for my input. I appreciate the thought and will give you a fuller response once I have some time to formulate one. In general I think you are on the right track. It's just hard to formulate "rules" (even though the page says they're rough guidelines people try to apply them like inflexible rules) that apply to both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir: The FIlm and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superman (film project). Eluchil404 (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

AFD closing

The AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superman (film project) has been running for about 12 days now. Any idea why it hasn't been closed when most of the others listed on the same have been closed? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No idea. One could wonder over why it has been allowed to remain open despite the consensus... Hmmm... We have so far 10 policy and guideline supported keeps as an reasonable exception to a narrow and sometimes questioned, mis-used, or mis-constued subsection of WP:NF. And including the nominator, we have 5 editors that use that same narrow and oft-debated guideline subsection as a reason to either deconstruct the article to then make less reader-helpful content mergable or to delete it entirely. The strength of the "keeps" is that governing policy and guideline allow its existance as a seperate article. The weakness of the deletes is their treating NFF as if it were policy. I do agree, in order to improve the encyclopdia and increase a reader's understanding of the topic, this one should have closed already as a keep... as one of those common sense and allowable (though rare) exceptions to NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Update

I haven't been on here for awhile so here is an update of what I've been doing. I've been a moderator on two internet forums. I've been selling stuff on Ebay. I've been trying to get a job. I worked as a volunteer for my high school's library. I have also been writing movie reviews for Autism Society of America local chapter at [27]. I have one review that still needs to be posted and I will also be writing more reviews for them. I only get $10 a month, but those reviews and my volunteer work can be put on my resume. I'm also turning 18 on May 26 and I will be in high school till I'm 19. Joe Chill (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Happy to know you're still around. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Uuugh.

This is one of the main reasons why I wasn't really pleased with the creation of the film project article. This new user's self confidence of working with Wikipedia is broken and that's not something I don't like seeing. I was trying to fix it this time but I don't think I can due to the film project thing. But of course I am not blaming anybody, nobody knew of this sandbox. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Not your fault. That he feels his own should take precedent would be reason for him to either merge his content (if suitable) to the existing article, or edit the existing one to include relevent and sourced information. While I can appreciate that he created the duplicate in good faith, he must remember that no editor "owns" their work, and as a community of editors in an encyclopdia anyone can edit, we find ways to work together. The redirect of the duplicate article to the one that survived a discussion through consensus was the right move. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I know it's not my fault and that he has a WP:OWN problem but I hate it when we lose a new Wikipedian because of failed attempts. At least he was trying to be a good editor. Oh well though. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Did not mean to imply that you thought it might have been, only intended to commiserate. Quite likely the editor will simply step back for a while and return. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

PP

You asked my opinion recently, so I'm seeking a return of the favour,

There's a liaison project between Wikipedia and some universities (currently, USA, and re 'public policy' - it's a trial) - the students write an article as part of their uni course.

Two specific courses have only a few weeks left, and I'm trying to help them; what they need is, comments and feedback on their two articles - and some interaction with the Wikipedia community. Hence, getting random folks involved might really help!

The article Education policy in Brazil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was started by Elizabetsyatbu (talk · contribs),

The article California Proposition 19 (2010) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is, re. lorink (talk · contribs) abond112 (talk · contribs) Dross33 (talk · contribs)

If you could provide any comments, feedback, suggestions, or other interaction - to help with this - that'd be superb.

I hope you don't mind my asking. Any little comments to those users, and/or on the article talk pages, would be brilliant; thanks so much in anticipation.  Chzz  ►  06:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll be happy to look in when I return home from work tomorrow. That'd be in about 14 hours. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

re: Betrayal (1929 film)

Yes, that looks pretty decent - nice work! Lugnuts (talk) 09:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

It was fun. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

RE: It's live... and it may be more helpful than not

What are you talking about? --Boycool (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

About how sometimes there is too much information to put into something else,[28] and how the essay Wikipedia:Future Films seeks to address this issue. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

invitation

I am inviting you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters becuase we need another inclusionist in the project. I feel like I am the only one that is one and (with respect to them because I love working with them) that they are in too much of a urge to merge some individual character articles in lists some time. Here's an example. I invite you to join if you feel like sometimes. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 13:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Golden oldies

Awesome. i'll look tomorrow. Magic (upcoming film)is up for AFD. It would seem notable with Robert Davi but I can find very little on it to actually prove it was even released...♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find. At the minimum, and as its development DOES have coverage, the short article can be redirected temporarily to the Davi article. No need to delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 180 Degrees South: Conquerors of the Useless

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Betrayal (1929 film)

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for The New Klondike

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Povilas Budrys

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Keltz

Greetings MQS. I write regarding the above actor. An article was created about him yesterday afternoon. The article was one sentence long and devoid of sourcing. Somebody immediately speedy-nom'd it as an A7. I Googled him and there appears to be very substantial coverage of this actor now (and I added two reliable sources to support that to the article). Regardless, after I declined the Speedy and added some sourcing, the article was re-speedy-nom'd as a G4 (recreation of article that was deleted) and subsequently deleted. Regardless, I write to inquire about your opinion on this, seeing as in early 2010 you agreed that a previous article about this actor should be deleted. Try a Google search on him and see if you agree with me that he now deserves an article because of the decent amount of coverage that now exists (as opposed to what little coverage likely existed in early 2010) (I suspect this was a very lazy G4 deletion). Thoughts? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

User:RHaworth may have been a bit too quick, and it may have simply been a procedural error in which missed the denied speedy or improvements. Write him, just as you wrote me. Explain that while the article was deleted back in February 2010 for then lacking sourcable notability, the deletion consensus seemed to be that it be done without prejudice, and that the individual might be suitable topic after time had passd and the actor received more coverage. Share with him your new sources, and point out that the passage of 14 months since the original deletion has indeed brought the coverage that was initially lacking. Ask for him to reverse himself, and he probably will. In the meantime, continue building a decent and well sourced stub in a userspace and be ready to overwrite the returned article.. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

We disagree about a few things when it comes to notability, MQS, but you are a very wise individual. Cheers. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the note you left on my talk page about this draft, I'm sorry but it will be Monday at the earliest before I have time to even look at it so you may wish to ask other editors in the meantime. The Wikipedia:Requests for feedback page might be useful in this regard, but I don't know much about how it works or how active it is. Thryduulf (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. I just thought it prudent to get input from those who had previous had an opinion about its speedy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that looks like a Wikipedia article. If it had been put together and referenced in that form in the first place nobody would have even considered any type of deletion, let alone a speedy or prod. Seems clearly ready to go live and let improvements flow naturally from people who wish to improve it. Awesome work, as always. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a bit more expansion? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd just as soon leave that up to you. I think it's a fine article as-is -- certainly one that I doubt would be questioned as a valid inclusion. And, frankly, I think if you have something that is valid for inclusion it should be included, whether it could be expanded before posting it or not. Put with more frankness, I think I let myself get a bit riled over this because as far as I'm concerned one particularly nifty thing about Wikipedia has always been that you can, in theory, post a 1-2 sentence article about a notable topic and then let people who actually give a damn about said topic improve the article. I have created only one article on Wikipedia, and it was (at the time) an article about a probably non-notable subject and one which was formatted horribly (it actually still is, come to think of it), but it's now a pretty not-bad article. I didn't create the Jonathan Keltz article and have no idea who Jonathan Keltz is; my thinking behind trying to prevent its deletion was that I was confident that there are likely a number of people out there who would be interested in improving it. So...erm...that was a lot of words, all to the effect of: I think you should just post it :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well... I have been a bit busy of late doing what I can to change various film redlinks for director Lewis Milestone to blue... and seeing how bitey certain editors are toward short articles, I have done what I could to begin them as "starts" and not "stubs". This in mind, I'll probably do just a little bit more before turning Keltz loose... but only a little. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

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

WP:FILM April 2011 Newsletter

The April 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film 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) 22:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

About a CSD discussion in an AFD

I disagree with your last point in the Wolfe Chase AFD. As you can clearly see in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wolfe_Chase there was no discussion. It was a clear deletion. There were no opposing arguments, no consensus. It was overwhelmingly notorious that the article did not established notability. Criteria A7 of the CSD is based exactly on that last point, the lack of establishment of notability. As I said in the AFD, I think it meets A7 but I did not tag it because it is not explicitly marked in the criteria. But what did we got with the AFD? A seven days delay on a delete that could have been "speedied" by a clear CSD. AFDs is a process to reach consensus about a controversial delete. There was no controversy over this delete. The spirit of the CSD is to accelerate exactly this kind of deletions. I'm sorry, but I think Wikipedia should move towards a less bureaucratic approach. As you can see from the mentioned AFD, this was an unnecessary process. --Legion fi (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to disagree, but CSD A7 is a lower standard than notability, and any AFD can be closed well before 7 days has passed per WP:SNOW, and an article then be either kept or deleted based upon the SNOW consensus. One should not simply declare a film non-notable and speedy it, as we have many ways by which films might meet inclusion criteria. SNOW implies a consensus. An A7 does not. The "bureaucratic process of an AFD" is set up specifically to avoid hasty mis-application of CDS criteria. Just I wrote in my own comment at the AFD, even a film thought by some to be non-notable might indeed be found notable by others through their own later searches. And please, three editors comenting in one AFd is not exactly overwhelming, so admin Ron Ritzman did well to let the AFD run its course. I respectfuly remind you that Wikipedia is a work in progress and the better good is achieved by giving some articles a proper chance to be developed if possible. Too many times something declared "non-notable by others actuallu proved improvable and notable enough to fix and keep. We should never be in hurry to delete simply because something may need more work, even if we ourseves might not wish to do the work. And I'm happy that Wolfe Chase did not make, as this means the system works. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a complicated matter. But, as you clearly said, CSD are not about consensus. And, as you also mentioned, per WP:SNOW an article should not be put through and AFD if it does not have "a chance in hell" of surviving it. As was the case with the Wolfe Chase article. I think that we agree in the basics of what I'm saying (CSD being not for consensus, and the application of WP:SNOW) but we differ in the approach. I didn't said that it was an overwhelming consensus. I said that there was no consensus because it was overwhelmingly notorious that the subject of the article wasn't notable. There weren't arguments in pro. That is no consensus. Consensus is the mediation of two different arguments. So we had two points about the Wolfe Chase article: it didn't need consensus about the lack of notability of the subject, and it didn't stand a chance of surviving an AFD. For me, that clearly should have been managed as a SD. For you, it should have been put trough and AFD in order to give it more time to establish its notability. As you see, we have the same arguments, just different approaches to resolve it. To conclude, let me kindly remind you that SD is also a process that may be contested via a hang on tag, and that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Thank you. --Legion fi (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Complicated yes... but one needs to remember that SNOW is an essay that has not met a consensus to be elevated to guideline or policy. And to be clear... what I wrote is that an AFD might be closed early per invoking SNOW, and an article kept of deleted accordingly. I never said "an article should not be put through and AFD if it does not have 'a chance in hell' of surviving it." Those are your words and incorporate quotes from the essay.

Here's my concern... In the userspace link I offered above were many articles that nominators quite probably and in good faith thought did not have "a chance in hell" of being proven notable, but were proven so none-the-less... and I found them through the processes of AFD, and not from patrolling CSD taggings. A7 having a lessor burden than does WP:N is why such cases are brought to AFD for discussion. That the Wolfe Chase was not salvable, and that it did not have proponants, simply means that that one did not. But conceivably, it "might have"... which is why an AFD allowing other editors to research for themselves and participate in the deletion discussion was the proper next step. An early close under the essay SNOW would quite likely not have been disputed, but keeping the AFD open caused no harm nor disruption, and gave the article a fair chance. Promoting the essay WP:SNOW to a CSD criteria would likely cause more unneccessay AFD discussions and dissention than not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The Widow

Nice job. Would appear to be 1955 release in Italy and 1957 release in US. Imdb's error.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent work, yes I often have the same problem, I think if you can't find one then you should be free from it.. Sorry I haven't had much time to try to expand your films further, I've been tied creating important articles related to current world affairs, like bin Laden's compound itself, his courier and the founders of egytian islamic groups which later merged into al Qaeda and are closely associated with the imminent successor to bin Laden, in keeping with my evil quest, of course..♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Lucky Partners

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Afd deletion

Con Game article was an entirely unsourced non-encyclopaedic review of the video. It has no indications of notability (straight to video!), no references, is a pov assessment, and contains an unreferenced allegation that one actor died of heroin (negative unsourced BLP) and describes another actor as "Jean-Claude Van Damme imitator" (negative unsourced BLP). It should never have gone to AfD. If you really insist, I'll restore, minus the negative unsourced BLP, and obviously copy what I've put here into the AfD. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, please restore... for however briefly it might last before the AFD may get it deleted. I wish to let you know that a film article being unsourced or unencyclopdic is more a reason to fix something if possible, rather than delete it without discussion. I have found many such that were salvable. By deleting it, you removed the opportunity for others to even try. And please, report at the AFD that your personally feeling it was unsalvable was the reason you deleted it out of process. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for No Minor Vices

The DYK project (nominate) 18:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Con Games

I'm not bothered about the reliability of the review source, the film doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (films) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Then we shall simply agree to disagree in interpretation of WP:NF and its instruction "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Neither WP:NF or WP:GNG require dozens of sources, only that the coverage be significant, reliable, secondary, and independent of the subject, to allow a presumption to notability. That presumption toward notability has not been rebutted, only denied... and denial is not the same as actually proving the presumption to be false or incorrect. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for The Widow (film)

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

A difficult close

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Con Games (movie) was no doubt a difficult close. For myself, the article hovers slightly over the pointed edge of being just notable enough for Wikipedia, while for some others it does not quite make the cut. A no consensus was perhaps the best call, and I expect that after clarification of guideline elsewhere, it might return to AFD in a few months. At the very least, and in the interim, our having turned a very sorry stub into a somewhat better sourced and encyclopedic article serves the projects and its readers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Following the letter of the guidelines this was a probable delete. Following the spirit of the guidelines, the ethos of Wikipedia, and the fact of the article itself, this was a probable keep. Nothing definite either way - but more to be gained from keeping than deleting, except as a precedent for keeping future doubtful articles on non-notable films, so a non-consensus is the better outcome. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 18:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

My Favorite Rabbit Inclusionist

Just read your talk page (first time in a while), about rabid inclusionism, I more likened you to a rabbit inclusionist...but that's just me. Question for you...Is Fox 2000 the same as 20th Century Fox? See the note at the end of the good doctor and my's latest project. Good night, and be well. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Michael, Perhaps I should wikilink the redirect, so that if it gets spun off into a new article it is linked to the correct location. Cheers, --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

A very good idea. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You might find this interesting

New tool, courtesy of SnottyWong, it's a work-in-progress and currently butt-ugly, but interesting nevertheless. pablo 08:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

HOLY CRAP. His tool shows me to be a deletionist ! ! ! My own records goes back over a year and shows even more delete votes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Ha! I can't argue that butt-ugly is the right term to use to describe it. Been trying to recruit Jack to help out with that, since I'm terrible at making things look nice, but he's been ignoring me. Anyway, here's a somewhat easier link to use: http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/afdstats.html MQS, if you look at your last 250 AfD's, it shows your voting habits are rather centrist, and quite accurate. It's not often that an AfD closes differently from the way you voted. Most of your votes are in the "green" area. Compare this, for example, to someone like Dream Focus, and you'll begin to see why this tool is useful. —SW— ^prattle 04:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a way to gather stats on a user, sure. But tells us what we already pretty much know. By comparison to Dream Focus' 96% keep,[29] we have Bali Ultimate (no offense to him), whose stats seem to mirror Dream's but in the opposite direction with a 96% deletes.[30] So we have a neccessary yin and yang and both are required for a balanced universe. But statistics do little to actually determine either the positive or negative effects of any particular user's edits. A better tool I suppose is one that tells us about a user's contributions in building the encyclopdia. I have 44 articles created, Dream has 38 and you have 31 compared to Bali's 9 But even such contribution tools fail to show my 49 articles created (as 5 of the 49 were co-created), my 360 articles pulled back from the brink of deletion through a litle effort, my 58 DYKs, my 38 barnstars, my 7 articles returned from incubation to serve the project, or the essays I've completed to guide others,. But still, it is nice to be seen as both centrist and accurate, even by someone who often disagees with me. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Why mention me again? We had this discussion before. It shows that most of the things I say "Keep" end, end up as being kept? Your tool also shows plenty of times where you tried to delete something that ends up being kept. [31] Why not add in an automatic counter to keep track of things, if you are trying to keep score for some reason. By only getting the last 250 though, instead of a total view from the start, you results just change over time. Dream Focus 05:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Sweat it not. Statistics are only tools, and with respect to Snotty Wong for his work, tools can build and tools can tear down... all depending on who is wielding them. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The tool is purposely limited to 250 pages to prevent it from using too many server resources. Remember, each time you search it is actually downloading the text of all 250 of those AfD's and then searching through them. It has to download the text from the wiki servers because the toolserver servers don't store article text. I could change the limit to be higher than 250, but I think that would be irresponsible at this time. Note that I have recently added a feature which allows you to start at an earlier date, so if you really wanted to, you could make multiple queries to go further back in time. —SW— ^talk 14:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Summary with %age red / green (out of red+green) and/or red / green / yellow out of all might be interesting. ^Bongo_matic 15:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. —SW— ^soliloquize 14:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Think it might also be interesting to have a similar tool which analyzes admins' AfD closing statistics, but that's a larger project for another day. —SW— ^squeal 15:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Wonci Lui

Michael, I ran into something interesting. Most of the unreferenced BLPs I ran into today were either boring (athletes) or non-notable (poets, unfortunately), but I got lucky with this one, for a Chinese-American actress from the 1950s. I'm sure you can do something great with it. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 04:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Pretty sure notability hasn't yet been demonstrated or claimed. I've done a pretty through books search and there is only one reference that isn't a cast listing, and that reference doesn't appear to provide any in-depth coverage at all. Where is the "spouse" claim referenced? ^Bongo_matic 06:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't you dare delete her, Bongo! Drmies (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Will be digging through theater reviews, as she has done more stage work than film.[32]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, what a shame. It seemed promising, DYK material maybe, but there's really nothing there, at least not online. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Melba (film)

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Do Paise Ki Dhoop,Char Aane Ki Barish

Please have a look at this AfD, Michael. There's a few associated topics that may be of interest to you as well, articles by the same editor. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at ConcernedVancouverite's talk page.
Message added 15:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at Manorathan's talk page.
Message added 16:43, 19 May 2011 (IST). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Numb to Life

Yeah, go ahead and redirect. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying before the AfD closed; I was out of town. I'm usually inclined to support redirection if a reasonable target is identified, and I think you found a very good target in this case. Thanks for the note. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks right back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Fine Manners

The DYK project (nominate) 01:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Typo

Hi - I've moved User"MichaelQSchmidt/Wives Never Know to User:MichaelQSchmidt/Wives Never Know - I presume this was a typo. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a typo. Good catch and thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Freaky Chakra (film)

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The Decoy (1916 film)

Sorry, what are you working on at the moment? Somebody keeps adding deletion tags/notability tags to The Decoy (1916 film) when it is clearly notable. Obviously most silent movies of the 1910s have low coverage because there were so many reeled off! Can you put it on your watchlist and stop tags being added to it, it's fine?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been spending some time with a few early silents, filling in the redlinks for the Lewis Milestone article. While there are editors that somehow and unrealistically expect that a 95-year-old film somehow MUST have the same coverage as recent major blockbusters in order to be notable, they forget WP:NTEMP in that such films where covered by media of their time, even if such coverage is no longer available, and their being part of the history of American film pretty much assures notability. For example, The Decoy (1916 film) was one of the early films from Universal Studios founder Carl Laemmle's Independent Moving Pictures Co. of America and Universal Film Manufacturing Company... entities created by Laemmle to break the Edison hold on the early film industry. Being part of the enduring historical record is enough. We do not toss verifiable history simply because it no longer captures headline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly...♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Kill Kill Faster Faster

Michael, this may be of interest to you: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film – Kill Kill Faster Faster. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Seems to have gotten far more attention in Europe than here, and I'm still searching for more reviews, but so far it has gone from the 36 word stub to which you pointed me, to a decent little 580+ word start Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

From Dust DYK

Before I hunt down a DYK nomination to review, do you have any other suggestions relating to the From Dust hook? Thanks, Meph^talk 04:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If you hurry, you can review my own article hook right above yours. I am not familiar enough with video games to suggest a better hook, but nice job on the expansion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Checked it: [33]. I'm not sure if I was supposed to fix the inline citation. I've not done a DYK for a year, and I only did the one anyway. Let me know if I made a mistake. Meph^talk 04:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

(sheepish grin) You did fine. I should have checked the count. No matter, It will not be diffucult to expand it. I'll check back when you can turn the "" to a "" :)

err... which inline cite? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

My understanding was that the corresponding line for the hook had to have an immediate citation, rather than one at the end of the paragraph: The hook fact must have an inline citation right after it since the fact is an extraordinary claim; citing the hook fact at the end of the paragraph is not acceptable. Check: [34]. Best, Meph^talk 05:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. And check back on the article in about ten minutes.... its already at 1197. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

A quick rewrite: that Vivienne Osborne was offered a role in Douglas Fairbanks's last silent film, The Iron Mask, following her earlier role in the Flo Zeigfeld musical The Three Musketeers? Meph^talk 07:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget to update the hook at [35]. Meph^talk 08:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Done! Meph^talk 08:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Big thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

John Dies at the End (film)

I almost forgot about this project because I was so busy on other stuff in Wikipedia. It's probably getting time for this to the real thing, ain't it. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It does need cleanup and some re-writing, naturally. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

And toward that end, perhaps we might invite User:TriiipleThreat to asist? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I requested him and Erik. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I began a restructure and better use of sources, but have not yet begun expansion through the new sources. The work done by you and Erik make it look far better. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Help required for the page, Tamil Kshatriya

Hi, I suspect a war of races going on over this page. Please check its talk page. I am afraid, there is even a number of admins involved in this, one of whom gave me a warning for the content that I added with valid reference. Please have a look into that. Thanks. Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 17:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who extrapolates that because all bees are insects, than all insects must therefore be bees is engaging in original research. We do not take one fact and then use circular logic to surmise another. The second fact itself being supported in sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The page was requiring citations for the content that I added and I added the same. It can be countered with a reference that is equally valid, which is what I was asking them to do, than deleting it. And there was no extrapolation there. The source that I added supported the whole content. What irks me is the fact that the editor who reverted my edits hadn't even read the content when my content was removed, which you can see in the course of our discussion. Thanks for checking on this. Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 19:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The guys themselves are fighting now. Isn't it a total waste of energy, personal opinions and wikipedia, I mean.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 19:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring is always a waste and usually ends up with someone getting blocked. A compromise might be a sentence that says "Scholars are not all in agreement. While source 'A' states that X=ABC [cite], source 'B' state that X=DEF [cite]". The question should be neutrally taken to WikiProject India, WikiProject Hinduism, and/or WikiProject Tamil civilization for the issue to be discussed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

^ is what I have been suggesting in their talk page. Seems like Sitush reverted my edits without even knowing why.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 20:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No. I reverted because you ignored consensus. End of. What Michael is saying above is in fact exactly what had been said on the talk page long before you arrived, Manorathan. By me. My apologies for intervening in this discussion but I am fed up of being accused of things that are completely untrue. - Sitush (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Inks user is still behind me. He insists on my keeping the sockpuppetry notice in my talk page even after the notice period. and @^, there was no consensus, whatsoever.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 04:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

He is in error to quote an essay. A closed case that has been acted upon and that no longer holds sanctions is history. His insistence seem indicative of a greater issue. He needs to drop the stick and walk away. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Can I report him anywhere? He indulged in edit warring in my talk page and discussion page today morn.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 10:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

And Sitush's demand for pages not related to my added content from a the book that I referenced and his threatening to remove the reference in the event of my failure to provide him those pages, does it comply with wiki policies anywhere? And the content he has newly added are factually wrong, totally, given that Tamil and Prakrit belong to two different language families. Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 10:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You may consider taking concerns to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts as a next step toward dispute resolution if talk page discussions have failed. Following that one then considers Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I was already taken to AN/I and was blocked for 6 hours yesterday. You might have seen the proceedings just above the proceedings initiated by Inks (I still wonder why he wasn't even warned for edit warring over my talk and user page and initiated an unessential AN/I on me). And now, my talk page is in close watch by 4 admins. If you have time, look up the Nairs page. The two warring editors in Tamil Kshatriya page seem to have had a tough time in that page as well. The initial contributors for that page seem to have given up in frustration after quoting 100 references, all of which were rejected by sitush and cartick. And cartick seems to be anxious about off-wiki community action against him for his deeds, as seen from his comments about campaigns outside wiki. The two have now taken over the page. Campaigns outside wiki are allowed, right? I am quite tempted to send his views to the media, with the subject, 'casteism backfires in the 21st century'.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 08:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw the proceedings. Glad you are off block, and I hope you stay off. To respond to your temptation... campaigns outside wiki cannot be prevented, but to openly bring attention to the article might be seen as canvassing, intended or not. So don't. Now certainly if outside sources take interest on their own, fine... but please do not let your frustration lead you into any rash actions... and know that your comments on my page are being read by others as well. I encourage you to read WP:WIP, WP:IMPERFECT, and WP:DEADLINE and have patience. And while you may feel two editors have taken ownership of that page, if time shows this to be the case, it will be dealt with... as no one owns anything they write here. I know it might grate a bit, but maybe its time to step away for a while... specially as there is so much other fine work you can do that will not create any feeling of frustration. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I would do as advised and wait for them to move on.Freewheeler, ^MANORATHAN 10:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

ANI

FYI --CarTick (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)