User talk:MichaelQSchmidt

Ongoing Running Waters discussion

Self-published and questionable sources about themselves

An important lesson from Wikipedia... and I quote:

Self-published and questionable sources may only be used as sources about themselves, and only if:

1. the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject being discussed;
2. it is not contentious;
3. it is not unduly self-serving;
4. it does not involve claims about third parties;
5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
7. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Emphasis mine. Tiger by the tail? Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

		The WikiProject Films Award
		In recognition of your awesome Movie-Star qualities and All-Star contributions, I ChildofMidnight (talk), hereby award MichaelQSchmidt the WikiProject Films Award for your valued contibutions to WikiProject Films. Great job! 05:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Kriss Perras Running Waters /Deletion

I have moved this ongoing discussion to User talk:MichaelQSchmidt/Running Waters discussion as it is getting a bit unwieldy. Contributors are welcome to continue our discussions there. No slight is intended, and the link is not an archive.

Casanovva

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

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

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

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

Barnstar

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

Turtles Are Surprisingly Fast Swimmers

Hey good work finding those additional references, that articles in much better shape now, glad wecould save it, its nice to be able to keep the independent films on Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Good work on Turtles Are Surprisingly Fast Swimmers and TOMS Shoes, two great rescue jobs!

Fair play mate, did a good job with both of those. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Tiger Love AfD

Hey bro, just read your comment on the above AfD - where did you find the other translations for the film title? I remember you did the same when rescuing the Turtles Are Surprisingly Fast Swimmers article, it's a pretty useful skill :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I supose it comes from being a bit tenacious in my hunts. But this search: "Tiger Love, Film, Hong Kong", got me Hong Kong Cinemagic, Hong Kong Movie databse, HK Flix, et al... and they all listed the alternate names for further searches. It always important to remember the problems with translations... they're never exact. So, I suppose it's determination and perseverance.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Two ingredients for making great wikipedians, keep it up bud :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I take WP:AFTER very seriously. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have it sourced now, and slightly expanded. Care to reconsider your delete, and have a go at whittling down the plot section? Take a look at the various synopsis online and see what can go and what should stay? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Billa, and Billa, and Billa...

Hi. I have just been reading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billa 2, in the course of db-repost-ing another attempt to bring it back. Though I too got confused among all the different Billas, I think I can answer your question: Billa (2009 film) is a Telugu remake of the Tamil Billa (2007 film), while "Billa 2" is a proposed Tamil sequel, some way off meeting WP:NFF, to the 2007 film. Why are people so keen to rush in an article on the first rumour, I wonder? it's the same with albums. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And until it does get released and gets its own coverage, the 'rumors" can find a hapy home in the parent article. You catching up on old correspondence? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I saw Billa The Next Generation come in earlier today in while doing NPP, thought it might be a hoax, and my researches led me back that AfD and left me knowing more than I wish to know about films called "Billa". JohnCD (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that is worth a chuckle. Thank you for getting back to me... even in a round-about fashion. Beast wishes, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Message

Message, message, wherefore art thou? This is strange... Mike, I thought you left me a message here you want to talk about? Might that have something to do with Nora Samosir? --Dave1185 (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Have copied your comment and my response to your talk page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I see you're still raking in the awards

I'm REALLY glad I didn't give up on you. <SNIFF> They grow up so fast...

Any chance you can stop by and give some help to User:BQZip01/RfA4? — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for your participation in my recent Request for adminship. I don't know if you are interested in D&D or comics, but we have GA-drives going on for both. Otherwise, hey, hang out and keep helping out where you can. :) BOZ (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Dan Miller (sportscaster)

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at TomCat4680's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for your support. I thought the nominator had a pretty weak 1 sentence proposal as well. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

So how are you improving it? Looks like you put the in use tag up then took it down without doing anything...I appreciate the help. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Did not mean to be a tease. Was about to begin, and then noticed the time. 12:21 AM here. Need to get up early for a job. Will look back in tomorrow. Naturally I removed thr tag since I was not going to be actively editing for a while. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I added the newspaper article and 2 books to Jim Brandstatter. Please format the refs properly, I'm not sure how. Thanks. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Does this count as Accreditation?

http://www.ctsstudies.org/accredit.html Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea how accreditation works in the USA; I was relying on DGG's assessment. Stifle (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll put the question to him. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Accreditation for what? It's not listed here [1] so I kinda doubt any classes would be able to be transfered to another US college/university... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 13:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

But may likely be transfearable to another theologic seminary, as they are definitely a specialized school. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not educational accreditation. The state approval is permission to operate as a legal educational business in the state, the approval by the Commission of Theological Education of the Reformed Episcopal Church is apparently a theological approval, and the Oxford Educational Network is apparently a membership in an organization. --Orlady (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Understood... but they're not teaching physics or microbiology or medicine or literature or writing or geo-politics. It might seem then, that receiving an approval from the Commission of Theological Education to teach exactly what they do and how they do it, might matter. They are not in competition with Yale, Harvard, or any of the State Universities, after all. Just a thought... that it should be considered in context to what is being offered. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Aria (singer)

Revisiting this again to see what your progress/plans are? I'm leaning towards an AfD. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Working on the sandblasting now. May be enough left when I am done removing all the hype, fluff, and notability by relationship. Even if most of the stuff (to be removed) is grandeous, her record career may squeek her in. I am now back to it... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

"Notability by association" has been removed. I gave it a copyedit and major rewrite and sandblasting. It's still not strong, and if it goes to AfD, it may survive if Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians comes forward to support through based upon WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NALBUMS, WP:COMPOSERS, WP:ENTERTAINER, or WP:CREATIVE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there any evidence she ever got a recording deal? I'm not sure being on two failed very low viewership tv shows is enough. I not AfD it but if someone else does I don't think I can offer much support. :P — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll tag it for additional sources, and set a [fact] tag on the recording deal. If nothing else, it looks better since the sandblasting. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

another one! HJ Mitchell (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

and another! HJ Mitchell (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

and another, though, unfortunately, this will have to be my last, at least for this evening as it is getting on for midnight here and I have real world commitments to which to attend (damn!). HJ Mitchell (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Good evening, did you find anything of note amongst the AfD nominations on that user talk page? HJ Mitchell (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes (chuckle)... that you made a number of good faith nominations. I belive that by letting them be improved through the AfD process is probably best for now. Most of my own "keep per AfD is not for cleanup" were made before you and I began our conversations, and I believe that more editors are looking now into sourcing and notability... which is a god thing. If such are found at the various AfDs, it will best serve to acknowledge them and request that they be added to the articles. And as I am able, I will be adding such myself, and encouraging others to join in. And with respects, I will be tagging the more deserving for "rescue". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Lurker speaking: Having seen this in other cases, I have to say that I am strongly opposed to the tactic of nominating for deletion in order to "force" an article to be improved. There are many other ways to get an article improved. One is to do it yourself. Another is to draw on your network of wiki-acquaintances. Yet another is to pester people you find at various wiki-projects. I personally think that making the decision "I'll nominate it for deletion, then someone else will be forced to fix it up" is an abuse both of the process and the good-faith of all the other editors here. Of course, that's just my opinion. :) Franamax (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello "lurker" :) In this case, the noms were in good faith for "apparently" non-notable sunjects... not in an attempt to force an improvement. However, now that the deed is done, there's no sense in crying over spilt milk... or to mix in another metaphor... we have lemons, and can now make lemonade. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I should clarify that I wasn't commenting on the OP's actions (since I'm possessed of sufficient laziness to not have even looked at them :) I was meta-commenting on your own comment. You MQS are far beyond me in sufficient skill to advise individual AfD editors. HJM should read nothing into my post here beyond the general statement I made, it's not applicable to themself at all (except just the general opinion)! Franamax (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Franamax, as you will see from the links I provided here or fromc hecking my contributions, I made several nominations of these articles which returned very little on google searches and, in may cases, were a mere sentence long, citing no references. Now that someone has taken an interest in the articles, I would galdly advocate their "keep" if sufficient material can be found to improve them. Indeed, I pointed out to my friend here that there were articles other than the original one in which he was interested and that he might like to scrutinise some of them because I am not infallible, nor am I knowledgable on the subjects. As such, I nominated several for deletion, and exercised my due dilligence by notifying the auhtors and major contributors, as well as later bringing further articles to the attention of MQS. Also, while we're having this discussion, I would express my admiration for the work done by MQS, both on these articles and in a broader context! HJ Mitchell (talk) 09:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Further to that, Franamax is quite welcome to kill time by helping to improve these articles, it might prove more rewarding, thoguh possibly less amusing, than lurking on talk pages.

And to Mr Schmidt, why on earth aren't you an administrator? If you find yourself running in future, drop me a line and I'll fight for you! HJ Mitchell (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Now now :) Franamax is well-occupied killing lots of time on Wikipedia, but he does a bit of lurking on the side. :) He doesn't have any great expertise in the areas you mention, so he prefers to egg on those like MQS who excel in those areas. Franamax also took some pains above to explain that he was not commenting on your own actions, but was responding to MQS's comments - and did that eight hours before your last posts here. Franamax has also discussed that admin issue with MQS in the past, in a definitely positive sense - but doesn't necessarily agree that having someone "fight for you" on the RFA pages is a good approach. 'Tis all good, we're doing well here! :) Franamax (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to explain

Hi, Michael. I've deleted the reference that you dropped into the TOMS Shoes article today. A PR piece in the Amherst Bee (a tiny free local weekly of ~25000 circ.) is a poor reference when sourcing an international organization. It wasn't needed either -- the already existing Time magazine and Associated Press references provide enough weight. But it's simply not a good idea to add promotional fluff to an article when other editors have already accused it of being self-promotional spam. It only adds fuel to their concerns and obscures the good references. So I reverted your edit. Just wanted to explain why. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

One more thing!

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

you might find [[2]][[3]][[4]][[5]] of some use. HJ Mitchell (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

I've mentioned you as an example

Hello. There's a debate going on at the username policy about how to treat users that initially come here with a promotional purpose and whether they should be immediately blocked - I've mentioned you as an example of one who originally came here (with your publicist, if I've understood correctly) and made promotional and somewhat frustrated edits (confused by our byzantine bureaucracy, no doubt), but then has turned out to be a great editor and user.

I thought it only fair that I mention I've used you as an example, so you can correct any inaccuracies :) henrik•talk 13:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I did just comment diff and without belaboring the details, addressed an inaccuracy that could lead to terrible misimpressions. The publicist was here to promote his clients and set up a net of puppets. And though I was one of the clients he promoted, I never ever told or instructed or directed that he use Wiki. Nope. That choice/decision was his and his alone. Unhelpful to your argument in that discussion, the spamming publicist was speedily blocked from editing wiki. Perhaps not the best example, as the spammer was blocked and the NOT-spammer became a decent editor. Schmidt,' ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I was not involved at the time and only gleamed it second-hand through a few diffs. Oh well, better my argument be weakened than it being uncorrected and inaccurate. I was certainly not trying to implicate you in any impropriety; rather the opposite. Thank you for explaining. henrik•talk 20:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I have most of the discussions from that time archived, as a continued lesson and reminder. If you'd like, I can send the links... but again, I do not think it will be helpful to the point you were trying to make. A problem with anonymous user names is that they can often reflect something relevent to the user, or can represent a special interest of the user. So the only way to determine if "User:SpecialOutletStore" actualy works for the store, would be to have a pre-emptive checkuser determin if the user is logging in from that store's IP... and that would fail if he were the store but was logging in from home. Pretty much I think wiki must take the high road and allow edits and simply keep an eye open to see if such edits result in or reflect a COI. If not, then the user name is no consequence than any of the thousands of of other random user names. Like wih me... being User:MichaelQSchmidt, I refrain from editing Michael Q. Schmidt... though I will speak up if the BLP about me is vandalized or filled with unsourced or incorrect informations and then allow others to investigate. I am quite aware of COI. Many newcomers are not... but if given the opportunity to learn and be mentored, they and wiki can benefit from their being part of the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Gleaners

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

Amigo

Schmidty my man, you're one of my favorite Wikipedians. I hope everything's going well for you. Thanks for your good work and for always being gracious and willing to help. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The occasional smile and good word go far in making this a pleasent place to spend a few hours. Things are indeed well. I have three films scheduled, and 2 currently in production. And on top of that, a celebrity actor has asked that I consider assisting him in an actor's workshop he is putting together. Busy and fun. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. :) Enjoy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

To the rescue

Hi Michael

The Last Gangster could use some additional references and looks up your alley.

Bongomatic 05:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstable High School Marching Band

Can I ask why I was not notified of this deletion discussion. I was the creator of the page and made substantial edits, yet I was not informed of this. I am really questioning right now those who edit the site if they don't even bother to notify those who created the page in the first place so that they have a better chance of winning. I know that you did not nominate the page but this is keeping me from blowing up on the nominator. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've already found some really good links to justify the page. So i'm way ahead in that. Thanks for the suggestions. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Film notability

I noticed all the work you've done on The Witches Hammer, which has clearly improved it massively. However, I am still unsure that it meets the notability requirements. I noticed in your comment about the AfD of Solstice (film) that "unreliable looking" sources have been discussed at length in AfDs. I haven't seen these discussions so wasn't aware there was a consensus about how to treat these sources. In nominating I tried to follow WP:NF but if there has been other discussion about this sort of issue it would be good to know. Thanks. Quantpole (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussions have been across numerous AfDs for low-budget, independent, horror films. The general concensus has been that even though the sources cover a niche genre, their having editorial oversite, a staff whose work is checked for accuracy, and being respected as experts in their particular genre allow them to meet WP:RS. Where a nominator in good faith states that he was unable to find high profile sources (IE: New York Times) it has been generally accepted that such low profile RS suffice in context to what id being sourced. This may be a qustion best answered by Project Films, but I will do a bit or reserach and find links to some of these AfDs. These will follow later today. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. If there is some sort of consensus on how to treat these sort of films, then I'll try to spend some time getting them better than AfDing! Quantpole (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Not complaining here, as you brought an unsourced article to life and alloed it to be made stronger. The trick in looking at these niche sources is to find their "about us" pages to learn their history and editorial policies... as many are one-man SPS. But if they have a staff and a history and expertise... they squeek in. Again, I'll do the digging and send you a talkback. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Part of an answer

Some wider known horror genre sites actually have their own wikiarticles: Bloody-Disgusting, Fearnet, Fangoria and are considered genre-specific RS. Other such sites without their own wikiarticles, and which may even have started as fansites, are generally accepted as reliable sources by the community (ie: Twitchfilm, Evildread, Beyondhollywood, Eatmybrains, etal) as long as they meet the WP:RS requirements of having editorial oversite: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context." and "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made." WP:RS does not demand nor expect a source to be large and world-reknowned (though that naturally helps). I have found it best in rescues to gather as wide a field of genre recognition as possible, as it is unreallistic to expect Rotten Tomatoes or New York Times or Roger Ebert to review every film ever made. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hi MQS, thanks for dropping me a line. Without wanting (or being able to go) into the detail of every site you mention--since I neither have the expertise nor the time to do so--I think that I agree with the basic setup. That is, I agree that there are RS outside the usual suspects, and I agree that some websites can play that kind of role, esp. in niche genres such as horror (or death metal, or literature). As you suggested above, a lot depends on the individual site under review; if your list of sites would receive some substantive support from some other editors then I think you're well on your way. Does that help? Let me know if there's more (on a general level) that I can help with. I say 'general,' because the last horror movie I saw (at the pictures, that's how long ago) was The Ring, and I still unplug the TV set every night. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Shane Valdez

Do you think this fellow is notable? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Award winner in muliple festivals? Yup. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Esasus

I note that you posted a query on User talk: Esasus. Per User:Esasus, Esasus is a sockpuppet and has been blocked indefinitely. Bongomatic 23:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Did not know. I must have missed the newsletter. Thanks for the update. And no sarcasm intended... just a bemused shrug and a wistful smile. Too many puppets... too many puppets. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes they redirect the talk pages so people are more likely to notice. I had no idea the account was a sock—I'd always found the uncommented removals of {{prod}}s quite disruptive, but didn't suspect anything else. Bongomatic 03:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.

Appreciate the heads-up. I have redacted my query. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Rich Altman

Hey MQS, I did kind of a rough job on this salesperson, so I figured it was only fair if I would ask you for a second opinion on his notability... Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Well, nevermind then! ;) Drmies (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Article rescue

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

Award of a Barnstar

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

WikiProject Films April 2009 Newsletter

The April 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Post and Courier articles

No problem. I wanted to cross out one of these requests; the redirect was clearly the smarter way. --an odd name 00:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the redirect was to a far better sourced article. Thanks again. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources for horror films

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

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

Puven Pather

Good work if you can find enough on him. I'm not sure an award for short film at a minor film festival is enough (though as you see I did suggest that more non-English sources may exist!) Black Kite 23:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well... since WP:NF states that "standards have not yet been established to define a major award" I will dig more. Regional notability is notability (usually) and receiving awards for his very first film ever is itself of note. My biggest concern was that the page seemed an immediate copyvio of this online CV... but I addressed it through cleanup before anyone could call foul. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

Whoops - I'm usually quite good at picking up copyvios. If you can find more on him I'd be happy to withdraw the AfD. Black Kite 23:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Still digging. Am now going through his films to see if he is mentioned in reviews. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Icton

I don't know what this is. But it seems to have some connection to filmaking, so I thought it might be of interest if it isn't speedy deleted before you get a chance to have a look... I hope all is well. The horror movie page looks like a good resource for sources and AfD discussions. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a person and process for creating videos for youtube? Or mabye some sort of game creating program? Did some checking. Did not find much. It might be something that is just now spreading and may show notability in a few months. Maybe. Did some cleanup and added an EL, but I do not think this one is salvagable... though I did offer the author some advice on its talk page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

ARS

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

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

The Seventh Brother and the loony behind it

• You may note that I never did post an opinion on this one, even after I found about the banned user. It may well be that this is a proper topic for an article, but I firmly agree with it being deleted. This particular banned user is... (I don't know how else to say it) a deranged lunatic. This page [6] will give some idea of the scope of this problem, and those are just the confirmed socks. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely somone with a lot of pent-up frustration. Pity that he does not have abetter understanding of what makes wiki a community. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I Love Trouble (1948 film)

Hi MQS

Have a look at I Love Trouble (1948 film). IMDB doesn't have any external reviews—can you find good references? Bongomatic 13:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Initially was able to "historic notability" inre "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release."[7] Its a start. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Classic film noir. Seen in dozens of retrospectives 50 years after initial release. Received a lot of press way back when[8]. Just gave the article a few tweaks. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That's why I asked you. Bongomatic 22:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.

Haha, everyone asks you. Bongo, can you make a template, Template:MQS, that automatically places a notice on his talk page with a call for help? Drmies (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea (even better if I could type my name right) Bongomatic 03:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Even better would be a new "Friendly" tab "MQS" with a non-optional parameter for the article needing assistance. Bongomatic 03:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Fun stuff when I roll a hot 7 or 11. Hate snake eyes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

eh...help...? please?

Whenever I ask you for help, you know what time it is--AfD time! Please have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mia Rose. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Just got in and had a look. A very nicely written article, meeting requirements of notability per WP:ENTERTAINER. You did some fine work. All I might be able to do is add additional reliable sources... and perhaps a reception section adding a few cogent remarks from the press. Very nice save. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks--is it safe yet? I reckon so, with the help of kelapstick, for instance, who made a good point that I missed. You know, I always go for the Google News stuff, and in these cases I turn to you because I have the feeling that you can separate the wheat from the chaff in the many sites that don't show up in such a search, and that reception stuff you always do really, really well. So thanks again for your help and your kind words! Greetings, from an absolutely drenched Deep South, Drmies (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

New idea

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

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/BQZip01_4

FYI, it's finally been submitted. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

I am just starting this page: User:Ikip/p, to create an ARS straw poll.

I welcome your comments and contributions. Ikip (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)