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)

Casanovva

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

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

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

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

Barnstar

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

The Barnstar of Recovery

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

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 [[1]][[2]][[3]][[4]] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Billy Lo

The AfD closed as no consensus; I'd have thought a relist would've been better, but now you've got the chance to expand and source the article. Fences and windows (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and I understand. Its on my list. So much to do. Yikes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Challenge

See what you can find on Adata Wadiya Heta Hondai. If nobody else does, don't remove the {{prod}}—convince me it should be removed instead. Bongomatic 16:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Still working on Clifton's. Do you know it was written of in On The Road? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I do now! Bongomatic 22:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

WeeMee - kudos

Nice job on the WeeMee article - it is now a rather nice little article from something that I had thought deserved to be deleted. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I will grant the original was simply unsourced fancrap (no offense to contributors) and can understand why it went to AfD. But in digging, I found so much more that allowed creation of a properly encyclopedic article, I just had to keep trying. It may be an essay, but I belive in WP:POTENTIAL. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy Notice

Hi, There was a WP:ANI thread about the conduct of User:DreamGuy, I have since reformatted it and move it to Arbitration enforcement and it can be found here. You may be interested as some of the evidence used involves you as a party. Cheers   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 09:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. However when visiting I noticed it had been closed. Are thse things only supposed to last a few hours? I would imagine a few days might have allowed input from all parties involved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That was a very abrupt closing by a clearly non-neutral admin. And no sanctions whatsoever! Now that DG and his gang have put that one to rest, they are right back at it with there old tricks. Now DreamGuy and MuZemike have started a complaint about me, once again, claiming that I am (once again) a sockpuppet here. This is the 2nd time this a week. It looks like a full-out phishing expedition this time. They have also thrown the relative newbie User:Granite thump into their complaint. This is a huge assumption of bad faith. MuZemike and DreamGuy's accusations, the approval of a CheckUser, and no notification to either myself or User:Granite thump, is completely against wikipolicy (as I understand it). Varbas (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Be polite. Maintain decorum. Wait and see. A checkuser may decide it is a fishing hunt, as Granite Thump has not been involved in vandalism nor in incivil behavior... just simply disagreeing with DreamGuy... and as far as I know, that is not yet a crime. Again, keep your cool. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Many users have been blocked for the crime of disagreeing with DG; but your strategy must be correct, for being polite, maintaining decorum, and keeping cool have all be hallmarks for DG, and he tends to float through all reviews unscathed. Varbas (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand WP:SARCASM, but still suggest decorum. Civility usually wins out over incivility in the long run. You may wish to consider a polite rebuttal in the "comments from accused parties section", as might Granite thump. If the checkuser finds no connection, you have vindication. If checkuser finds a connection... well... bad form, and OOPS... as I for one was extending benefit of the doubt. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

John Ng

Hi Michael, just a quick note to say thanks for what you wrote on my talk page - not sure if you spotted that I replied there. Also worth mentioning that I'm quite impressed with this idea of rescuing articles on the brink of being annihilated, and I've decided to have a go at some more... -- cheers, Hebrides (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw, and appreciate your comment greatly. Have you considered joining the ARS? All are welcome. Dispite the occasional furor, improving the project is why we are here. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Daeg Faerch

Hey Michael, there's some edit(warr)ing going on over this guy's birthdate. I cannot find a reliable source for it. Can you have a look? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, since I have worked with him in films, might that be considere a bit of COI (chuckle)? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha! But I wouldn't worry about that. Hey, I'm conversing with greatness! Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

See this. I believe the 1992 date is likely incorrect, and would err to the 1996 one as I'm pretty sure he ain't 17 yet. However, since he has that "baby face" and young appearance, he may be advertising himself as younger than he actually is in order to get decent roles. I do have a confirmation call in to both his management people and the director of the film Delaney. I expect to have confirmation of his true bithdate before the day is out. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

An interview in Hollywood News (probably not the most reliable source on the block) says in 2007 he was eleven (they asked to confirm, no solid answer), which translates to 1996. Best I could find. Cheers. --kelapstick (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe the 1996 date is most likely corect. Will await confirmation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there was one other reference in the article where a similar claim was made, leading to 1996, also not incredibly reliable, and I didn't enter that because the editors had been going back and forth between 1992 and 1994. Thanks for being on the case, both of youse! Drmies (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm playing policeman for a boy actor's page? MQS, that edit was a derogatory remark toward your additions, wasn't it? Drmies (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Funny remark too, considering that (from personal experience) some of the "microbudget films" ARE indeed available... either through production, Amazon, or certain video outlets. I left then as redlinks to encourage follow-up articles. For instance, Coming to Town (and yes, I own a copy) is a hilarious film from young director, that has itself received acclaim [5]. I have myself stayed away from writing it because I have worked with him and there would be screams of COI. As far as Daeg's age, the best thing would be to state in the article that "Daeg's age has not yet been confirmed. Various sources show his birthdate to be either 1992 or 1996." Many actors create such minor mysteries in order to create interest in themselves. Easiest thing would be to check birth announcements for his birthtown in 1992 and in 1996 to see just when his name first pops up. That would be the solution. Of course, some fans perfer tabloids to actual reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

However, there is THIS from back in 2007 that does show the 1992 year. With his youthfull look, his representation may be promoting him as 4 years younger (1996) in order to gain certain roles. Someone needs find that birth announcement. Just where in Canada was he born? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha, let's put Kelapstick on the case! I agree with your proposal re: birthdate. BTW, I am, by now, in agreement about those redlinks; I used to feel differently, but here they are an obvious invitation and someone will write the article. Thanks for the help, Drmies (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There used to be this crazy notion on Wikipedia that redlinks encouraged the writing of new articles so as to expand and build the project. And now I often see an argument at AfD "look at all those redlinks... it can't be notable". When did the paradigm shift take place? Where was the birth of this sense that this project was anywhere near complete? Yikes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The Final Inch

Go live! It looks good to me. You definitely do fine work! If I over did any of the attributions assigning perspectives and opinion to the movie unnecessarily, feel free to revert or modify. I know it's an article about the movie, and not the disease, so maybe it's obvious and I overdid it, but I'm cautious about including statements presented as fact that aren't attributed as such, and I think the disease itself is best covered in its own article. I have no idea if there is much controversy, but still. I definitely agree with the statements, but I still think they were assertive in nature. Moviemakers are not scientists. And scientists are not moviemakers. Speaking of which, what do you brewing in the lab? Some exciting projects I hope. Maybe Doc will write us a script. He's making big bucks this summer, so funding one of our projects should be no trouble for him. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Its live. Any suggestions for a sweet DYK? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

David Zolkwer

I was more concerned for the COI of the author... but went through and did some major cleanup of the advert and added multiple reliable sources that show the fellow actually does have coverage that meets the WP:GNG. I then removed the prod, moved it to the proper namespace, and advised him on his talk page of concerns with COI. It still needs work, but as long as the author does not try to puff himself up, it is probably okay to let it stay and be further improved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Micheal. The author was indeed a clear CoI, but i marked it for rescue anyway since a quick search revealed clear notability. I will keep an eye on the article\creator for a while to see if he makes any CoI edits to the article, or if he tries to promote himself in other articles. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 06:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films May 2009 Newsletter

The May 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) 23:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Sergio D. Acosta

Userfied, responded to your query at my talk page, and wishing you luck getting it up to scratch. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Common sense

Following up on my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alcides Moreno (2nd nomination). As you know, I respect your content creation, your diligence in sourcing references, and your devotion to a body of knowledge. However, I really wish you wouldn't be so condescending to people with whom you disagree as you were at the above-mentioned AfD. It's not just a question of WP:AGF (although it's that too), but also about assuming that the opinions of others are automatically wrong if they disagree with you. Bongomatic 14:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Moldova–Spain relations

Can you help find references for Moldova–Spain relations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)