User talk:MichaelQSchmidt

Ongoing Running Waters discussion

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)

Big Cartoon DataBase

This user played a significant role in helping Big Cartoon DataBase graduate from incubation.

I graduated BCDB and accessed it as a C class article. Nice work! --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I am very proud to have helped. Many redlinks are now blue! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

As I nominated the article for AfD, I would have been interested to know that it was incubated. Perhaps a requirement should be made to the incubator guidelines to inform invested parties that the article has been moved to incubation, similiar to the requirement for notification for AfD and the courtesy practice of informing AfD participants that a discussion was being looked over at DrV. Not doing so gives the appearance of undermining the AfD procsess. Good job on the incubation, though. ThemFromSpace 22:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

An excellent suggestion... and one that might also include a notification to article authors... but be mandatory rather than just a "suggested courtesy" as with AFDs. I initially became aware of the article's deletion only when I noticed redlinks appearing in other places. The original AFD slipped by me or I might even have been able to improve it during the discussion itself, as your initial concerns definitely required attention. A happy result is a now-improved article and bluelinks that were once red. The Ikip idea below of a bot could be quite helpful. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

A bot could easily be created to do just this, as edwinbot now informs other editors of AFDs. Ikip (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Dominic Luciano Article

Hey Mr. Schmidt, I would recommend checking on the article about Dominic Luciano that's in your sandbox to see if it meets standards yet. I did some searching, as I know Mr. Luciano myself, and added some extra little blurbs and resources. Hopefully Wikipedia will accept the article now! --68.185.2.34 (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll check it out, as I too have been following his career. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank, you, sir --68.185.2.34 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.48.67 (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know that if you Google "Dominic Luciano", your sandbox article for him comes up first. His MySpace used to come up first, but evidently your article is getting more hits. Just thought I'd point that out.--67.42.48.67 (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Has there been more news coverage on Dominic? It is still so "iffy" per Wikipedia guidlines for notability, that I hesitate trying to return it to the main pages. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Latest news coverage I've heard of is when he was putting on FeverFest. I've linked that up to your sandbox article actually. I've also heard that a song of his group "The Aqua Fries" may be getting radio time on the west coast. I will find out what station and report back on that. He is slowly making his way into the industry, so one of these days something big is going to happen. --67.42.48.67 (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Red Velvet

An unforunate situation has arisen where the producer of Red Velvet has attempted to write the article his movie & had it deleted several times. I am trying to take care of the user-related parts, but if you would take a look at the movie & see if it is notable, I'd appreciate it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup. It meets notability for WP:NF, having a number of decent genre reviews [1] including a nice one by Fangoria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully the author now understands COI and Wikipedia. From what my research is showing, this is one I will wantto see. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at SpacemanSpiff's talk page.
Message added 17:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-SpacemanSpiff 17:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Spanking Love

You never got back to the AFD like you said. Can you take another look? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Will make a point to do so after work today. Best Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar - For your rescuing of Haunting Sarah

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		Thank you for the excellent work in rescuing Haunting Sarah! Cyclopiatalk 19:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Work your magic

I can't find anything useful for Sascha Raeburn, an Australian starlet. If you can help out, that would be great... Thanks! Drmies (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Had some nasty PC problems today. Got most of then fixed, but I am not quite out of the woods. However, in addition to what is already in the article, I can offer [2], [3], [4]... and it seems she was also a budding artist who won an award in 2006 page 8... yup, looks like the same Sacha. But searches have underscored that for some odd reason Australian films actors do not get much searchable press unless they have been in the US. Of course... I only have Google. Maybe Alexa has more. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Michael! Are you switching to Mac anytime soon? Remember, you're out West--you have to be a hipster! Drmies (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Theaters

Can you tell me all the theaters listed in this snippet? My screen is cutting it off. I'm triyng to work up the John Hamrick article. I'm not sure how it's going to play out, but he had some old theaters and it seems kind of interesting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

What snippet? [5], [6], [7] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

O'Schmidty, that article looks fine and notable to me laddy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the additional set of eyes. Merry Christmas. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Prod

No worries, I'm glad somebody had a go at it. It's embarrassing to see an article be tagged for notability issues for a year before significant changes were made to the article. Thanks for working on it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll certainly try to pay more attention to film article with old tags, but if you come across some that need help, feel free to ask for my assist. Happy Holidays. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

A Nobody^{My talk} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Season's greetings

I have no fancy templates, but I wish you a very Merry QuistmaS anyway, MQS! All the best, Drmies (talk) 17:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

My RfA

I just wanted to say thanks, your support means a lot! HJMitchell You rang? 13:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I may do it myself sometime. Can't let you carry the burden of all that work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

My RFA →→→

Dear MichaelQSchmidt, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind vote on my request for adminship which failed with a final result of (40/19/12).

Thank you for your participation in my RfA which I withdrew after concerns of my knowledge of policy. Special thanks are owed to Coffee, who defended me throughout and whom I cannot thank enough for the nomination; to 2over0 for being supportive and helpful; to A Stop at Willoughby for the thorough, thoughtful and articulate support rationale; to IP69.226.103.13 for maintaining composure and for a pleasant interaction on my talk page and, last but not least, to Juliancolton who was good enough to close the RfA at my request and, frankly, because an editor whom I respect so much found the time to support me! If the need for more admins at the main page is still apparent in a few months, I may try again. Thank you all for a relatively drama-free RfA and for providing me with much material from which to learn from my mistakes. You're all welcome to drop by my talk page any time. God save the Queen Wiki! HJMitchell You rang? 18:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Newcomer's guide to guidelines

So when is this going primetime? Have you thought of moving it to mainspace? It could be a subpage of WP:Article Rescue Squadron. With you writing this guide, I would suggest giving more absolutes. Newbies only need the basics, not the exceptions. Wonderful effort though, nice job.Ikip 19:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Intended for the frustrated newbie who wanted to write an article and was slammed with the confusing barrage of CSDs, Templates, warnings, or AFDs.... something for those rank beginners who, through lack of knowing, might have reacted to such with a fit of pique or even blatant incivility. Maybe... just maybe... they can read through it and put together a basic article that will not immediately be sent to the dumper. I hit the highpoints of basic policy and guideline because those set the course for the whys and hows of article building. I will finish up with a little tutorial on writing an article, but as I stress... it will be couched in the simplest terms possible. Much more to do. I will keep it in userspace as I work.. and then perhaps see about setting it as an essay. Much more to do. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Nicholas McAnulty

You can't imagine how much I appreciated the work you did for saving Nicholas McAnulty page. I was so much impressed by the performance of this kid and he was the only one with no Wikipedia page. After retruning from the movie, I created the page and his acting was still fresh in my mind. But as soon as I created the page, there was a request for an Afd which now has been reverted thanks to so many of your new references that you mentioned in the Afd discussion against deleting (in additions to the ones I had put forward) as well as in the original article's discussion page. Cheers for you for the holidays. Much appreciated werldwayd (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I was happy to help, and glad the closer agreed with my opinion. Of course, if I not been able to find sources, I would have probably opined delete myself. So your choice of subjects was a good one. Nice job. Now its time to expand and source the article and then remove those tags. Toward that end, I'm gonna mark it as "under construction" so folks will know we're on it. Happy Holidays. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hunter Ellis

Aw thanks. Reverting what I considered to be essentially out-of-process deletions disguised as redirects was my thing for a while back in the day. I don't edit as much as I used to, but that one is still on my watchlist, and you've done a great job with it. --Maxamegalon2000 01:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well done. You seem however to have voted keep twice and might want to correct this! NBeale (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank You and Happy New Year

Thank you Michael for your wisdom and insight on Wikipedia and your guidance on User:Action grrl/workspace/Denizen (2010 film) through the deletion and incubation discussions. Your article for Newcomer's is wonderful...well written, informative and collaborative....all that I hoped for when joining Wikipedia.

I appreciate your encouragement and support. Thank you for being a member of the Article Rescue Squadron, and embodying all that is good about Wikipedia!

Wishing you a very Happy New Year!

Action grrl (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Biography

Do you have an opinion at Talk:Mary Dimmick Harrison about whether the lede should be separated from the start of the article by a header? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at the article and then studied the relevent sections of WP:MOS, Wikipedia:Layout, and Wikipedia:Lead section before offering an opinion on the talk page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Safe Conduct (film)

I posted Safe Conduct (film) on the DYK page. Do you think that the article is long enough? Joe Chill (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Since an article up for DYK must have a minimum of 1,500 characters of prose, at 2749 characters (445 words) "readable prose size", yours would qualify.

However, the problem is that the expansion making it big enough since its December 7 creation was not a 5x expansion. Check out Wikipedia:Did_you_know#DYK_rules and Wikipedia:Did you know/Additional rules. Nice article and great work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what a 5x expansion would be. Joe Chill (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Had it been kept in a sandbox and unleashed all-at-once, it would qualify... as the clock only starts ticking once it hits mainspace. To determine a 5x expansion... When you finished on December 7, it was 727 characters (120 words) of "readable prose size". So, too short. When you came back and expanded it so nicely, it became 2749 characters (445 words)... or a 3.8x expansion. In order to be a 5x expansion it would have to be at least 3636 characters (600 words). Can you do more? Add another couple reviews? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I can do more. There is plenty of sources for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 03:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as the expansion happens within a 5-day window, you're set. Good going. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It's not like I own the article. Joe Chill (talk) 04:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked that way in order to avoid any edit conflicts. Keep working on it and I'll join the fun later. :)) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You're up. Joe Chill (talk) 04:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Like the poster? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Joe Chill (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

My hook is "that Bertrand Tavernier's film Safe Conduct was attacked by both supporters and opposers of the French New Wave?" Joe Chill (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm away for about 15 minutes. You might want to fix the controversy section... you used the character names suing each other rather than the actor's names. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

And make certain the the hok is well specificaly well-sourced within the artcle. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't. The film is based on a true story. The person that sued the director is the person that the character is based off of. Joe Chill (talk) 04:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

New hook: "... that Bertrand Tavernier directed Safe Conduct because of his interest in reviving films from 1942 to 1944 and because he has friendships with key figures from those films?" Joe Chill (talk) 04:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You're now at 5x... and always room for more. I would recommend finding better refs for the awards. As accurate as IMDB may be for such a major film, editors here will want the awards sourced in the usual RS. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Google translate will be helpful for many of these articles. And some here for the awards themselves. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Its no longer 5x. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay... got it back up there. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. In my DYK nomination, I made sure to say that you helped expand the article. Joe Chill (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Added production start date and 13.3 million budget. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For helping many editors that need help. Joe Chill (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

that is really nice joe has become a really wonderful editor. Ikip 00:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Editoral for the newsletter

RE: User_talk:FeydHuxtable#Another_editoral.3F

FeydHuxtable was asking for help about writing an article about finding sources. Since you are writing a wikipedia for dummies section, I thought you maybe interested in helping. I would like to get the new issue of the newsletter out this week (Jan 3 - Jan 10) Ikip 00:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be glad to assist. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Kevin Rockett

On January 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kevin Rockett, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggested text for AFD message

Peter Hudecki (2nd AFD)

A AFD has been opened regarding the Peter Hudecki article. Since you commented on the first nomination, you may wish to comment on the current nomination.

It's pretty clunky as text goes, but it's more than neutral enough to avoid a canvassing claim as long as it goes to all the (active?) original commenters. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:{{urlencode:Matteh}}&action=edit&section=new&preloadtitle={{urlencode:[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of fictional future events]]}}&preload=User:Ikip/9

Pasted into wikipedia creates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shawn+in+Montreal&action=edit&section=new&preloadtitle=%5B%5BWikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FPeter_Hudecki_%282nd_nomination%29%5D%5D&preload=User:Ikip/9

Here is what I used, it uses some pretty advanced url coding. You could create your own preload page like User:Ikip/9.

Dissecting the URL address:

1. {{urlencode:Shawn_in_Montreal}} Editors name. The _ is not required, space is okay.
2. {{urlencode:[[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Hudecki_(2nd_nomination)]]}} what appears in the Subject/headline of the message. The _ is not required, space is okay.
3. User:Ikip/9 the page with the text box message, which the URL pulls from.

I could create a tool which pulls names from a selected AFD, creating a URL such as above for each editor.

The most advanced version of using this advanced URL was a manual tool I had, with the results here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox/tool_test&oldid=324610207

Ikip 16:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Quite nice, as it is always unfortunate when the notification courtesy as suggested by WP:AFD is overlooked and a discussion does not receive input from editors who had shown interest in the subject. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Irish Filmography

On January 4, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Irish Filmography, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Endgame

I haven't checked my talk page for a while, thanks for the improvement on the article!Echofloripa (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I was happy to help. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

An honor for your work in AfD

		The AFD Barnstar
		For not being afraid to take unpopular stances when you feel it is right, and spending the time to thoroughly look for sources. In particular, I'd like to thank you for your work at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cain and Abel (film), where you single-handedly rescued the article. Take care and keep at it, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly, I sometimes feel like its an uphill battle, but win or lose... I am always glad to do my best. Thank you very much. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Fix

I'm no good at fixing it (or would myself), but pls note that the rescue notice points people to the old monster afd, not the current discussion. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh.... THAT I can fix. Thanks for the heads-up. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

DONE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Unstruck keep

re your note:

I am in agreement with your opinion, and have opined a "keep" myself... however... you really should put a strikethrough accross your second "keep" at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_creatures_in_Primeval_(2nd_nomination)&diff=next&oldid=336147684 and definitely leave the comment. I realize it was done fore emphasis... and its not because a closer cannot count... but its just that the rule is "one keep to a customer"... and if folks see two they might get the wrong impression. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I would have, but the AFD has been closed, so I can't change that now. I've never participated in an AFD before, so I didn't know the protocol. I just thought it introduced which side you were arguing. After all, it would be trivial to get a bunch of accounts and make multiple "keep"s if one wanted to, though I'm sure it would be suspected. Anyway, the person who struck my note, and who proposed the AFD, seemed to be acting deviously, while no doubt staying within the letter of the rules. I've been steamrollered before by people like that here and it got my back up. Barsoomian (talk) 08:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Before allowing any seeming "steamrolling" to get your goat, remember that it is always best to remain calm and polite per WP:CIVIL. The experienced administrators who review such discussions are well able to recongnize when or if one editor might be bullying another. Best to to review WP:DEL , WP:AFD, WP:ATD, and WP:ATA to better understand the process and how to act and react is such circumstances. Those who remain courtesous throughout discussions are far more respected than those who do not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, so I try not to (over) react. It's part of the game these people play to be patronising and put you down, while following the letter of the rules, so those less familiar with all the minutiae of the procedures get frustrated and lash back in a way that makes them able to be dismissed and even sanctioned. For instance I can't understand still how that if two people are reverting each other how one can invoke 3R and try to get you blocked and themself be untouched, and end up with the text as they want it. Call it petulant whining if you will, but I've sworn off contributing for extended periods because of things like that. Barsoomian (talk) 07:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as Wikipedia is edited by people and not be machines, you will continue to cross paths with "personalities". All I can advise is continued patience... and don't be chased off. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Strangers on a Train

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at Talk:Strangers on a Train (film).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks so much for the invitation MQS. I meant to tell you that I think I'm going to play homebody this time. I have my secret identity to maintain and all as well! Have a great time. I'm very sorry I won't be there to cheer you on. You're one heck of a great guy and I very much appreciate your comraderie and the invitation. Cheers! ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you could have come and remained anonymous... but I do understand. I have a screener copy and had watched it on the small screen. Doesn't do it justice. Seeing it on the BIG screen was a mind-blowing experience. I liked it. And its likely one that will be gaining in popularity. Won't be one bit surprised if others here see it before too long. A truely awesome film, that looks like millions were spent rather than thousands. Pays a delightful homage to Halloween, Blair Witch, and Friday the 13th, with a feel that it might have had Tarentino as a guiding spirit. The young writer/director team will be making waves. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds very cool! Again, I'm sorry I missed it and wasn't there to support you. Hopefully next time. I appreciate the invitation very much, and the update. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Boogeyman II (2007 film)

Hi Michael!

I was wondering if I could ask you to cross-check my own investigation to make sure I'm not way off base. As you can dig out sources which are hard to find, I thought you might be able to review Boogeyman II (2007 film), and Boogeyman (franchise) which were created by a new editor, User:12WikiSimps. The movie appears to be a hoax. IMDB which is rather comprehensive doesn't have a listing for it which would be surprising since the cast is supposedly full of preofessional WWE wrestlers. And on the franchise, I know that there have been a series of Boogeyman films, but I believe many of those listed there are made up. Can you have a look? Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, -- Whpq (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yikes. Interesting semi-fraud here. This editor's contributions appear to be a combination of a little fact and a lot of fiction to create several hoax articles. There IS a Boogeyman 2 film as a sequel to the original Boogeyman (2005), and film number 2 was indeed followed by Boogeyman 3 (2008)... but cast, crew, plot and production are quite different from his article assertions, and there were so far only three in the group.. and definitely not 13 as he alleges in Boogeyman (franchise). I recommend nominating HIS Boogeyman (franchise) and Boogeyman II (2007 film) as hoaxes, with the caveat that as a Boogeyman (film) (2005), Boogeysman 2 (2007) and Boogeyman 3 (2008) do exist as a 3-film franchise (not 13), his titles might merit REAL articles... and so it might be offered that if his articles undergo complete re-write and sourcing, they could be suitable... but as currently written constitute hoax. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I've PROD'ed the articles. I'm not sure a rewrite would be a good idea for the Boogeyman (franchise) article. I feel that a version based on truth rather than hoax would be a better basis for an article. Thanks for your help. It's appreciated. Cheers! -- Whpq (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll put these on my things to do list, as articles for the 2nd and 3rd may be appropriate. As for the franchise... iffy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Service awards proposal

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards. If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 21:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Crappy job that probly needs doing

Hi MQS, I'm bringing this to you since you're much more famailiar with entertainment articles here than I am, other people watching this page may be the same, and 'cause I've already done my 20 reversions on the matter. ;)

IP 65.25.179.39 has spent the last month adding cast members to a large number of articles. One of these red-linked cast members is Vanessa Bell-Gentles, who curiously is always cast as "Anaclair "<someone-or-other>". This looks to me like persistent nonsense, I blocked them for 3 days and reverted all the "top" edits I saw. However, when I do a search, it turns out that Vanessa still has quite the acting career according to en:wiki.

First question is: am I totally wrong? Are there really such persons as the IP has named? And if not, do you or anyone else feel like going through every edit the IP made to be sure our articles aren't trashed? And while yer at it, I noticed some other red-linked cast members, for instance Talk to Me (2007 film) has acquired actors playing James Brown, Fred de Cordova and Johnny Carson, which IMdB doesn't appear to agree with. Oh, did I say it would be a crappy job to go through all this stuff? :) Regards! Franamax (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone sure wants to be associated with Tyler Perry... that's for sure. At first glance it appears your instincts were quite correct. However... yes, I am willing to go through each of the edits and do a search of "FILM NAME" + "alledged actor's name" to see if any truth slipped in with the vandalsim. I'll research and begin creating a list on this page. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Why Did I Get Married?: Vanessa Bell-Gentles, Lawrence Hilton-Jcaobs, and Curtis Blake are not in this film per a Reliable Source than lists even minor charaters. [8]
• The Family That Preys: Vanessa Bell-Gentles, and Curtis Blake are not in this film per Releiable Source [9], or non-RS [10].
• What's Done in the Dark: Vanessa Bell-Gentles, Lawrence Hilton-Jacobs, and Curtis Blake are not in this film per RS [11].

Report. The pattern is apparent. The IP continues to add either Vanessa Bell-Gentles, Lawrence Hilton-Jacobs, or Curtis Blake to Tyler Perry related or similar articles in various combinations. Checking RS Allmovie, it is apparent that they were not in these projects. Of the actors being added, only Lawrence Hilton-Jacobs is notable and emminently sourcable... but he was not in these films either. What do you call it when an editor beigns weaving a self-supporting fiction throughout several other articles? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Something close would be a WP:Walled garden except the organizing premise (Vanessa's apparently well-sourced but nevertheless hoax article) was nonexistent here. This is disappointing, we may have achieved the first wiki-appointed Emmy/Oscar winner if we'd been more patient. ;)

Thanks MQS for your diligent work so far. Looking randomly, you're scooping out all the questionable character roles in your review. Or at least you're getting to the second-level trickery. In my experience, the search engine takes a day or two to reindex so I'll keep checking for progress. I'll have to check on this "Tyler Perry" too, has he been editing here long? :) And add another one to my list of how sneaky <beans> do <beans> to <beans> by inserting semi-plausible <beans>, I will now also watch for <beans> appearing on my <beans>. Beans! :) Excellent work... Franamax (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the article on Vanessa Bell-Gentles would have soon followed... as this IP has been weaving that web for two months. And to caution, Tyler Perry to my knowledge does not apear to be editing Wikipedia... but his projects did seem to be a magnet for the IP. I can only imagine the anon IP giggling every time it added a new Anaclair character for Bell-Gentles somewhere within these pages. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've gotta hand it to that Vanessa, she's plucky. After that setback to her career, she went out there and managed to land over a dozen more parts in just one day! However she's on a two-week holiday now. Will need checking again around Feb. 1 I guess. Franamax (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

And again, every one of her characters in these projects is amazingly named Anaclair. I anticipate a possible switch of IP addresses as vandal attempts to get around the block. Keeping a search-eye out for any aditions of "Vanessa Bell-Gentles" or "Curtis Blake" by other IPs will be prudent. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

And in digging deeper into the histories, I found that similar IPs IP 65.25.178.59 was adding the exact same information in the exact same way. Per WP:DUCK, extremely likely the same individual. I suggest a block there as well. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. Looks like they're already blocked 'til end-February. Yes, this will need periodic monitoring long-term. Franamax (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Great. Had not gotten that far (chuckle). Am now going through stage plots to remove final vandalism. A bit slower, as I am also checking to ensure that Curtis Blake was not actually in them. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

IP 74.231.185.3 seems to have begun the inclusion of Blake. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Reviews

Hi, Michael. For the upcoming Drama-out I'm preparing to do articles on the Torasan films. It's fairly hard to find extensive English reviews of these films, but I have found a group at DVDTalk by Stuart Galbraith IV. The name "DVDTalk" sounds a bit bloggish, but Galbraith is a published authority on Japanese film. Also, I've found some pretty extensive review as a German site (first film here). Think these are kosher for filling out some critical commentary? Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, and be sure to check for "Toro-san" as well. I found Asahi Shimbun where it spoken about as film smuggled into North Korea... Japan Times where it is compared to the film Ototo... The Epoch Times where they speak of Yamada being one of Japan’s master filmmakers... Asian Pacific Journal: Japan Focus where the film is discussed in comparison to Japan's working class (see #32)... Then there's "Tora-san" in a Google Book search which shows hundreds of results where the character and the term is analyzed and compared. You may have yourself the makings of a terrific FA article. But as we both know... don't put into mainspace unless you have incorporated dozens of sources, else it is likely to get speedied by some well-meaning individual who might not see the potential or do a WP:BEFORE search for sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the new sources!-- yeah, I was just a little dubious on the DVDTalk thing... Actually, I'm eyeing the entire 48-film series for articles-- starting out well-formed stubs during the drama-out, then covering each in depth later on. Yes, they are very charming little films, I think I saw the whole series back in the '70s, '80s & '90s. I'm glad to see he's getting a US DVD release. I was always a fan of Tora-san, and I see a good many of the films either won or were nominated for major awards-- so I don't think there's any threat from the "Notability" police ;) I'm putting all the data together, and will write/mainspace it during the dramaout. This will be under my non-Japanese-porn name: User:Otis Criblecoblis. That thing about the North Korean "Tora-san" smuggler is very interesting-- I actually "smuggled" a copy of Seven Samurai into South Korea when the Japanese film-ban was still on there, to show it to my in-laws. (I was raised very close with a Japanese family, and married into Korean.) Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help. Whether a long comprehensive article or seperate ones on each of the 48... as long as you're sourced the NPP should not find fault. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

COI on Hari Dhillon

Dear Micheal, this is not a bad faith accusation. May I respectfully sugest that you re-examine WP:COI. I am concerned that certain parallels in your own stay at WP are being "vicariously" projected onto your edits in this article's Afd. Concerning "Socks", I have always been suspicious since one of my earliest Afd participations [12] where an editor User:Nrswanson I blamed for POV pushing was exposed much later as a Sock and the article as a hoax. Interestingly it was that sock who first claimed during Afd discussion that article to be a hoax / OR. FYI Nrswanson also used an apparently common Sock device - volunteering for a CU on himself to confirm his innocence. Annette46 (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

COI? You are again incorrect in the conclusions you draw. My 17,000 edits in the last 24 months have been toward improving those sections of Wikipedia for which my background in film has me well suited. This is no more "COI" than a mathematician editing articles about science or a sports fan editing articles about baseball. All contributors tend to go where they feel they may best serve. That is not COI, that is wisdom and practicality. In the two years I have been privilaged to contribute, I have authored 19 articles, posted 20 DYKs, received 33 barnstars, "rescued" nearly 190 articles in the face of pending deletion, and so far improved 2 articles so they might be returned to mainspace from the incubator. My accomplishments of course pale when compared to truely prolific contributors... but while respecting your own 450+ edits in 17 months, I might suggest you take a stab at writing an article or two... and that you look to those who do for examples. You may find it more fulfilling than restricting yourself to AFD discussions. Oh.... and as your edits elsewhere show your education and inteligence, please do not include me in your "sociological exercise to see how people/editors/admins act/react on the WP battlefield." Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I was exclusively referring to COI concerning parallels between your RW career as an actor/personality (and the 3 Afds you faced for your own article) and Hari Dhillon's article now in Afd. Your broad editing history at WP and its statistics are not relevant to COI for this article. Many of the notability guideline interpretation issues which cropped up during your own Afds are being raised again on Dhillon's. You cannot deny that you have an interest (aim) in retaining your own article on Wikipedia. I am thus concerned that you are repeatedly diverting the focus of Hari Dhillons' Afd discussion from the specific Notability (persons) guidelines applicable such as WP:BIO, WP:ENT etc for actors to WP:GNG which suits your own POV/aim. From WP:COI its clear that "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor". It is incorrect that I have 450+ edits in 17 months - there are unique circumstances described in my user page added specifically in response to your struckout concerns. It is also incorrect that I restrict myself to Afd discussions - a significant portion (around 50%) of my editing is done in the article space (at least till last month). It is also incorrect that editors must confirm to some WP average in terms of statistics or mythical requirements to create articles or improve them etc. In the limited time I can spare for WP I have determined that my efficiency lies in the notability area for Afds and subsequently editing articles retained after Afd discussion to encyclopedic standards (the 5Ps). I do not usually edit articles when they are under Afd process.Annette46 (talk) 11:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Annette, you've commented (extensively) at the AfD. I'd like to suggest that you voice your concerns about this article there (if you have any that you have not already posted) rather than badgering contributors with strange COI accusations.   pablo_hablo. 11:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) The accusation of COI may be good-faith but it also seems a little nutty to me. I'm a male, do I have a COI on any article containing the word "he"? Annette46, you identify as Indian, do you have a COI on any article topic relating to India or Indian people? MQS is an actor, does he have a COI on articles about actors? The answer to all these questions is YES. But the real question is, does our COI harm the encyclopedia? You've not shown harm done by MQS (you have a disagreement for sure, and I certainly feel that anyone who disagrees with me must be bad somehow, is that the problem? :). Your limited available time might be better spent discussing the merits of articles rather than editors. And there's no problem at all editing articles currently subject to AFD - if it can be improved, improve it, do it now. Franamax (talk) 12:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

HD Variety review

Thanks! I'd given up on finding any more reviews for that through Google, didn't think to search Variety directly. Google doesn't seem to index that page at all ([13] only gives 33 results, and it's not there). Holly25 (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Writing articles

Wrote one today Joginder Annette46 (talk) 08:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Response

I withdrew the nomination. Nice job on the article. Joe Chill (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes my google-fu gets lucky. More to be done... but thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The Irish Filmography

Belated thanks for improving the page I started on The Irish Filmography. Your work as a member of the Article Rescue Squadron is to be applauded. I have extensive knowledge of movies and film reference literature, but I still have a lot to learn about how things are done on Wikipedia. I have also sent you an email concerning it, so please check that. Aardvarkzz (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well now that we also have an article on Kevin Rockett we have cause to get three new articles on his other notable books: Cinema and Ireland, Neil Jordan: Exploring Boundaries, and Irish Film Censorship. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

An Ant's Life

Hi, Michael, I'm thinking about taking An Ant's Life to AfD because I can't find sufficient coverage in reliables sources about it. Since you do a good job of finding hard-to-locate sources, I was wondering if you could find any for this one. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Well... I was able to find that it did release on VHS in 1998 [14] and that it did have a commercial re-release on DVD in 2006 [15] under a shortened name. I gave the article a few tweaks... but like many near-forgotten animations, it did not make headlines. I also found that Schelp did other animated films in 2006 [16][17] and 2007 [18][19], but his first seems to have not gotten much attention (actually, none of then have). Perhaps some input from the folks at WP:WikiProject Animation before giving up on it? Maybe all to be merged into an article on Schelp himself? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for researching the film. I don't know if an article about Schelp is viable. I haven't been able to find much coverage about him either. And WP:WikiProject Animation appears inactive as no substantive discussion has occurred on the page for months. By the way, there's also a film company, Spark Plug Entertainment, that Schelp started. I de-speedied and prodded it in the hope that it could be merged somewhere but I don't see any good merge targets. Cunard (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Well.... There's also a possible article on Fujisankei Communications... and Schelp might be included in an article about them per LA Times, Futon Critic, Hollywood Reporter, UNICEF, New York Times, [20], [21], et al. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how tangential topics (the An Ant's Life – Schelp – Fujisankei Communications) can be merged together. Cunard (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Just musing. I had imagined any few sentences that might speak about Schelp in regards Fujisankei Communications might make mention that he had himself written and directed some animations. In that instance, a redirect of the films might point to a Schelp section of the newer article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll write an article about Fujisankei Communications within the next couple of days and will ping you when I'm done. I'll let you do the merging, as I'm not sure about what to merge. Best, Cunard (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I will be honored... and will not overburden... but give a place for a reasonable redirect. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the honor is mine, since I get to collaborate with someone who had a role in the production of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. :)

Actually, Wikipedia already has an article about Fujisankei Communications Group. I've sourced and expanded it. When you have the time, please merge useful information from An Ant's Life and/or Spark Plug Entertainment into it. By the way, what should be done with the long list of companies that Fujisankei owns? Should the list be deleted for failing WP:NOTDIRECTORY? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Michael, will you do the merge? Cunard (talk) 07:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure enough. Will tend to it first thing in the morning. Thanks for asking my assist. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's been a couple of days. Have you forgotten to merge the information? Cunard (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"No... not forgotten", he said with a bit of chagrine. I've been distracted with other real-life events... but will try to get to it this evening. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Mary

Hi Michael

I've skimmed the DYK process, and have come up with

• ... that Diane Keaton once accepted a part in a film because she thought she couldn't do it?
• ... that the Catholic League took out a full-page advertisement in Variety to protest the broadcast of a 2001 TV film?

What do you think?   pablo_hablo. 22:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked the DYK format and included the requitred wikilinks. As for choice... it's six of one, half a dozen of the other, though I tend toward number one because it poses a terrific question that will draw readers to the article. Offer them both... the first as a first choice and the second as ALT1.

• ... that Diane Keaton accepted the lead role in Sister Mary Explains It All because she thought she couldn't do it?
• ALT 1 ... that the Catholic League took out a full-page advertisement in Variety magazine to protest the broadcast of the 2001 TV film Sister Mary Explains It All?

Fun working with you on that one. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added it to the list for Jan 17 seeing as that was when it was moved to mainspace. Interesting page - I've seen DYKs before obviously, but never ventured through the process.
It was fun, we'll have to do it again sometime!   pablo_hablo. 22:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Just goes to show that cooperation in a comunity is far more fruitful than dissesntion. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, not always, you need both (he said, dissenting ...)   pablo_hablo. 23:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Almost time for a quote from Rodney King. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

RFA

I should've, but it's too late now. Joe Chill (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Next time... next time. Give it a few months and study how other RFAs go. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it would be my account. My first account User:Mr.Nobody was created way back in 2006 when I misunderstood the rules entirely and brought it upon myself. As for a future RFA, I'm not sure if I can give more precise answers to deletion questions. I know about CSD, Prod, and AfD more than a lot of editors, but I can't explain it very well. I've always had trouble explaining certain things because of something that I have, but that I can't say because it was used against me before on Wikipedia. Joe Chill (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Trust that I do understand. Everyone was new once, so the distant past is of less concern when editors see you have learned and grown as an editor. Time for some homework: Study

1. User:Porchcrop/Getting adminship
2. Wikipedia:Administrators
3. Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide
4. Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list
5. Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions, and
6. Wikipedia:RfA cheatsheet...

to learn what you need to know and so better understand the process. Then study the discussions at past successful and failed RFAs to better understand the questions. Again in six or eight months, maybe? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. I'll look at those links. Joe Chill (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Safe Conduct (film)

I did include you in the DYK nomination. It's surprising that no one gave you the notice. Joe Chill (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem... we're all volunteers, after all. I dug deeper in the histories, found it, and included it here. It's always great to collaborate. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Colombian voice actors

Hi again Michael. I noticed your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombian voice actor, and so I thought you might be interested in this discussion here (User:Ryulong has prodded the articles). Personally, I think at least some of them deserve an individual AfD. Let me know your thoughts, cheers! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Kung Fu Magoo

I see that you've started a rescue effort on Kung Fu Magoo. I was very doubtful of this film, to the point that I felt the whole existence of the film was a hoax, possibly perpetrated by the credited production studio to bolster their own credibility, as I could find no reliable sources to back up the story. Kudos on finding the Variety article. I'm curious as to where you've found some of the other facts you've included in the expanded version, namely the film's production budge, etc. As far as I could find from my searches, the entire film was merely a pile of rumors (especially including the raft of name stars involved). If you can procure more current sources, reliably verifying the involvement of so many notable names in the film, I would gladly withdraw its nomination for deletion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Budget found in the Variety article. Found and adding Spanish language sources toward confirmation. Since that is where its theatrical release will be, that is where I expect to find more. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, were you able to access the film's "official site" at the anonymous IP address? I was unable to. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was. Perhaps your browser settings? It's apparently a subpage of http://www.classicmedia.tv/. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I will also be digging to confirm more of the IMDB cast list. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

A useful tool

this handy gadget finds articles that are in an intersection of two categories, useful for finding articles to work on ...   pablo_hablo. 22:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice. Now keep the place neat for the next few hours. I need to head into Hollywood from my home in the OC to audition for a MIA Music Video. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)This request "to keep the place tidy" has been identified by one or more editors as constituting an arbitrary demand for a shrubbery. Expanding the requirement to include chopping down the tallest tree in the forest WITH A HERRING will be equally ineffective.

Good luck. Can't promise to keep the place nice, though – there's a major redecoration going on.   pablo_hablo. 23:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No kidding. I wonder who is going to ask that all 55,000 dust-bunnies be userfied so they can source them, as apparently there is now no requirement to even do a cursory check for sources before tossing. I chuckled when I saw someone suggest that the 55,000 might be improved in seven days. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

As an aside... the music video audition was for a spot in an upcoming M.I.A. project. However, it turns out that they're gonna be shooting the 2nd and 3rd... and I already have a music video committment for the 1st and 2nd. And now I have an invite to an audition as a fat guy riding a horse for a project to shoot over the 1st thru the 3rd in Argentina that is intended to air in Belgium. I hate to have to say no... as it pays some big bucks and I've never been to Argentina before. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just another 'day at the office' then? The unpredictability must be a mixed blessing though.   pablo_hablo. 11:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

George Alan

I just nominated poor George for deletion. Feel free to save him. Take care, Drmies (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsavable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue | Next issue

Content

The community is currently

deciding whether

60,000

articles should be deleted.

background

• News items and announcements
• Contest

• Featured editor: Teeninvestor
• Featured administrator: WereSpielChequers

• Want ads
• Feature: FeydHuxtable: Search Techniques

Talkback

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

Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at [[User talk:MWOAP#The Con Artist|MWOAP's talk page]].
Message added 16:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 16:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi Mike, are you familiar working with national or territorial articles? IF so, could you come take a look at Gibraltar and Talk:Gibraltar, there's two group of editors pitted against each other on a simple technical problem that has been in existence at the United Nation because Spain has constantly vetoed it and stop the UN council on labelling Gibraltar as part of a self-governing British overseas territories. This status is currently reflected in the article but the pro-Spanish factions continuously assert that it is not when in fact it has been granted such by the British government in UK. Maybe as an uninvolved third party, you could better defuse the problem there instead... I get all worked up just looking at the mess but I decided against editing there or I might become my worst enemy, hence I focus on the Military History part where facts speaks. Regards. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 05:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Invitation

Click here to automatically add this project to your watchlist

Hi MichaelQSchmidt, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing. These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Please help us: >> User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs <<

Further to your comment "If you are not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem", I prefer "If you are not a part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate" (my poor attempt at a chemistry joke. I'm here till Thursday, try the veal).--kelapstick (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

funny guy, i liked your adam joke on my talk page. Ikip 21:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

We won't be able to change these policies in the RFC. A newcomer's guy is wonderful, but it will only indirectly help in BLP. Is there any concrete policy suggestions you have which we can propose to the arbcom? Can you maybe move these comments to talk, and replace it with brainstormed BLP policy ideas? The policy ideas and the guide ideas are great for after the BLP.

It is my mistake the title was probably confusing as Kelapstick mentioned to me. Ikip 21:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, my mistake I should have been clearer I moved your ideas to the talk page, to save for after the BLP RFC. Thanks. Ikip 22:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at MBisanz's talk page.
Message added 15:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

^Bongo_matic 15:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced BLPs

Hi, Michael. Could you point me to the category which lists the unsourced BLPs by month of creation? I had it yesterday, but I'll be damned if I can find it today... Dekkappai (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Category:All unreferenced BLPs? (actually that's by month tagged, I didn't know there was one by month created ...  pablo_hablo. 20:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Pablo! Doesn't look exactly like the one I had yesterday, but it'll do... Dekkappai (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia for dummies

I had a look, and it is off to a great start. I did some tweaking, I also saw Ikips comment, and I am probably similar to him, I hadn't really read the policies until I was here for a long time. The key is getting new editors to understand the rules before the dive into editing, but what fun is reading a 28kb essay? New editors want to edit, plain and simple. I created three articles on my first day, one is now a redirect, one is fine and the other has three tags on it. I'm not sure what the solution is, but your essay will certainly be an asset, but I think we may need something shorter to complement it (or maybe a comprehensive lead section).--kelapstick (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, suggest some lede modifications on the talk page. But I really wish it to be simple and welcoming... and best show that there are many pitfalls waiting for newbs unless they have the understanding of what awaits them. I do expect the essay to be left far behind as they find their own niches within these pages... so it is designed for the totally clueless and not senior editors. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that...I'm just not sure where this would come into play, would you provide a link when welcoming someone who created a new article? The point I was trying to make is if you are trying to get a new editor to read something before they create their first article (or create a second article after the first was deleted), a 28kb essay can be both intimidating and not appealing, regardless of how well it is written. I think it is a fabulous resource for new editors to read through and come back to as it provides all the necessary links, but like I said, it's just huge. If we could summarize what editors should and shouldn't do in one to two paragraphs, and make that come up before a new editor creates their first article (not just signs up for an account), it would be beneficial. Bu that's just my opinion, I might draft something if I get a minute today.--kelapstick (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sister Mary Explains It All

On January 30, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sister Mary Explains It All, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 23:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jayjg ^(talk) 23:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Films January 2010 Newsletter

The January 2010 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) 04:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Something else to look at if you have time

Hey MQS, can you take a look at David Ervin and tell me if it meets the notability criteria? Or should it go to AFD? I came across it doing WP:CCI. The creator was a SPA, possibly his sister, or at least his father's child. It is currently being maintaned by another SPA, User:Davidnmarin. Seems he's an unnoted session player, but I'm not expert on these things. Oh yeah, it's an unreferenced BLP too, :) Thanks! Franamax (talk) 02:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Being part of some notable ensembles through his art seems to qualify him as notable per WP:MUSICBIO 2, 3, 5, 6, and 10.... but I am not that savvy in music biographies. Any experts over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Really? A guy who's gotten a bunch of recording gigs over 15 years and has no media coverage whatsoever? (Haven't looked for coverage yet) Guess I should ask over there too. Franamax (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I think that's what being part of ensemble means. The group or lead get the coverage, while most of the individual members may not. I've heard of The Doors.... but the only member I ever heard about was Jim Morrison. I've heard of The Platters and The Four Tops but do not know their members at all. Now keep in mind that I got in last night at 1:00 AM and did not go on searching with his name in connection to the works as my parameters. And even now I am heading out to another film gig. I do know that guideline does not always demand press coverage to show notability, as long as awards and such can be verified. Music Project will know far better than me about members of ensemble. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Gatchaman

hope this helps Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Biographies of Living persons solution: Projectification?

As someone who commented on the BLP workshop I created, please review this proposal to see if it is something that the community would support.

Harsh constructive criticism is very welcome!

Better to figure out the potential objections now. I am looking to remedy any potential objections by the community.

Thanks. Okip (formerly Ikip) 03:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The First Men In The Moon in 3-D (film)

I am considering the closure of the above AfD, which I have temporarily placed on hold.

Would you be willing for me to userfy the article to User:MichaelQSchmidt/The First Men In The Moon in 3-D (film) so that you can salvage anything useable for your draft User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/The First Men in The Moon (2010 film)?

Once you have used any details which are relevant, you could then ask for deletion using {{db-user}}.

If you don't want it userfied, let me know, so I can close the debate as 'delete'.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(puts on best Yul Brynner voice): "So it is written, so it shall be done" -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for this comment. It is encouraging to occasionally be reassured that someone somewhere appreciates what I try to do. As for "keeping my cool", yes, I did have to think very carefully about what was worth saying and what was better left unsaid. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks from me, too...

...for this. I appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I am sorry that my earlier summary was incorrect. Your quite proper work needed acknowledgement. As ever, it is good working with you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong URL For Opie Gets Laid Wikipedia Poster Image

The URL/web address for this poster image for the film Opie Gets Laid is wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Opis_Gets_Laid_poster.JPG

The title of the film is Opie Gets Laid. But part of the URL for the poster image on Wikipedia is incorrectly spelled as Opis_Gets_Laid

You should change the section of the above link to Opie_Gets_Laid and not Opis_Gets_Laid

Just letting you know, thanks!

12.196.37.227 (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Darn typo. Yikes. Thanks for the Heads-up. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Got it squared away. Again, thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You do the same

You keep me on my toes. We often disagree, once in a while manage to agree, but I always know you're going to make me work for it. :) Niteshift36 (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Gosh help us both, if anything should actually be easy (chuckle). Best regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, group hugs--can I get in? Hey MQS, when the love fest is over, please have a look at Plaguers. Maybe you can make something out of it--and maybe Niteshift can get it on Netflix, and we'll all sit down and watch it! Drmies (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Will look now. And I simply HAD to thank Nightshift, as we might not always agree, but stuff gets improved through all our efforts. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I like Niteshift fine, even though he is usually wrong! :) Drmies (talk) 04:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Not wrong, just right in a different way. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• "There are four and twenty ways of constructing tribal lays, and every single one of them is right" - Rudyard Kipling[22]

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Blair Kelly

Hi, Michael. Thanks for your kind nod, but I can't claim credit: it was a template: {{Uw-autobiography}}. Cheers! --Rrburke^ekrubrR 14:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The AFD Barnstar
		For your good effort SunCreator (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Always best to try to make something better. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Incubator

Hey Mike!

In all honesty, I did not know about Wikipedia:Article Incubator when discussing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dhoom 3 (2nd nomination). At the AfD, I might have made some comments that made me look uneducated in that respect and I apologize if I seemed overly critical of your rationale. I like you and respect you, I think you already know that. I did, however, think at the time that I sensed a slight hint of criticism directed at the editors in the "delete" column when you said "Deletion is not always the only choice." Not knowing about the incubator and having previosuly myself requested articles to be userfied to my page (see Bill Dawes) after deletion, I thought it was unnecessarily critical and semantically irrelevant to suggest userfication (which would happen concurrently with deletion from mainspace) but to also chastise suggestions for deletion. If I am wrong about your intentions to criticize by your above statement, then I've misinterpreted your intent and I apologize for being overzealous for (what I thought was) my defence of the other editors' rationales. Knowing now about the incubator (which shouldn't have been as difficult for me as it was, seeing that you provided a link to it in the discussion) makes your comments clearer. I only suspect that there are other editors active at AfD that may be unaware of the incubator when offering their rationales and I think they should be made aware of it gently. Anyways, glad to have learned something new and I've already put it to god use. Thanks for showing it to me!

Peace! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Your message is much apreciated. Incubation is indeed a newer process set up for the ultimate improvement of articles and the project, and seems to be a surprise even to a few more seasoned editors. My own responses were not intended to be critical, but more instructional toward participants at AFD who think that it is always either keep or delete with no middle ground. And yes, toward "thousands of other Indian films that have been announced but not filmed", there are many such created that would not benefit from incubation, but perhaps always beter to take 'em one at a time as they appear. Thank you and best regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Shane Mahan

On March 1, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shane Mahan, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February 2010 Newsletter

The February 2010 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) 04:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tere Bina Jiya Nahin Jaye

I have closed this as "merge to HHey Gujju, then move the merged article to this title leaving a redirect." I won't have time to do any actual merging until tomorrow - I don't know if you'd like to look at it? At a quick look, apart from the picture, there doesn't seem to me a lot to merge. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Update: I didn't find anything to bring across except the image. I have done a complicated sequence of moves which achieves what the AfD decided: the merged article is at Tere Bina Jiya Nahin Jaye, HHey Gujju is now a redirect with the content and history of the former TBJNJ beneath the redirect, and I think I have left enough notes and edit summaries to satisfy the attribution requirements. You could have a look and see if you think the new TBJNJ needs any more tweaking. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

  Nicely done, and thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 01:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 01:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jayjg ^(talk) 01:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ezina LeBlanc

I've considered our recent interaction and thought it might be appropriate to bring the above-captioned article to your attention. I've just declined a speedy deletion tag on it, since I felt that winning Miss Black USA was sufficient notability for retention, but the article needs a ton of work and wikification and I'm not sure where to alert someone as to its needs. The article's creator is a new account and apparently doesn't have the skills or experience to do it. I'll apologize in advance if this sort of thing isn't anything to which I should be alerting you; if you know where to bring this sort of situation I would be grateful to know your thoughts. Thanks for your kind attention to this. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I am gratified that you thought I could help, as too often articles with such unwieldy beginings get speedied. Sure, it could be simply tagged for improvements... but new authors rarely know how to do such and veterans usually have concerns of their own, and so the article might have languished for months and been sent to AFD because of WP:NOEFFORT. Your catching such and looking toward potential is a boon to the project. So again, thank you for letting me be of help. As shown HERE, I have begun... with much yet to do over the next few hours. Oh... and feel free to have newconers stop by User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Newcomer's guide to guidelines... it's not finished, but meant to be less confusing, it could help them, and sure won't hurt.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure to be of assistance and I am very happy to know that my suggestion was appropriate. Most of my Wikipedia time is spent in examining pages that have been tagged for speedy deletion and, on the occasions when I decline the tag, I frequently find that someone needs to take a hand. I usually try to find an appropriate Wiki-project to work on the article but have frequently been stymied; I have a list in my head of people who will champion certain types of articles, and I am happy to add you to it, with your permission. Thanks for your effort in helping to improve this article and I will look forward to future interactions. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul Block

I closed the AfD as delete, but if you still wanted to work on it let me know and I'll userfy it for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Too many articles... too little time (sigh). But yes, please userfy it to User:MichaelQSchmidt/Paul Brock and I'll do what I can... and with your permission, to afterwards move it to incubation for review by others before possible re-introduction to mainspace. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming that was a typo, User:MichaelQSchmidt/Paul Block is live. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup, a typo. And thank you. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Italicized quotes

In regard to The Revengers (film), I would like to call your attention to Wikipedia:MOS#Italics, which says that quotations should not be placed in italics. Also, in this edit, you reverted the word "villains" to be misspelled as "villians". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and good looking out. You like the Montreal Gazette article? Significant. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Font size

I was not sure if you were paying attention to the discussion about filmographies, but I asked you a question here. Just wondering if you had seen it. Erik (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Was at work all day. Will look now. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Michael! Remember this? :) I was reviewing my watchlist and was wondering the status of the film at User:Erik/The Speed of Thought. This is the status still, ridiculously enough. Erik (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Even worse that production hell is post-production hell. Checking the net, there is not much new news, only that yes... it completed filming and is still in post-production... probably sitting on a shelf someplace awaiting release for sometime this year.[23][24]. A pity too... as I would like to see this one. If you want to userfy it to me or even db delete it, it can always be undeleted when the film finally comes out. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with keeping it in my user space. Do you think putting it in the Incubator would be reasonable to do? Oh, and here's another gem, though never filmed: User:Erik/Isobar (film). Erik (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Incubation could help clean out your closet. And if it does come out this year, sources should merit a return to mainspace. And I'll give Isobar a look.... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Isobar... apparently a perfect example of the clash of Hollywood personality. [25], [26] [27]... however, and until such time as the film is ever done, the history of how it brought Roland Emmerich to Hollywood and led to his many other projects, might be well worth adding to the Emmerich article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Eduardo Fonseca - Latin voice actor - unreferenced

Gbooks and Gnews are empty on this guy, some Ghits indicate that he sure could be notable, I just cant find convincing sources, given quite strict time constraints you know. You seem to have special knowledge within this field, perhaps you would take a look. Thanks. Power.corrupts (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't know how others might or might not see his voicework as meeting WP:ENT... or not... but the article is no longer unsourced, as at least his work can be verified through Animation News Network. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Twarn't much... but glad to help. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avalon High (film)

Hey!

After your rationale, I made a comment suggesting to add more articles to be debated concurrently. If you get a chance, please comment on my suggestion.

Thanks! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Brandon Manilow AfD

Hello Michael. I was thinking of closing this AfD, but realize that I don't know whether this actor satisfies WP:PORNBIO. The !voters seem to have opposite opinions on that. I see that he performed in a movie called Greek Holiday, which won a film award per GayVN awards in 2005. But his name does not appear in our article on GayVN awards. I actually do not see that Brandon Manilow ever won anything that is listed in Category:Pornographic film awards, which is one of the criteria listed in WP:PORNBIO. Can you clarify this, if you believe he does qualify? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well... one has to consider that genre awards are usually notable only within that genre. The article was nominated because it had been unsourced and subject to WP:NOEFFORT since 2007. The AFD brought it to the attention of editors who then sourced the nominations for genre awards, meeting it would seem the caveats at PORNBIO of the subject receiving nominations for well-known awards in multiple years... as various porn awards are well-known at least within their genre. That the name does not currently appear in the GayVN awards article would perhaps be a reason for it to be added, now that it has been sourced. It may always be a stub, but there's nothing wrong with a stub as long as it assertions are sourced, as this one is now. Hope that helps. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something. But he was nominated for the GayVN awards in 2009, but he is not among the winners. In 2008, 2007 and 2006 he was not nominated. So we have *neither* (a) actually winning, nor (b) being nominated in multiple years. Therefore PORNBIO is not met. What do you think? EdJohnston (talk) 05:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

PORNBIO does not mandate only winners... allowing consideration of multiple nominations of well-known genre awards. The article offers both a 2008 Golden Dickie Awards nomination AND a 2009 GayVN Awards nomination. If one allows that the Golden Dickies are well-known enough for their genre, then the 2008 nomination become multiple and meets guideline under PORNBIO #2. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MichaelQSchmidt

Glad I had it watchlisted, I would have missed it, and it was one that I did not want to. Best of luck, I am "out of pocket" (I am surprised there is no link to the use of the phrase I am speaking of, but oh well), these days so much of my watchlist is neglected. I suspect I will be more active when I get to Mongolia next week (long story), and will talk to you then if not before. Best of luck MQS. --kelapstick (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Best of luck to you on this. I have no doubt it will pass with flying colours. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to you both for your good wishes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 14:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Related to the tools questions in the RfA, I just visited your monobook.js and noticed some syntax errors in the script inclusions, which I fixed. If you hadn't activated some of those scripts in your gadgets as well, you'll now notice some new tabs and links (might require bypassing your cache). Cheers, Amalthea 15:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No wonder the darn things acted screwy. Thank you very, very much. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Best of luck! I gave you support vote #50, and only two opposes so far... hopefully that will bear out. :) One good turn deserves another, as the saying goes! BOZ (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see that you are running, so far so good! J04n(talk page) 19:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

ϢereSpielChequers is offering you a Wiki Beer! Liquid refreshment promotes WikiHarmony and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the harmony by offering a beer to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Best served refrigerated (not applicable in England). Temperature and Alcoholic strength varies according to age, religion and geographic location of recipient, US residents below the age of 21 are best advised to keep this beerstar until travelling in a country with less ageist drinking laws. NB This Beerstar is compatible with all known fake IDs

I think you need this, my own first attempt went a bit pear shaped as well, so I know a little of how you must feel. Please remember that once the current Dwamah is over, attention will move on. I don't think that anyone actually objects to you improving and rescuing articles, and I suspect if you run again in a few months you'll have an easy time of it provided you've addressed the RS concerns. ϢereSpielChequers 11:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Trying to clarify

I was trying to clarify something by maybe pointing something out from a different angle in this [28]. If I'm totally off base on it, please let me know and I'll take care of it. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You summed it up fine. If I'm involved, I do not close. Plenty of other stuff to work with on the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• I was trying to point out that you probably wouldn't end up closing as often as you would getting involved and trying to improve or save the article. In other words, my guess is that you probably would stay doing what you already do in AfD and not sit back watching just to be a closer. (BTW, almost feel a little guilty that one of my AfD noms is being used as an example against you).Niteshift36 (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• If I can improve an article, I do so. If not, I do not. I've even improved some and still came back to opine delete an an AFD. So nope... won't be closing many, and never if I was involved. Too many other places where I can help. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• I just wanted to make sure you understood what I meant and didn't think I was talking out of both sides of my mouth. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

  Much appreciated, and the thought never crossed my mind. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: your future mop

If I may be so bold, the tide is turning against you. You seem like a straight-shooter but sometimes it appears you're shooting too quickly from the hip. From admins I have seen get the mop, the best wait a reasonable period of time to answer the question being posed. Then, they acknowledge the concern; do not necessarily concede but try to put themselves in the shoes of the questioner. If nothing else when you don't like the question, you acknowledge it and seek clarification. Example: If a vandal repeatedly gets warnings up to level three and then backs off for a month or two only to return with the same behavior, what would you if you are Admin on the next level three warning? My answer: If I understand you correctly the community by its warnings have identified a user as breaking rules and then laying low until the heat is off - so to speak. If I was the Admin in say a the third wave of warnings, I would not only leave a warning but amplify it with additional advice. Then in a week or two, I would revisit the user's contributions and talkpage. If the user is laying low, I would leave a calm note that encourages them to be a contributing member.

Now for an off-the-wall you don't like the question: It has been noticed that you tend to be an all-out inclusionist. What are your boundries? Here is where you either wait a little longer than your norm in preceeding answers, i.e., do your normal stuff and perhaps do article improvement stuff. Then you either seek clarification or punt. Punt in this case means you know someone has you pinned and it's best to acknowledge their concern while allowing yourself grace in answering the question in a thoughtful manner that indicates you will not do that type behavior.

I hope this helps. If I read the tea leaves correctly, you will at least 100 more Supports to get your mop. Good luck. --Morenooso (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I would have to say your RfA has the most absurd and shameful opposes I have ever seen an RfA. The ultimate hypocrisy is seeing accounts with the deletionist userbox label you who does not even have such an inclusionist userbox an "extreme inclusionist." I have seen you argue to delete on occasion, probably more frequently than some of those accounts have argued to keep. You are a moderate who just happens to proactively help improve content being mischaracterized by bad faith accounts that are bitter that articles they merely don't like being actually improved and kept. The sad thing is that once they generate enough false appearance of something, others get unjustifiably nervous and jump ship, I suppose following the old, "where there's smoke there's fire" misperception. Well, actually, where there's smoke, there may not be fire, but a smoke machine... And that is what we have in your RfA, ludicrous attacks against you put out by a handful of obviously biased accounts successfully deceiving others: as a nother saying goes, if someone repeats the lie enough times others may start to believe it. If nothing else, your RfA has revealed at least which accounts are fair and reasonable. So as that number is still the majority, have faith in that. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)