User talk:MichaelQSchmidt

Ongoing Running Waters discussion

WP:FILMS July 2010 Newsletter

The July 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) 06:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Paul Butcher, Jr.

Hey Michael--can you make something of this? Looking at the IMDB entry suggests he's notable enough. You doing alright? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sophie Turner - Gianni Capaldi COI, hoax?

Hey MQS, how are things? Got a favour to ask, can you have a look at Gianni Capaldi, it just popped up on my watch list (must have tagged it some time ago), the issue I see is recently two new editors popped up, Sophieturner (talk · contribs) and Giannila (talk · contribs), rather auspicious names...Giannila has only edited (presumably) an autobiographical article, and Sophia has only edited the article Sophie Turner, and added information about Sophia Turner to Gianni Capaldi....I looked up the movie they supposedly starred together in (Mandarin Orange Boys I think) and there was nothing (mind you I am on a netbook with a 10" screen, so I didn't look that hard), and the references in both articles are links to their respective Wikipedia pages. I am likely out of serious editing for a couple days, and then am flying back to the motherland Tuesday (need anything while I am in Beijing?) so am not really in "investigative capability", I thought you might have heard anything of these people, Sophia Turner appears to be legit (just skimming it), but the recent additions give me suspicions of one person two accounts using her real name as a username to give it street cred...Gianni's IMDB page shows some roles in movies/TV shows I have never heard of (although I have been in Mongolia off and on for 6 months...and don't watch much TV even when I am not here.) Anyway, could you, or any TPS (and by TPS I mean you Doc) take a look? If you can't get around to it, no worries, I will be keeping an eye on it. Perhaps an OTRS request should be put in to verify some of the editors using real "celebrities" names? Do you know where one would go with that, as you are the most famous person that I know! Cheers.--kelapstick (talk) 11:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for awarding me the Barnstar of Recovery. It's nice to know that my efforts are appreciated. Best wishes, WWGB (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Always appreciative when someone rescues something before I can get to it, as many hands make light work. Your barnstar is well deserved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I Am the Media

Hi Michael,

I have tweaked some of the info on the I Am the Media article; as you are the major contributor I thought it a courtesy to tell you. I have not changed the sense of anything I think. Andy Warhol on the interview list I have taken out; as he died in 1987 I thought it unlikely that he was in the film... perhaps it was some spliced-in old footage. If I was wrong to remove him, please add him back.

Best wishes, Acabashi (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

RE: inre this diff

I could understand why you would place a disambig on the Louder Than a Bomb article because someone might go there in search of the Public Enemy song. I took it off because I doubt anyone would go to the Nation of Millions article searching for the film, even with the doc and one of the songs holding the same title. WikiGuy86 (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It comes up second in a search,[1] followed by a few other similar titles. How would it best be handled? A disambig page, perhaps? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That would probably work better. WikiGuy86 (talk) 05:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:Barnstar

Why, thank you! Much appreciated. Only rarely do I vote "keep", but when it's needed, I don't hesitate to do so, as well as to point out sources establishing notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing on Hum Hain Lajawab

Hum Hain Lajawab, a Hindi dub of The Incredibles (film) is up for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hum Hain Lajawab. Since this is your area of expertise, I thought that you might be interested in improving it as it appears there are sources available. Thanks! Christopher Connor (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Obama Anak Menteng (film)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

I remember your discussion about how it's ok to do an article on the Avenger film if it is well sourced and notable. So I was just curious if I could create an article about X-Men: First Class (film) as a "film project" article before it starts filming if it is well sourced and notable enough. Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You might use The Avengers film project as an example template, and create it first in a workspace such as User:Jhenderson777//workspace/X-men: First Class (film project).... and expand the heck out of it and source the heck out of it, as any small or minimally sourced "future" topic articles are quite likley to be redirected to small sections in the parent topic article. Keep in mind that per WP:CRYSTAL "future topic" articles can be considered...but... they need to extraordinarily show that they have the extended in-depth coverage over several years to merit being one of those rare exceptions to WP:NFF. And such may end up at AFD for discussion anyway, as it's a case-by-case basis. Note also... they must not be set up in format to mimic any article about actual completed films or films-in-progress, because, and even though, they are film-topic articles, they are about a "non-film". Its only after a film begins principle filming or gains release will it become an actual film article and use a film format. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks for telling me this. I have already created sandbox for this film. Here it is. That's why I am already ready but since you telled me they can't mimic any films in progress as of right now, it seems like a few things might need to be changed for the time being. You can help with that if you like. Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Study the article at "The Avengers film project". First order of business is to move your title into a new sandbox... User:Jhenderson777/X-Men: First Class (film project), rather than User:Jhenderson777/X-Men: First Class (film), as it is impoprtant that the article title does not imply a "made" film. Second, eliminate your use of an infobox, as that template is meant for films that have begun or completed principle filming. Third, consider changing the "cast" list to "planned cast" and set it as a section AFTER development and pre-production, as in the The Avengers film project article. Also, far better to have planned cast writen as prose (and not as a bulleted section), and to remove the character descriptions, as those are simply duplicate of information in other articles.

You are aware that X-Men (film series)#X-Men: First Class (2011), is itself an already pretty hefty section at the series article... and what you are essentialy doing is creating a spinout. So in order to survive as a stand-alone, you need to give a more thorough historical coverage and provide in-depth contextual information, else it will wind up as a redirect back to X-Men: First Class (film project). What would be best, even if more work, is to create the very in-depth and well cited "(film project)" article, and then go to the talk page at Talk:X-Men (film series) and seek advice toward it as a spinout... suggesting that the existing section is, per Wikipedia:Article size, starting to overburden the parent, and that as per WP:SPLITTING a proper spinout should be considered. Geting input form those editors alredy involved in the series article will be extremely helpful. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I put it on the other sandbox. What do you think? If you think it looks alright. I will discuss it with User:-5- about doing it that way who is mostly involved in the X-Men (film series) article and my sandbox. Jhenderson777 (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Better. See if you can emulate the way "planned cast" is handled at The Avengers film project, as informative prose toward each's participation, rather than as a chaacter description. Do some research to expand and describe the "courting" of each actor for their various roles... sourced to the various announcements of each as they were made public. History. Context. Then yes, discuss it as a reasonable spinout with v and others, specially as the existing section will then be neccessarily trimmed accordingly.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Filming is supposed to start in just three weeks, per this source. I think we may be able to wait it out, and just simply import the X-Men: First Class article from Jhenderson777's into X-Men: First Class (film) when the time is right. Really, the difference between this and the Avengers is time. The Avengers still has a while to go, while this is going to start filming very soon. I'm on the side that says to wait it out, but it's Jhenderson777's userspace so I'll go with whatever the consensus is. My main goal is just to keep the sections in the X-Men (film series) article and Jhenderson777's userspace up-to-date, organized, and referenced.-5- (talk) 06:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That's true. It's only next month away. But either way it's going to end up the way the original sandbox is. I think this discussion helped me out with other movies besides just this one. Jhenderson777 (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Per THIS it has three weeks. I think both you and User:-5- are on the right track. Were you in a hurry to get it to mainspace, my original comments above toward treating it as a (film project)... film-related non-film.... article would be best toward its retention... but with filming to begin in less than a month, and if you're willing to wait three weeks, it would make sense to return it to its original (film) version and continue tweaking. You've done some good work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I just realized how soon that is. I also have the same intentions for the Spider-Man reboot which is a while away and the section is getting long on it's film space too. I have already created the name as a redirection and here is a revision of how it looks like. Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it's time to split "Cancellation of Spider-Man 4 and reboot" into two sections in the current Spider-Man (film series) article.... "Cancellation of Spider-Man 4" and "Spider Man Reboot", since they are now two different but related sub topics. Just did it.[2] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I think that was a good idea. I fixed the redirection of Spider-Man 4 and the redirection I just created to the reboot section. Now what do you think about creating the reboot section into a separate article since I created a name for it. Is it too early? Jhenderson777 (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest a userspace, not mainspace. Interesting quandary will be the title. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious about that as a title? About using it as a userspace, I would only use it if it would benefit the future. The only reason why I didn't create a sandbox on the Spider-Man future film because it is untitled thus far so I don't know what it would be called. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In userspace, a title really does not matter. When filming begins, the actual title will probably be announced and you can move your workspace article to that new (as yet unknown) title. Heck, at the moment even IMDB only refers to it as "Untitled Spider-Man Reboot". So it's an unknown. And IN userspace, additional sources and expansion can take place... as the news coverage continues.[3] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I might just do that for the future Spider-Man film. We'll see! Jhenderson777 (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way I did create the film project article for X-Men: First Class. Might as well! Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

And it is nominated for deletion! Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

We must have seen that at about the same, and we had an EC at that discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright in response to the latest comment. I will see what you can do. And please inform User:-5- this too. He mostly works on the film series article more than I do and is probably good at finding sources too. I know I am not that good at finding sources. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Whew! Thank goodness the AFD's over. But I have come to inform you, you might want to join in the discussion of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Film projects. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Fox Jackson-Keen

Very nice job. I suspect had the article been in this shape at the outset there would have been no nomination. Eudemis (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you and I agree. Ideally, editors should fix something and thus improve the encyclopedia... rather than want something tossed simply because it hasn't been fixed "yet". A negative preconception works against many articles. WP:CLEANUP and WP:ATD are supposed to be of a little more concern to editors rather than treated as dismissable suggestions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have time...

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

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

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

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

Take a look when you get a moment

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

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

Talkback

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at Ron Ritzman's talk page.
Message added 00:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Barnstar

Thanks! Much appreciated! Yeah I think its time we had some system in place which makes the criteria for AFDs tougher. People will nominate anything these days while the real duds are lurking elsewhere. Dr. Blofeld 10:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well... some people will, anyway. Maybe an editor ought to actually have some content creation and articles under their belt before they are permitted to misjudge the potential of others? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Loccitane

Hi Michael: Thanks so much for introducing sense into the "1 a Minute" deletion page. Do you know when the deletion discussion will be closed? Thanks again for it all, Best wishes Loccitane (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS August 2010 Newsletter

The August 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) 03:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guadalajara: The Experience

Closed as requested. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Too soon

Actually I think WP:TOOSOON article is too valuable! I wonder why Wikipedia didn't make something up like that. EelamStyleZ (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually TOOSOON seems useful for even non-new editors who just want to make an article for a new film they hear about or a debuting actor. Some articles that I nominate for deletion are created by such amature editors who still lack some good sense in editing articles. However, I think TOOSOON is written a bit "high-tech," if you will, for new editors -- I'd say giving more descriptive sub headings (instead of for example, just WP:BIO) would be helpful for new editors. But I'd highly recommend the article to any newbie so that they know when to create an article about someone or something. And I think the NEWBIEGUIDE is awesome, very user friendly and nicely outlined! I think it sums up all the important topics briefly and boldly. I'll surely recommend that to any new editors I come across who may need help. :) EelamStyleZ (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILM September Election Nomination Period Open

The September 2010 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting five coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next year; members are invited to nominate themselves if interested. Please do not vote yet, voting will begin on September 15. This message has been sent as you are registered as an active member of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

A bubble tea for you

Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:User:Download/Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

An AfD that might interest you

Thought this might be of interest: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Sharkey's Last Game. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Didn't get a chance to thank you (temporay block thing) - so thanks! There were some good refs brought up by the AfD nom that I plan to use, so a negative becomes a positive. Thanks again. Lugnuts (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think if you open a dialog with the nominator now, he has a better understanding of just how negative mass nominaions appear, how they set an unrealistic ticking clock for certain difficult-to-source but do-able articles, and may be glad to work with you in expanding and sourcing those articles. And take a hint from my own efforts at The Telephone Girl and the Lady. Its one thing to simply add a source... but it's far better to draw some contextual content and expand to add to a reader's understanding. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at Ron Ritzman's talk page.
Message added 12:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: @AfD

Calling out a possible WP:COI is not exactly bad faith; I simply had a very bad feeling per your comments and arguments that you were merely trying to push the article to be kept based on your possible bias for the movie industry (because, well, you're quite successful in that domain, says your Wiki article). And it didn't really help that the creator of the articles went to notify someone like you of the AfD. It wasn't meant to be a personal attack at all.

My being in film and television actually makes me better qualified to dig where others had not thought to go. And consider... a doctor may edit medical articles or an athlete edit sports articles or a teacher edit education articles without it being COI... specially as editors are encouraged to edit those areeas where they feel they can make the best contributions. If I were promoting myself or projects I have been in, THAT would be COI.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

And a polite and quite neutral notification to one or two editors who might help improve an article or offer advice on how to proceed is not canvassing. Had Lugnuts suggested I take some specific action toward his interests, or had he made his notice to many others, THAT would be canvasing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

Anyways, I'm sorry if it turned out to be a fight there... I don't like taking something as trivial as an encyclopaedia article that seriously, but I suppose that the ambiance created by Hullabaloo didn't exactly help me keep a cool head. So, sorry about that. (I also see that you posted on my talk, be back to answer that in a jiffy.) _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 22:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, I guess I didn't exactly realise how tedious it would have been to source those hundreds of articles in seven-day stretches... heh, I even thought twenty of them was a little on the low side. But I understand how RL can get in the way of these little things, so again, I'm sorry for not having realised that at first. I suppose going to WikiProject Films would have been the best bet for this case. I appreciate the time you're placing into this type of stuff, in spite of your career, and I hope we don't bump into another discussion for similar circumstances (which is very likely, as I'm going to take a bit of time off from AfD – and Wikipedia, for that matter, since the school year is coming back). Regards. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 22:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There are processes set in place to alow the slow and steady improvement of the project. A better option in today's instances would have been to tag these articles for concerns and let them be addressed over a reasonable time period. If they do not receive improvements to make them at least marginally accptable, then is the time to "propose a deletion" which gives another 10-day grace period for improvements. If the prod is removed without cause, THEN is the time to consider a deletion discussion, IF discussions with the de-prodder proved unsuccessful. But the fact that you hit us with some 18 or 19 at once. Ouch. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Sorry again. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 22:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

And to let you know, mass deletions are discouraged. One reason is because of the real-world time factors involved. Another is that mass noms are seen by some as a tactic intended to make answering concerns in the limited time available a nearly impossible task... as if the nom were more concerned with getting something deleted than it actually getting improved. I do not believe this is the reason you mass nominated, but it does sometimes creates just that negative impression. And it must have itself seemed a bit overwhelming to try to answer the 19 different threads of that multiple AFD all at once. Usually (but never mandated), a nominator will make his nomination, give his reasons, and then sit back and let those responding begin discussion and sort things out over the 7-day period. And somewher along the way articles get improved, or not... and the article is kept, or not. A nominator need not take the load upon himself to respond to every comment or refute every opinion, as that can create the baryard brawl we all wish to avoid. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Response

I'm working on some other articles at the moment. I may take a look at it later.-5- (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Douglas Tait: Another feature article

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

A Marine Story

General replies at my talk. I moved the Story to see what happens, but on re-re-rereading I now see "Farr and Weber first developed..." but there is no prior explanation of who "Weber" is, other than being in the infobox. That would count for me as "badly written" regardless of notability considerations. If Weber was crucial to the development they should be mentioned in the lede and substantiated in the body. Franamax (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

A Marine Story and Demarco Morgan should be now set to go. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your work on A Marine Story. As I mentioned before, you are an incredible mentor and exemplify all that is good about Wikipedia! Action grrl (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC).

Glad to be of help. And when you have future articles, always feel welcome to ask for input before going live. Always best to address issues early. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent guidance! Will do...thanks! :) Action grrl (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK

What do you think of this DYK nomination. Template talk:Did you know#X-Men: First Class (film). Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I am getting a little controversy over it because it has been nominated when it was a film project. Even though the DYK and the article are a little different. An user is stating that it's one and the same. It's kind of saddening that nobody responded to it when User:TriiipleThreat nominated it as a film project and now somebody responds that it's already been nominated when as a real film. It's a case of being completely left out. It's a "That's the way things goes." moment. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC) One of those touchy situations where retreat is the better part of valor. Had the AFD resulted in a userfy or incubate or even a delete of the original article, and another new one created a few days later as a film article, it would have... despite its resemblance... been more likely able to be argued as a new article. But with a move of old article and history to a new name, is is a rename of an existing article... one which as is pointed out, was not expanded 5x or qualifies as new. Hoist by your own petard. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh... point out that it was ignored, or over-looked, or fell through the cracks when originally nominated, and that it is that earlier nomination that should be acted upon, even at this late date! No sense in punishing an article now because DYK evaluators messed up then. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

From what I remember I ignored. I never saw any responses when it was on my watchlist. That doesn't mean I never missed a response. But I never saw response when I look at it. Do you know if they archive these things or something. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are records of old DYKs, and it might be possible to resurrect it even now if it was ignored back then. Read response over HERE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I see it at Template:Did you know/Queue. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice!!! If it's IN queue, then it is still alive and it may have been that it had put on hold durig the AFD and is now proceeding normally. Make sure that DYK editors change the title to reflect the move, and retract your second DYK as superflouos. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

And all that worry over nothing. I hope you have a sheepish smile of embarrassment on you face right about now. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah lol. Can't you just delete the second nomination. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

And by you I meant me. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No need. I requested its deletion here and it will be taken care of... likley within a few minute or hours. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I also asked HERE. No problem. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. I wasn't sure of how to inform the name changing so I mentioned it here. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Busy morning. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I hear you. By the way if you look below that nomination that we just talked about, there lies my first DYK nomination. What do you think about that one? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Kismet. And if you're willing... I got a tough assigment for you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Kismet? And yikes! What is this assigment? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not expect immediate miracles, but would like you to consider doing some diging.

Background: Last year I worked a bit on an article about a book that had doubtful notability and as a result it was not deleted... then. However, last August (and I was not notified of the discussion by its nominator), the article was sent to AFD and subsequently deleted.[4] The creator, was involved in a similar deletion discussion about an article she had also written on the book's author... also deleted.[5] So now, after years of edits, the articles' creator is disgusted with Wikipedia and has not contributed since. I can see her point, as no effort was made to improve either article during their recent deletion discussions, and the discussions seemed to focus are article tone, rather than improvability. The article on the book is now in my userspace, and I have requested userfication (pending) of the article on it's author, as I belive both are salvagable.

Your assignment Mister Phelps, should you agree to step outside your area of expertise, is to assist in researching just which colleges and universities around the world make use of $30 Film School in their curriculum in teaching filmmaking, so that I can show it meet the criteria at WP:NBOOK#Criteria #4: '"The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok I will first start with the author. Here's something that maybe be a valuable external link and source and I will also try to find more to add.

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/3220
http://edu.cengage.co.uk/catalogue/product.aspx?isbn=1598631896 Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to be a help here. This looks like it might be the mirror of the has been article itself. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yup, en.academic.ru mirrors Wikipedia. oreillynet may have potential. Like hunting Easter Eggs. They're there... just takes loking. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That's good that it mirrors Wikipedia. Then you copy and paste it on a userspace. Ther'es also a IMDb profile on him but that can only be used as a external link. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Back to the book. And no hurry. I'm currently rescuing Paige Moss from deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

When looking for sources for your book. When I find a reliable source for that book I soon find out you already have it. I would have voted Keep for your book. As for the author, I probably wouldn't say the same thing. I don't see a lot of sources proving his significance. Except that he's got Rotten Tomatoes, IMDb, Flixster profiles etc. that hardly has any information for him. But I can understand how you and the other user feels. I just recently have an article that I created nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ozai (Avatar: The Last Airbender) and I am really having a hard time finding sources on that one. If you can help finding sources, that would be cool! But only if you want to. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

When looking for sources, I want to look for character conception or reception of him. Apparently I am not finding that yet. By the way, I am recommending you inform User:Codehydro to help in your case of these articles. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am surprised this still exists. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The review in Film Threat is a quite decent accolade, and allows a reasonable presumption of more. Not every film ever made was reviewed by Ebert and Roper. All one need do is look. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paige Moss

I nominated it because I looked for sources and found none. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Well, different google-foo for different people. BUt why not tag it at least and see what other's google-foo could do? Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Because every article I tag only gathers dust for millennia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well... glad I could do something to help. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Final Shot: The Hank Gathers Story

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Proyecto Dos

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Aakheer

Any thoughts? Dr. Blofeld 19:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, very much, for your kind words at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Most Hated Family in America about my work on the article. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

A challenge? Not for you, surely

Hey MQS, do you think there's an article possible for this guy? I can't really find sources, his name being somewhat common (though he's very uncommon himself!), but you know better than I where to look. If we can get a DYK out of it I would be tickled. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• What I made at User:Drmies/Christian Erickson isn't even a stub, but it's something. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Left you a present.[6] The fellow is searchable under 5 different names. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Nice. I do note, however, that you also did not find stuff to make prose out of...Is that website reliable enough? He actually doesn't live in Paris, though he lives close to it--but that's between you, me, and the lamppost. Also, his spiritual adviser is named "bunny" (and it is in fact a bunny)--I could never hope to source that. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Alright, I went live. I had hoped to actually give him content, and looked through all the French pages I could find as well, but nada. Hey, thanks again for your help! Drmies (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I might have waited a bit before goin live, in order to get a little more in sourcing... using different search parameters... as his various characters may also have coverage. But the deed sir, she is done. I'll see what more I might get more on the fellow. Being Paris-based, the search is hampered... but I am usually the last person to abandon a search. At least now it has a decent claim toward WP:ENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes, I believe you are right on two counts: should have waited, and can make a claim to notability. I found another one that might be of interest to you: Jodi Forrest. She used to live on the West Coast, only a couple of hours away from you... Drmies (talk) 02:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

AYTCOP?

If you find anything that's been deleted based in part on his interaction, where the absence of his interaction would have led to the content being retained, which you believe should be returned to Wikipedia, let me know. I'll honor all appropriately reasonable requests for restoration and/or champion DRVs as necessary and appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 04:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Some AfDs

Hi Drmies

I'm not trying to inappropriately canvass, but a number of AfDs that I've started (you can review my history) are languishing with lack of participation. If you feel like stopping by, that would be great—I don't care how you opine, but I hope that you could provide a policy-/guideline-based rationale should you participate.

Regards, ^Bongo_matic 04:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Norman Osborn

I am aware that you might not be familiar with the character. But still I would like to hear your opinion about this. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Emma Tate

Hey, did you find anything on this? I honestly don't see the substantial coverage in RS, and the AfD is now on its second relist after your comment here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Emma_Tate Cheers! --j⚛e decker^talk 00:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean A. Moore

Hi MQS

Thanks for participating in the Sean Moore AfD and others. Given that you haven't identified any basis to conclude that the subject of the article meets any of the inclusion guidelines, I think it would be appropriate for you (at least temporarily) strike your "keep" comment—especially one other editor (at this writing) has opined on the basis of your conclusion. What do you think?

^Bongo_matic 09:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In case you missed it, my "basis" is found in Sng WP:AUTHOR, where that notability guideline states "this person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." The article itself makes this very assertion when it offers his "primary significance as a writer is for his three pastiche novels featuring Robert E. Howard's sword and sorcery hero Conan and for his novelization of the movie Kull the Conqueror," such assertion being easily verifiable. When dealing with SNGs, such verification does not itself have to be significant coverage, but like any fact must definitely be confirmed in a reliable source. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The work must be significant or well-known. I have searched but not found any evidence of notability for any of his three Conan novels or his film novelizations. Hence, the pastiche novels he wrote are not part of the notable "collective body of work" that has been the subject of reviews. The novelization of a film version of a novel is most certainly not what is intended by "the subject of an independent film (the precedent, not derivative, novel is what is meant. ^Bongo_matic 00:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

J. G. Quintel

Good job on cleanup. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 14:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

And thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. G. Quintel

Wasn't just an IP but also Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, who seems to have a grudge against me. Funny how so often I have to send something to AFD just to get people to fix it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hullaballo may just be expressing a sense that some of what you send to AFD as "unsourcable" sometimes proves to be salvable, and then echoes the general consensus that AFD is not meant to force cleanup when there are other options. But then, we need to recognize the reality that if something does get fixed because of AFD, the project gains... and if something does not get fixed and is subsequently deleted, it's usually no big loss. On the plus side, nominating the Quintel article stopped the redirect reversion wars of the anonymous IPs (a plus) and with a bit of work we now have a decent enough stub to serve the project (another plus). But to offer reality and balance, it is easy to see that much of what you send to AFD is indeed unsalvable. :) As for me, I do have fun fixing what I can, when I can... no matter who nominates. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What's your take on Would Jesus Wear a Rolex? Hullabadouche undid my redirect YET AGAIN for no real reason. It seems no one wants me making redirects anymore. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You could actually do a quick Google news search. [7] See how easy that was? Instead of trying to redirect articles, and edit war, actually spend a few brief seconds searching for something. Notice how many newspapers talk about the song? Dream Focus 04:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

[EC] It may be that he looked at THIS and determined that the unsourced stub article may have an establishable independent notability and potential for improvement. You might simply ask him to fix it if he thinks it fixable. Look TPH... I like you and have found our discussions always fruitful... but with respects, sometimes it appears that your "before" is occasionally a litele lacking... with respects. And while yes, a redirect is one of the options available to us under WP:ATD, sometimes it can be best to leave an article alone for a while but simply tag it for concerns... to see what others might bring to the table. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What good is tagging it? I've NEVER seen anyone address an unreferenced, notability or expansion tag unless it was me. Ever. People are so anal about redirects anymore; it's not like you can't rebuild the damn article yourself or — EXPAND THE DAMN THING YOURSELF. If we just let everything sit without acting on it, then we fall into an infinte loop of WP:SEP... everyone expecting everyone else to do the work, and thus freezing the project. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

As a member of Unreferenced Article Project, I might tend to disagree... but admittedly, I do my own work best at the last minute and when an article is under the gun. For instance, Show Cats: The Standard of Perfection was sent to AFD, and EVERYONE there opined a delete, complaining about its (then) current sourcing or inability to even BE sourced. But here comes MQS and his willingness to do a little work... so far turning this into THIS (opine at the AFD if you wish). Could someone else have done so? Sure. Did anyone bother? Nope... and that is the sad thing.

So the question becomes one of how to address that lack of initiative on the parts of others. Is it simple laziness? Apathy? Ignorance? Lack of ability? I agree that tagging an article often has little effect... but at least if it had been tagged without results for a week or month, a stronger case is made at AFD, and there is less inclination to toss an undeserved blame at a nominator. And too, and specially if it is a reasonable new article, tagging shows respect (even if unrequited) for the processes in place. Look at it this way... and this is a comforting philosophy (for me) that may grate a little... but Wikipedia itself knows that it is imperfect, accepts that it is itself a work in process, and unless something is a blatant volation of WP:BLP or WP:NOT, does not demand that things must be perfect right now. Again, you do terrific work... but the way to avoid frustration is to maybe slow down just a little? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Standard of Perfection: Show Cats

Hello! Your submission of The Standard of Perfection: Show Cats at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS September 2010 Newsletter

The September 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) 04:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - and congrats to you, too! Lugnuts (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Congrats to you and Lugnuts. :-D Mike Allen 20:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Michael! I am wondering, do you support appointing Bovineboy2008 as the sixth coordinator after such close results? See discussion here. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup! :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, very much, for your kind words at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bridge (2006 drama) about my work on the article. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Film cleanup

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

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

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

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

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

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

Batman 3

I agree with you about the Batman 3 casting section.. but majority rules and all that good stuff and I'm not going to edit war on an incubated article. lol Mike Allen 21:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it is incubated off of mainspace is a reason to let let it grow and evolve... and as it evolves off of mainspace, it does not require at this point the same kind of attentionor perfection it might if it were on mainspace. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Standard of Perfection: Show Cats

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• Congrats on the DYK. One small problem. See CFA International Cat Show to show that the 2005 show was in San Mateo, California, not Houston. The 2004 show was in Houston. I know this because I created the article and attended the 2008 and 2009 shows in Atlanta. Chris (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Check the second paragraph here which states the event was filmed at a Houston CFA International Cat Show... not one in San Mateo. I can only then suppose it was either the 2001, 2002, 2003 or 2004 show. Time to crosscheck cats versus shows to get the exact date. Appreciating your input about the 2005 show, I see now it must have been the 2004 show (likley)... or earlier (possible). I have tweaked the article to temporarily remove the filming year, but return the correct filming location. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Found it: The 2004 show per third paragraph here  :) I have now added the correct year to the article. Thanks for the good eyes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Inclusionism

How do you feel about it? I see you around the wiki still, when a lot of others have left. I still watchlist a few deletion sorting pages like TV and Fiction to add my two cents when I feel like it. But, important articles seem to come up less and less (that Star Trek episode article that came up recently was more important than most, I think). I'm feeling a little bit existential (or the opposite of existential, if that's a thing) about it lately, or something. Whatev. Hope you're dong well and still getting small parts in films. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Still here... and still plugging away. I see your "two cents" every once in a while and am glad that you're still around yourself. I'm doing okay in both TV and film. I have a 10 AM set call Sunday morning to shoot a scene in Don Coscarelli's latest film. I cannot reveal the details of the plot, but it's an awesome concept, and I'm thrilled to be a part. Quite nice to work for the man behind Phantasm and Bubba Ho Tep. And then there's this TV special that will air December 5 on Adult Swim. If you can handle the Tim and Eric sort of humor, watch for me as "Winter Man". And thanks much for droping a note, as it does seem that an awful lot of others have been chased away from these pages... both established editors and struggling newcomers. Seems the sad trend that has been developing is continuing apace. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

What's the sad trend? Came here as MQS might be interested in this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Schooley, a not-quite-notable (in my opinion) actor/actress (whichever is correct) which seems very borderline, and MQS probably might have the nose to sniff out some suitable sources. This might be canvassing, but I don't know, don't care, and think your input would be useful! Bigger digger (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

White Gold

Hi, in creating the article for White Gold (1927 film) I didn't just show that the film existed. I included a template box, citation, point of reference, IMDb a customary source when talking about casts of a film as they take their info directly from the American Film Institute Catalog. This film got no attention on Wikipedia so I created an article. I have ran across several other movie entries on Wikipedia that could be better. Each film, especially silent films, yields it's own set of problems. If it is a well known film there is a larger pool of info. If it is a lesser known film or forgotten programmer type that has been lost for decades then it sometimes is more difficult to find correct information. Usually IMDb or AFI Catalog comes through with stats but, yeah, I've run across several silent pictures with nary a word or stat about them other than they existed at one time. Its an ongoing process giving the final word on a silent film. Wikipedia being an open encyclopedia gives others the opportunity to participate thus others can make corrections or aditions to a given article if they have the information Thanks. Koplimek (talk) 11:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry for the tardy response, but you had posted your note at the bottom of my userpage and not on my talk page... and I only just noticed. I moved it to the talk page and am now responding.)

I'm on your side, as my own worry is that much of early cinematic history could be lost to Wikipedia's readers simply because the coverage that common sense indicates as existing many decades ago may be now difficult to find. Toward White Gold (1927 film), there ARE existing archived news articles from 1926 through 1929 that deal with the film and which could be used to further source the film's notability. And there are also book souces that speak toward the film itself... even more helpful as showing the film has made it into the enduring record. For example, Joe Franklin's Classics of the silent screen: a pictorial treasury deals directly with this film and the rarity of existing stills, and Larry Langman's A guide to silent westerns speaks toward cast and crew, as does Anthony Slide's The idols of silence and as do many others. My note was intended only to encourage additional sourcing, as there are editors who believe that only something that made headlines in the last couple decades could be notable.... and for articles dealing with films from early cinematic history, this is simply not the case. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.Koplimek (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC) I meant to add Joe Franklin's Classic's of the Silent Screen(1959; later reprinted) is a marvelous read especially for newbies embarking on silent film study and cowritten with the late great William K. Everson. Jerry Vermyle's 1985 "Films of the Twenties" belongs up there with Franklin's book as it sort of picks up where Joe left off as far as commenting on several more silents. Cheers.Koplimek (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've got it covered. Silverseren^C 01:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The Incorrigible Dukane

Hi Mike. You're the first guy I thought of when I needed an reference for an old film. I saw The Incorrigible Dukane on new page patrol - it'd make a good DYK hook as the oldest surviving John Barrymore film, but the only ref is Imdb. (The article needs expanding to, I left a note on the article creators talk page to say all this too). Fancy the job? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll be glad to look into it. Thanks for asking. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've done what I can. I don't know if it's quite at the 1500 necessary limit, but it's probably pretty close and there's more than enough info out there to expand it a bit more. Well, that's probably the last article i'll be improving before I go on my hiatus. You have a good month, Michael, i'll talk to you again in December. Feel free to email me if there's anything you want to talk about. Silverseren^C 20:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think it might squeak through, I'm gonna nominate it. Good job Seren, enjoy your break Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Without being 1500, it will not pass DYK review.... however, I have just added an image and will do some further expansion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• I knew I'd get a result if I came here :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
• Good to know. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Plot

I would say that this would be your best bet for plot. For now, at least. Silverseren^C 22:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Well... that.... and the synopsis here will allow something to be created. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Ooo, nice. Why don't you just quote it in? Silverseren^C 22:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Long quotes are less appreciated. What I have done instead is to use information from the two to create a brief synopsis without spoilers.[8] The article is now at 2274. Safe for DYK review. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

And you caught that typo only nano-seconds before I. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILM October 2010 Newsletter

The Octoberr 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court (1921 film)

MichaelQSchmidt: thanks much, I had checked it out earlier yesterday and for some reason it wouldn't enlarge unless you clicked two to three times. But it's fine now and the Obey The Law poster looks fine in template. I'll bet a lot of buffs didn't even know Obey The Law even existed. I've found more posters for Blanche Sweet's The Sporting Venus and D. W. Griffith's Hearts of the World and One Exciting Night. The Hearts of the World along with A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court are amongst the best lithographs I've seen. Lithographic posters are truly a lost art today. Koplimek (talk) 08:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

And I've just added the images for Pleasures of the Rich and His Supreme Moment. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Bangladeshi Bengali film

Dear co-ordinator now a days one sock desperately create non notable bengali film. I just intimate to you that I am also member of WP:FILM and I create many notable bengali film. In Bangladesh every year near about 80 films release. But as usual all are not notable. Local national media reports only notable film. So we cant accept all film in here. You know better. So please watch this sock. Thanks.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 12:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Palo y hueso

Hi. Can you find any further info/sources?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

copyright.

Hey I got to ask you something because it looks like I am in trouble. Does this look like a copyright infringement to here. If so like I said, I am in trouble. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

How can adding categories be "copyvio" if supported in both article and sources? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That's just the latest revision I could show you of the article. The article itself right now is subjected to copyright violation. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahh... I see that you sent me the last link that still showed content. Yes, you're in trouble. Well... even if not blatant copyvio, that another editor has concerns makes it well worth addressing. Do a major re-write and trimming of your content, so that it can be seen as supported by your sources, but not directly taken FROM your sources... unless small portions are used as a properly attributed quote. Begin discussions and enlist aid from the tagging editor so that his concerns are addressed. It will be up to an Admin to remove the tag if/when issues are addressed. It looks do-able. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I already have done the discussion from the tagging editor. I hop that he could resolve it. If anything we could put it as a redirection until it's resolved. That's what it was originally. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikia used information like this. Do they have similar copyright policies. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't know, as I stay away from the various wikias. They do not have the same requirements for sourcing or notability. You might request from an Admin that concerns be immediately addressed by the artricle be reverted back to its original redirect and that the worrisome version be userfied to you for addressing the problems... with a promise that it not be returned to mainspace until it has been agreed that all current concerns have been addressed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

And.... I have already userfied it. As for an administrator I don't know who to go to. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

As it seems reasonable to roll back to a time before the issues arose, I made a request here. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I really appreciate it!!! And I might also want to know his opinion on if it really is copyrighted or not since he is an administrator and would know this. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to ask him. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the user who tagged it said it was ok for the article to be redirected. Now if only I could put it back as a article because I really want it to. Once again though I really appreciate it. − Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Film Posters

Those posters look great in place in the articles. They say 'a picture is worth a 1000 words'. Well in as far as lost films, a film poster is the next best thing in some cases. I accidentally made a wallpaper of 1921's Disraeli and it looked very good blown up that big, many film buffs have never heard of the 1921 Disraeli but they know of the 1929 talkie as it is an Academy Award winner. D.W. Griffith's movies didn't always hit in the 1920s but he had some of the best lithographic posters printed up,ie Hearts of the World. Hearts of the World and Fox's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court are two of my favorite posters as they both use a lot of blue and blue seemed to register well in the lithograph medium. Films stayed in town only about 2 days in the silent period unless very successful they might see a week in a town at the most. So we can see why such hard work was put into movie posters to lure the public almost in a magical way to see the movie inside. Amazing you found that poster for What's Wrong with the Women?, that website Moviepostersdb, is a great resource. I have another column of film posters, some rare, some I neglected to post the first time in the list. I actually fumbled the poster-to-template for Lon Chaney's Where East Is East several weeks ago. If you're interested in templating these lobby posters feel free or you might just enjoy looking over these beauties for your own pleasure.

• Where East Is East
• One Exciting Night
• Rough House Rosie
• Red Hair (1928 film)
• America (film)
• The Dove (1927 film)
• The Sporting Venus
• On with the Dance (1920 film)
• Smouldering Fires (film)
• Drums of Love
• The Sea Hawk (1924 film)
• The Thirteenth Hour
• The Devil's Pass Key
• The Man from Blankley's
• White Shadows in the South Seas

The posters I listed in External Links for Hearts of the World, Outside the Law (1920 film), and Way Down East are alternatives as those entries already had posters. But I thought they'd be of interest. Thanks again for your efforts Michael. I enjoy them immensely. -- Koplimek (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The more inviting an article looks, the more likely it is to have others wish to enjoy it and the more likely that others might add to its contents. I'll look into these later and do what I can. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Second thoughts

Actually this is not a bad idea for a separate essay! pablo 09:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

How about this? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there's probably a need for all three, although each relies on a slightly different definition of 'junk'. pablo 09:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahh... the light... specially as in "One man's trash is another man's treasure". The term "junk" is subjective, and too often used negatively. What has happened at the MFD discussion is the noisey clashing of subjective ideologies. As my own example attempts to urge, we might perhaps be just a little more careful in what we subjectively declare as junk... because with a little work, even things some originally called junk might serve the project. As for "Send the junk to Wikia"... I like the idea. It merits some thought. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

How do I convert WP:ITJ and WP:IMPROVEIT to links once in mainspace? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Improve the junk]] etc will do the job. pablo 09:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you take care of it for Wikipedia:Improve the junk so I don't mess it up? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Done and done. pablo 09:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

[EC] You da bomb. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

2:00 AM here. Time for some shuteye. Thank you. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

re up ↑there a bit ... you're defining junk as 'currently crap but improvable' whereas there's junk that is just junk and best deleted. wp:Delete the junk deals with articles that are so bad that no article and a clean start would be better. I did see one once, a stub about a person with a fairly common name that had been the target of a disgruntled associate of someone else with the same name. The history contained some really foul accusations, and (before revdel became so common) they would have been there and accessible to all until we run out of free electrons and the Big Crunch comes along to reboot the universe. Because there wasn't ever much content to the article, it was deleted and then recreated a similar (but not as bad) case is the history of Catherine Smith (novelist). Similarly if an article on a non-notable Barack Obama, say had come to light in the last few years, it would probably best to burn it before starting one on the other Barack. There is indeed a LOT of stuff that would fit best on Wikia, and that may well be Wales' master plan; he does get a few quid out of that side of the business. pablo 23:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No argument, as there is surely money made by someone somewhere when something is moved out of the encyclopedia and onto one of the ad-supported wikias. Hopefully the founders will not be too overt in supporting something be moved to a wikia where it might make them money, rather than remain here and be improved over time. But as the term "junk" is subjective, I'll continue myself supporting due diligence before dismissal. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

An RfC you may be interessted in

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz

Maybe you already know of this, I just found it and thought you may also want to add one or two things. Testales (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)