User talk:MichaelQSchmidt/Archive 001

Sockpuppetry case closing
See case closing here. You are strongly encourage to be a productive editor, not be disruptive, not engage in socking, etc. Otherwise you will get blocked as appropriate. Use the clean start you've started on to be that productive editor you say you've become. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 16:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I will do my utmost to be productive, to not be disruptive, and to follow the precepts of Wiki to the best of my ability. I do not have as much free time as some, but I will contribute as I am able between outside commitments. Thank you. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you ever appeared on the modern incarnation of The Gong Show Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * CC, before asking that question, maybe you could answer one: Still sitting there waiting for you. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Franamax, you haven't been right yet about a single thing in this case. Hounding me about that diff isn't going to win you the validation you're looking for. Here is where Schmidt reveals he has a "tapping" of The Gong Show to get to, which answers my question (and, as a matter of fact, answers yours too). Cumulus Clouds (talk) 08:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This also means Michael Schmidt is now in a conflict of interest over his edits to that page. Considering the warning he received after the closure of his SSP case, I would recommend he recuse himself from editing that page or risk further sanctions. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 08:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not looking for any particular validation and I'm happy to be proven wrong ('cause it means I'm learning something) - but I do like to be shown proof that I'm wrong. Your specific words were "write [himself] into an article about a show [he's] appeared in" - can you please just back up your specific allegation? Or perhaps retract it? Franamax (talk) 08:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You can either a) let it go or b) not be surprised when I continue to ignore you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 09:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The record stands then: you made a serious allegation about an editor and have failed to show cause. The editor is currently in good standing as a fresh start, as evidenced by the comments of an ArbCom clerk and two editors with Checkuser access. You have now made a blanket reversion of this editor's contributions to The Gong Show, which edits showed not a trace of the COI you claim. Cumulus, I would urge you to well consider your future actions with respect to MQS, at the moment, they seem to be bordering on harassment. You cannot expect productive contributions from any human when they are constantly being reverted. Please reconsider. Franamax (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, we have an editor with a history of manipulative and abusive sockpuppetry and who has a pattern of promotional editing, now engaged in an article for a show that he works for. It is impossible to tell what his interest is on this article, if he's being paid by their producers or if he only intends to promote it to increase his own brand awareness. This is the nature of a conflict of interest. Like the article he wrote for himself at Michael Q. Schmidt, this editor should recuse himself from editing any articles for any shows or companies he has ever worked for or risk being sanctioned. Considering his past here, I would pick your battles carefully. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (Sigh) One of the several articles I have contributed to this last week is the 1970's television series The Gong Show. Many statements within the article were tagged required citation. Having searched out the informations online, I added them. The article also begged for updates to be put in line with current history of the show. I serched for them and added them. I kept my contributions as neutral and factual as possible. No where did I express my personal opinion.


 * If a neutral POV is maintained and there is no attempt at self-promotion, a mathematician should be allowed to add to an article on physics or string theory despite being able to add and subtract... a school teacher should be able to add to an article on education or school discipline despite being able to read and write... a military officer should be able to add to an article on military education or equipment despite wearing a uniform... a chef should be able to add to an article on soups or salads despite having cooked a chicken... a busboy should be able to add to an article on tipping or customer habits despite having carried a dirty dish... a mechanic should be able to add to an article on motors or auto styles despite having changed a spark plug... a priest should be able to add to an article on religion or saints despite having said a mass... an artist should be able to add to an article on paintings or sculpture despite having drawn a picture... A store clerk should be able to add to an article on paper vs. plastic despite having sold a carton of milk... and a performer should be able to add to an article about a televion series or another actor despite having themselves been in front of an audience. Editors should be able to contribute to those fields that interest them if their contributions are as neutral as possible and are properly cited and are not self-promotion. How or what draws an editor to a subject is not relevent as long as their edits are neutral, properly sourced, and not self-promotion... as explained in the examples above. Indeed, it is an editor's interest in a subject that results in their performing due diligence in their search for the cites that present a subject thoroughly.


 * All of my additions to The Gong Show were thoroughly and properly sourced. None of my additions included my opinion. No where did I write myself into the article as you have repeatedly, stridently, and falsely claimed. I ask you CC to stop judging me and instead judge the quality and thoroughness of my current edits. If you find faults with the edits, then say so. But continued attacks on me as an individual are inappropriate. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All of that would be true for people who weren't twice found to have engaged in abusive sockpuppetry and blatant self-promotion. Because of your past history on this encylopedia, all of your edits will be treated with great scrutiny. I would advise you to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I know you are watching everything I do... as shown by how very quickly you responded to my coment above. I ask you again to stop judging me and instead judge the quality and thoroughness and neutrality of my current edits. If you find faults with the sources, then say so... but continued attacks on me as an individual are inappropriate. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And twice? No. User:Mqschmidt was blocked (August 19, 2007) a year ago for creating nonsense pages. User:MichaelQSchmidt was found to be associated with the abusive L.L.King group, but was allowed with a warning to edit based upon current behavior and editing history. There is no need to beat me on the head with this over and over and over. Judge the message, not the messenger. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You were found to be the same user as L.L.King. So, once as L.L.King and all their socks and now again as both mqschmidt and MichaelQSchmidt, and the third sockpuppet, User:Topotina. I count two. And the problem here is not (primarily) the message, but the grave concerns over the messenger himself and his intentions behind his pattern of edits and abuse on this encyclopedia. You will find that I will quit bringing this up if you refrain from editing articles for projects, productions or associates that you are involved with. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * False. All that can be found about User:Topotina is a reference on their talk page where they we warned for removing content last January from the Sean Haines article. Apparently Topotina was in complete agreement with you back then and NOT the King group. I see no instance where they were ever involved in, accused of, found guilty of, or added to, any sockpuppet case. Please cite the source for your statement or retract it. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Even assuming MQS has a COI, which is debatable, reference to WP:COI shows the option to exercise great caution, which the editor has done. Further, WP:COI applies to substantive changes to an article. I have personally reviewed each of the edits you reverted - they consist mostly of additions of references, addition of wiki-linked names backed by those sources, and minor cleanup of text; all of these are laudable activities. I haven't checked each supplied link, if you have a problem with one of them, please point it out. Your blanket reversion indicates that you are focussing on the editor, not the edits. Again, as pointed out by several senior editors, this user is operating as a fresh start. You need to confine your scrutiny to the actual edits they make, all of which look OK to me. MQS has not used appropriate reliable sources in some cases, but that is part of the normal learning experience for any wiki editor. You would do better to help educate the editor, rather than make knee-jerk reversions based on your own definition of COI. Franamax (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(Sigh) Now even the lumps on my head have lumps. CC, I have made a promise to User:Rlevse and all of Wiki to be productive, to not be disruptive, and to follow the precepts of Policy and Guideline to the best of my abilty. I am keeping that promise. I am certain if Rlevse thought I was breaking my promise, he would boot me off of Wiki in a hot second. I answer to him. I answer to other Amins. I answer to consensus. Your continued reversion of edits without disussion and your constant hounding of me is outside policy. Please stop. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Welcome
 Welcome! Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add User WikiProject Films to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:
 * Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].


 * The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for June has been published.  July's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
 * Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia.  Check it out!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

re:Gong Show
Those "nc" tags were called "reference names". They are used when you reference the same thing more than once, so that it lists it only once at the bottom. The current state of the article doesn't have that anymore, so it's fine. --Mblumber (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahhhhh.... cool. My finding those additional sources was helpful. Thank you for the clarification. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 04:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Jay and Seth
I think it's a good start, but I'm not sure if it should be construed as a trailer for a possible film. It seems like a trailer based on a comedy short, then people wanted to take the idea and run with it. Also, some citations may be redundant... for example, Entertainment Weekly already cites Variety. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just added more meat. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Will concentrate more on the trailer being intended to help market the feature... and its apparent success in doing so. I've watched it and it bragged 13 months ago "coming soon". It seem that a feature was their hope. And I will pull redundent cites to be sure. Just wanted tham all in one place as I work.Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There are a few ways we could do this. One is to go ahead and delete the film article through the AFD process, then restart it as a comedy-short article.  Then in the future, we can make Jay and Seth vs. The Apocalypse (film) if it does get started.  Another option is to withdraw the AFD and transform the article (though I'm not sure if it's within compliance to change from one topic to another under the same article title).  A final approach could be to create Jay and Seth vs. The Apocalypse (trailer), then whatever happens with the AFD, we could move it to the original article title or redirect. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 18:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think option three makes the most sense and would be easiest. If/when the film is made, a search would/could pull up both. I am adding a little infobox as you read this. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Made the final tweaks and created the article as per option 3. I am kinda proud of how it came out. Your help was valued. Jay and Seth vs. The Apocalypse (trailer) now exists. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That works great! Should we go ahead and encourage deletion or redirect at AFD?  We can point to the trailer article, then if filming begins, we can reboot the film article under the original title. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 19:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Was just there and changed my vote. Good working with you. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Your new article looks great! A few crits: But job well done! :) I have a few other comments, but to avoid repeating myself I'll save them for the AfD. Regards. PC78 (talk) 22:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The cast section seems a bit unnecessary. Unless it can be significantly expanded, I think this is sufficiently covered by the rest of the article.
 * 2) The plot section - is this for the trailer or the proposed film (or both)? Again, it's a bit short, and unless it can be expanded on, I think it mught look better worked into the main part of the article.
 * Both points well made and easy to fix. I'll check in at the AfD and read the others. Thanks. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help! We'll figure out the AFD mess, but I wanted to let you know that your contributions are appreciated.  If you have any interest in working with film articles, I'd be happy to help you. :)  You know how to reach me! — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 01:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Being myself in film and television is what drew me here. I was running down the list of proposed deletions and adding my two cents. When I came to the Jay and Seth article, I felt I could do more than just comment. I am glad to be of service. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Tim Sullivan
Looks like you found a lot of sources! You don't necessarily have to flesh out the article to warrant a keep; in AFDs, if you show other editors that there is independent coverage of the topic at hand, then it's acceptable enough. I'm not an expert on biographical articles, only having worked on a handful. The best two that comes to mind are Akiva Goldsman and Alex Tse (though the latter may be on the fence). I think that common sections are "Personal life", "Career", and "Filmography". — Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks good! It could do with some inline citations, though. Regards. PC78 (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree. Had to save it at AfD first. I have two others to save and then I can come back with the cites. I definitely have the sources now. Wheeee! Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Patricide (2007 film)
I an attempting to salvage this article... and am working HERE. Informations? Share, please. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films July 2008 Newsletter
The July 2008 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. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Jay and Seth
Sorry, I missed the comment you left on my talk page last night due to other people posting...

The convention with article titles is that we don't add (trailer) or (film) or (disambiguation) or similar unless necessary, i.e. because there are multiple articles with the same name. That doesn't apply here.

But in any case, the discussion at AfD seems to have turned to the notability of the actual trailer, which is where it should be. And to be honest, I'm starting to lean towards "Delete" myself...

Regards. PC78 (talk) 00:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry about all this. I actually feel pretty bad for it; I know you spent a lot of time looking for good sources for the trailer's notability, but we have to be seen to be consistent, even for articles we like. However, you may have another option soon. I don't know if the sources are just getting it wrong (not unlikely), but some are indicating that the trailer will be followed by a bona fide "short film" on the same subject, well before the projected feature film. I can't see this being ignored by the mainstream film press, so this would certainly qualify under notability rules once there's some more information on it. All the best, Steve  T • C 07:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What are your thoughts on Inglorious Bastards (2009 film)? It's been on the merges subpage for a while.  I started cleaning it up recently, and it's just now getting newfound attention.  I'm not going to actively push for action since I think most editors outside WP:FILM will feel that with all the recent press, an article would be warranted.  This is one of my small qualms with WP:NFF; it's not always easy to find  a place for the historical context of a project.  The Hobbit film duology is another such example that would be clumsy to merge. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 14:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Like i tried to find for that trailer? (chuckle) Schmidt (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I just wanted your take on the linked articles (both in pretty updated conditions) in regard to WP:NFF and general criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, you may want to review your involvement in this AFD... — Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops. Went and struck the second vote. Schmidt (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I didn't get back to you when you asked about the sandbox version before. I should really have had busy tags on my pages all weekend. That said, I'll take a look at your revised version at some point today, and the sources. Be assured that should I believe it now meets WP:N, I will be more than pleased to change my vote. All the best, Steve  T • C 07:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest with you, Micheal, I don't think your new draft is a big enough improvement on the current article to make much of a difference. I don't think it's something that can be solved by rewrites – what you really need is a least one good, reliable source that relates directly to the trailer, and I'm just not convinced it's out there. It's hard to say which way the AfD will go at this point, but I think it might be best keeping the article in your user space, at least for now. There's no rush to have an article; if there is nay more news about the project in the next few months, we can always come back to it then. Regards. PC78 (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well... as a short film, sources have to be considered in that context. The article is no longer about a trailer... its now about the cause and effect of a short film that bills itself as a trailer. I have oversourced it to show that specific notability. If one or two aren't the strongest, there are a dozen others that are. All together as secondary and tertiary sources they have woven a very strong case for notability. See you at the AfD review.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's to your credit that you've been very calm about this; I know many who wouldn't be. But can I suggest that instead of attempting to swing the deletes over to keeps, it would probably be a better idea to let this one run its course? I can't see anyone else changing their !votes at this late stage. You would probably find it more fruitful to work on the article further in your sandbox, before asking a neutral set of eyes to cast a glance over it to help judge its suitability. Even if a recreated, better, version is sent straight to AfD, it'll be easier to argue for its notability in a fresh environment, with potentially different editors, than risk your argument being lost amidst the long discussion at the current one. And if worst comes to worst, there will always be a home for the information at the proper film article, once that begins principal photography. I know the wait can be frustrating, but it'll come around sooner than you think. Heck, I had to wait from last September until January this year before unleashing State of Play (film), each delay more frustrating than the last. All the best, Steve  T • C 18:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks
hey, just to say thanks for the help you left on my talk page xxx Jessi1989 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Year of the Deer
This kind of article is not new. For the past year or so, there has been similar articles about computer-generated films with anthropomorphic animals and celebrity voices. Some examples: Articles for deletion/Animalia (film), Articles for deletion/New York Zoo (film), Articles for deletion/Animal City (film), Articles for deletion/A Rat Movie, Articles for deletion/Jujitsu Deer, Articles for deletion/Vic and Marty, and Articles for deletion/The Wild 2. Here's a SSP report as well. I check the upcoming films watchlist often and weed out this kind of thing. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Re. Choices of the Heart
Thanks for telling me, I'm glad you found. I wouldn't of brought it to AfD if I had known. Much appreciated, Leonard(Bloom) 04:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming I should close it. Any thoughts? Leonard(Bloom) 17:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would pull it if I knew what to do. :P Thanks for the help on the article! Leonard(Bloom) 17:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate the strike through
Here's the deal. I have been working on a response to what you left on my talk page. Basically I won't be able to take your recommendations, but I wanted to give you more information about where exactly I'm at as a Wikipedia user and where you think I am and who I respect and who I'm hoping will be a little bit more thoughtful before they hit "Save page" in future. First, I was going to leave it here on the talk page... then I changed my mind and decided I would try to e-mail it instead. Because of your recent gesture, the mea culpa and the strikethrough, I think I will decline to e-mail it; perhaps it's best to just call it even and see what the future holds. Sometimes, when people make a little bit of effort and learn from what went before, these things take care of themselves. Do you agree? Homoaffectional (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Michael. I read your comments at Homoaffectional's page. I agree that "some editors may simply look at an article as first offered to AfD and vote accordingly." However Deletion policy has a list of criteria for article deletion (with the caveat "not limited to"). LAAFan's reason "Unremarkable film" is, in my opinion, inadequate as a reason for submission to AFD. It does not indicate any effort made to find out if the film is indeed remarkable. From this brief summary, I guess that LAAFan refers to the criterion "Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline". In this case, the relevant guideline is Notability (films). The deletion policy also notes "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem." Did LAAFan attempt to improve the page through regular editing? No. Did LAAFan add an appropriate tag to indicate the problem with the article? No. In fact LAAFan added Speedy Deletion tags inappropriately, before realising and then reverting. Axl (talk) 07:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/2081 (film)
Since you !voted in this AfD the author has added a reference to the Moving Picture Institute which helps to confirm that the film exists but to my mind does not help with notability because the MPI are not independent - they funded the film. I have added a longer comment to the AfD debate, and this note is to invite you to revisit it in case you wish to change your !vote. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Dino Island
Hey, thanks for the links...I had found them in Google last night, but didn't think I needed to put them all in there, but I appear to have been wrong. Your help on that one is appreciated! BMW (drive)  12:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for your help on the keep :) BMW  (drive)  11:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: 2081 (film)
Many thanks for your help - I think I found some new information that will prove useful. Here's hoping for the best! JayLv99 (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC) I sourced the quote - since it's the same source as ref 6 I wasn't sure if there was a way just to link back to that ref or not, so I just made it into a new ref. I'm keeping my eyes peeled for more information, and I think today I'm going to start linking it in with other related articles. Is there a way to make it so 2081 redirects to 2081 (film)? Or could there be a disambiguation page made? JayLv99 (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ee Irupatthiyonnaam Noottaandu
Thanks for the warning. I am not a major editor of this article though, I only removed a template from the article. Garion96 (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Garion96 (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Johnny 5
This was the lead/star/character in 2 comedy flms about a robotic machine / soldier surrogate who developed inteligence and a conscience. The films are funny enough, for what they are, having more than few instances of slapstick, and were popularly received. Check the articles at Short Circuit and Short Circuit 2. If you rent or download them, you may get a chuckle... or not.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks. Maybe we could redirect the article to that explanation, it'd be both clear and concise. --Kiz o r  21:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Re. Vicky Chopra
Thanks! My search parameters have caused me some trouble with AfDs (see the message right above yours on my talk page), and I'me very glad you caught this one. Much appreciated, and happy editing, Leonard(Bloom) 02:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, heheh, I thought it was different procedure when it was a closed by nom'. Turns out it's not, but the things for a NAC (non-admin closure) can be found at WP:NAC.


 * Oh well. Personally, I suggest being bold (like on this one), but whatever you are comfortable with works. Again, much appreciated, Leonard(Bloom) 03:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed I am, and thanks for the offer. Leonard(Bloom) 03:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good way to spend time. Good luck with the tags, I might help out, though I'm also working on Big Stick Ideology I should probably stop this conversation; it's drifted off topic. :P Leonard(Bloom) 03:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice job; I think I'm gonna format those references... (eh, I'm bored.) Always a pleasure to do what I can, and nice working with you as well, Leonard(Bloom) 22:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good plan. Leonard(Bloom) 01:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Question from Fangusu
Do you mean to say that I rescued that article from being deleted? Fangusu (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films roll call and coordinator elections
Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll just archive the discussion
I'll just archive the discussion. Thanks for thinking of me when looking for a consult. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

A puppet problem?
Sorry not to reply sooner, but I live in UTC+1 and I'd already gone to bed. It'll be a few hours before I have time to look at it properly. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2008 Newsletter
The August 2008 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. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Articles for deletion/Deconfliction
If circumstances change and the film gains prominence, then I don't think the original consensus to delete would apply. Notability criteria for films are pretty clear, when and if the film is picked up by a major distributor or wins a jury prize, write it up! :) Cheers, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Love (2008 Bengali film)
thank you for comments... I want to work with Full Calcutta based Bengali Cinema which is well Known Bengali Film Industry in Calcutta and satyajit Roy is a most prestigious in this Bengali Film Industry. Regarding Love is already release in Calcutta market. And thank you for more addtion on it. Jayanta Nath 06:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Bengali film actors

 * Could you please see what's the problem in the page Category:Bengali film actors? The name and alphabetical is not wright.-Jayanta Nath 12:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Prestige Academy of Motion Pictures
Michael, I am quite confused as to the origins of the Prestige Academy of Motion Pictures? I cannot find anything about it other than "pipe" articles that rotate right back to Wikipedia. Hoax or not, it seems very questionable. FWiW, I will bring this issue up to the forum. Bzuk (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC).

Edits to MQS article
Hi MQ, Cumulus is right that you should not be editing your own article under almost any circumstances. Simple errors of fact should be noted on the article talk page and you know enough people here now to be able to get someone to look at them pretty quickly. If it's something really egregious, which any reasonable person could see violated WP:BLP as contentious and unsourced, I personally would take it out but then immediately report to the BLP noticeboard or WP:ANI for further review. That's just me though. For minor stuff like your two recent edits though, best to let someone else do it.

And I join with CC in giving kudos for your recent work! Regards, Franamax (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Okie dokie. Felt nervous when an nonymous IP started adding unsourced info. Glad to comply with your advice. Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Frank Henschke
It's just that I'm more likely to go looking for reasons to hang on to an article that is in good shape. I've changed my vote to a weak delete. WikiScrubber (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh well, thanks for your efforts. WikiScrubber (talk) 05:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ananda Tandavam
Hi, Schmidt. I see you found a legitimate reliable source for the Ananda Tandavam article -- this one published with a bi-line in The Hindu newspaper -- which discusses the on-going film project. That's good. It also denotes notability because of Sujatha (who is, unfortunately, not mentioned in the article.) I added a keep to the Afd based on that. However, it's good to keep a couple of things in mind when finding sources. The number of hits on Google is somewhat meaningless -- it is more important what those hits reference. We are looking only for reliable third-party sources, i.e. legitimate published material like books, national magazines and national newspapers. Which, I know, can be a very frustrating limitation, but is a necessary one for maintaining work at an encyclopedic level. It also means that we need to be wary of internet material, like blogs, which are notoriously unreliable and are often driven by rumor and gossip. They tend to feed off each other. (for example: in the case of Ananda Tandavam, notice how many of those google hits repeat the exact same sentences without providing any source). If we use blog material, than Wikipedia becomes just another piece of the internet rumor mill, instead of a filter for good solid information -- which is what an encyclopedia strives to be. When dealing with upcoming films and other speculative material, it is best to be cautious. Legitimate info can always be added to WP as it becomes available, but it is difficult to wipe away the bad information once it hits the web. Anyway, keep up the good work. Sorry if I've rambled. Cheers —  Cactus Writer |   needles  11:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Completely understood and agreed. Placed them there temporarily only so that others (or myself if I have time) can take a look and expand the article. Was essentially a "drop and run" to show the article was not Crysal and met NFF... and only as a temporary stop-gap to show the direction to look for additional sources. And your "ramble" was appreciated.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. A tremendous improvement. (Where possible, I switched the inline citations to the The Hindu newspaper source that you found. That's a better cite, whereas the Kollywood.com is an unattributed portal.) But you made it read like a proper article. Nice job. — Cactus Writer |   needles  08:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome! Thanks for saving the article. I found it tough to find reliable sources to back it up before prodding it for deletion. It is nice to see that someone made the effort to go the extra mile. Keep up the great work! :) Nice to meet you. Mspraveen (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just echoing what others have said - good work and nice save!  TN ‑ X - Man  16:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oscar films
I went ahead and made the name change to Aaskar Films. It's a common problem with articles -- you can read Help:Moving a page for the 'how-to' details. (I had read that Ravichandran was being sued by the Academy over the name. He was even using the Oscar as his logo. What a fool -- talk about asking for trouble.) — Cactus Writer |   needles  08:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sancho Panza
Quixote and Panza? I'm thinking more along the lines of Laurel and Hardy. Another fine mess... — Cactus Writer |   needles  06:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Dear, thank you for doing this, actually I am new in wikipedia & busy in Bengali films of 2008 page and want to complete list of past total Bengali Cinema year wise. Look I want expand article Rudranil Ghosh and all people related to  Bengali film Industry. I mention in Rudranil Ghosh,s article summary I shall expand later on. Why this article on speedy deletion even though his Internet Movie Database availabe and I mention it. Thanks again. Jayantanth (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC).


 * Could you please see what's the problem in the page Category:Bengali film actors? The name and alphabetical is not right. Jayantanth (talk)Jayanta Nath 06:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok I undersand thank you-Jayantanth (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC).

YOUROCK
Congradulations you have earned the Nor3aga Jinglebell Rock award for September of 2008. Wear it with pride my man! Nor3aga (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Believers (film)
That would be an excellent, low key solution in a normal situation. However, at this time it appears that every action I take, every response I post here on my talk page and elsewhere is taken as further evidence of my arrogance and deliberately planned disruption of the project and malfeasance. So, I fear that should I withdraw, that will be taken as a sign that I knowingly did something wrong and an admission of guilt, thus justifying blocking, banning and restricting my account. The level of discourse on the part of some has led me to the conclusion that since any action I take is considered more evidence of my bad faith, that taking no action is the prudent course until the Admins settle this whole AN/I molehill. I am not trying to be difficult or petulant here, I am just tired of this whole situation. You would think I was the guy who burned the library at Alexandria.Barton Foley (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Fringe Pilot AfD
Due to the seeming confusion over the AfD caused by the two different articles, and the merging of the two into one, I have withdrawn the original AfD and nominated the single article for AfD at Articles for deletion/Pilot (Fringe). As someone who commented on the original, I wanted to alert you to the new AfD so you can revisit and state your position on this single article. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 15:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, help?
Not sure what is supposed to be in the namespace portion of the DRV, listed here. - Hexhand (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The removed info fromt he talk section was from me. It wasn't the nicest stuff I could have said, so I redacted it before anyone could respond to it. But you are right, I suppose. After your message yesterday, i posted an olive branch at C;s page to see if a dialogue could be opened. She immediately discarded it. At least I tried. - Hexhand (talk) 03:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Fringe
Per the comments in the DRV, I've gone ahead and relisted the AFD. Dreadstar †  23:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections - voting now open!
Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Stuart Pepper
I made my withdrawing comment without reading the sources in the search. I have got rid of my comment because the sources don't show notability. Sorry about that. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 03:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am done watching the discussion. I don't care about what happens to it anymore. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 15:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Stuart M. Pepper
An article that you have been involved in editing, Stuart M. Pepper, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Stuart M. Pepper. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Deor (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Point Mugu
Sry. just wasn't going to happen with all the stuff we had to do. Maybe next time. — BQZip01 — talk 20:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The Other Side of Aids
If you want the discussion about the article, do it on the editor's talk page or the AFD discussion. I do not want any part of the discussion, I do not want to get messages whenever you guys argue, and I do not care about the article anymore. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 04:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting editor, that Schuym1! Michael, thanks for discussing issues related to the AfD. Not to drag this out, but I would like to remind you to assume good faith. While it may seem obvious to you why I would support this AfD, I have never argued based on anything other than the notability criteria, so I feel that WP:ATA does not apply to my comments. In fact, I would suggest that one ATA, WP:ONLYGUIDELINE, would apply more closely to your arguments. If you feel that a Variety review plus several short on-line reviews should substitute for the suggested two reviews by nationally known critics, you can make the case on the AfD, but "it's only a guideline" is not an argument. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 04:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, its only a guideline IS not an argument... so why use it yourself when proffering WP:RS as your banner, when the basis of inclusion is WP:V... verifiability, not truth? No matter. Have a nice day.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:RS is an important basis for the work we do here, and I certainly do not dismiss it as "only a guideline". One cannot verify, except with reliable sources. Blogs and personal websites are not reliable sources. If you feel I have acted improperly in deleting blogs, etc., as sources, please request comment on my actions or take other steps to ensure review of my edits by uninvolved admins. Thanks, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ain't my place. Closing Admin will make the call, as I am sure we are both acting with the utmost of WP:AGF.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Please help
An article of mine is up for deletion at Articles for deletion/Piggie Pie. The nominator said that it is non-notable even though I added two reviews and the nom also said that it was an advertisment. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 12:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Piggie Pie
No problem, my AFD nomination was nothing personal, just it appeared to be a non notable random children's book when I saw it on special:newpages, I am sure with the evidence you have uncovered it should pass if you add those as sources to the article.--UltraMagnus (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Congratulations MQS, you old abusive-sockmaster you :) Now it's time for you to learn how to cite like a pro. I reworked a bit of Piggie Pie, maybe you can finish it? The main template I use is cite web, but naturally there are cite templates for all seasons at Category:Citation_templates. They seem pretty daunting at first, but I've found that I can now blam off a "cite web" just as fast as putting in the square brackets. Have fun! Franamax (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Tips: put reflist in the section you are editing, then you can check the footnote format in the Preview window - and remember to take reflist back out before you save!; and there are some tools out there with fill-in boxes that give you the whole wiki-text for a reference. Franamax (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Shrek
Great to hear from someone involved with such a great movie (and I'm a Potter fan too). It was definitely groundbreaking and I do wonder how Farley would have been received. It would have been a different Shrek, of course, but still great, I think. Thanks for your note. 23skidoo (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh that was you! I remember that troll scene well! Good job! 23skidoo (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Alice is safe
I am glad the Alice in Wonderful AfD closed quickly with the article being preserved. Thanks for the message! Ecoleetage (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC) 

Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Bruce Block
Thanks for the message. I know that he wouldn't have gotten on to America's Got Talent without having a background in his profession, and I applaud you for finding the other sources to show his notability. My apologies if any of the comments seemed too harsh. Good work on that article. Mandsford (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Black Oasis
Michael, see this page which is the most recent mention I could find stating that the movie was actually in production. Not sure if this is enough? miniluv (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Mary Oliver (violinist)
I'll take a look at the article later (I've been working all day and want to rest) and see if the sources and article meets the following policys Verifiability, WP:Notability, WP:Biographies of living persons and WP:Reliable sources. Bidgee (talk) 07:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Kissy Simmons
Saw the article. Good work. Wasn't back in time to change my !vote, but it looks to be just as well. =) -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 17:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

External links in film infoboxes
At the discussion, any chance you can respond to what I said to you about article length and link purpose? Just wanted to know your thoughts. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2008 Newsletter
The September 2008 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. Thank you. Please also note that after the roll call for active members, we've cleared the specialized delivery lists. Feel free to sign-up in the relevant sections again! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD
Congratulations on your careful work there on Severed. Very unusual to see such good work in that venue. :) DGG (talk) 03:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Tim Conboy sources
Thanks very much for your suggestions, I greatly appriciate it. Though hockeydb was accepted as a source, they will come very handy for any future player bio. Raphie (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you please give this a second look?
Hello! I cleaned up this AfD candidate (sandblasted it, actually): -- can you please give it a second look? Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Gave it a second and a third look. Superb job in cleaning out the kruft and making it worthy of wiki. You have earned THIS.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind message, I appreciate it greatly. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

AFD
So what's your opinion about the notability of the article up for deletion here: Articles for deletion/Sherwood Pictures. I still don't agree that notability is shown, and I think that I will probably never agree. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 00:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

?
How is an ice-cream shop being old make it notable when there is no reliable sources that show notability that talks about the shop? Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 16:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just don't understand how it's notable. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 17:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm never participatings in AFDs about old buildings again. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 17:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Beating up
Hey, me again ... the article has been reduced to a disambig. Please renew your comments on the AfD BMW  (drive)  20:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Please Help
I don't understand the Fairly Oddparents episode list mark-up so I can't merge Channel Chasers. Can you help? Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 23:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, never mind. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 23:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The Band
In that Google search, I saw no reliable sources that show notability. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 01:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Colors Insulting to Nature
I have improved the article significantly. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 01:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It was simple to find the sources. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 01:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox Dominic Luciano...
... is open for business. ... disco spinster   talk  02:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks!
I certainly didn't expect that Barnstar. A pleasant shock after a couple of days away from the 'pedia. Many thanks for that! BMW (drive)  11:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sunchaser Pictures
Hey, thanks for the update and info. You are the man! Jeremiah (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Atheist Community of Austin
I have no problem with that. Little Red Riding Hood  talk  19:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motivational poster
You might want to take another look at this afd, several sources have been added. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Cinterion Wireless Modules
I got rid of the copyvio in Cinterion Wireless Modules and added some references. You may want to revisit Articles for deletion/Cinterion Wireless Modules. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Mark Waddington
I still don't see that there is anything verifiable to make him notable. See my reply to your comments at the AfD. --JD554 (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Centrifugal force (planar motion)
Hi Michael: An expert opinion would be helpful in deciding whether this page up for deletion is accurate or useful. However, my question is: Is it a content fork? I wonder if you would revisit this discussion with that question in mind? The answer to that doesn't seem to require an expert. Personally, I do not see how the idea of a fork suggested itself. Brews ohare (talk) 11:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Beating up (2nd nomination)
I would like to draw your attention to this AfD discussion I have just started. I am leaving this message here as you were involved in the previous discussion about this page which ended just over a week ago. I realise that this renomination is not within the normal acceptable time frame and I have outlined my reasoning for the exception on the discussion page. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD
In a recent set of AfD discussions, it appears that you bit a newcomer fairly hard. Please try not to do so. (Note that this is from the "Bad Faith nom" comments at AfD). Undead Warrior (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your concerns. You will please note that sometime prior to your message on my talk page, I had struck the word "bad faith" from my comment at the AfD. If a newcomer, one has to be surprised at the editor's tremendous skill and understanding of Wikipedia. If not a newcomer, one has to wonder then if this is a sockpuppet. But since the very brief pattern of editing is not representative of that of a newcomer, I will keep my suspicians.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 15:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ouch, and your draft AfD comments are rather BITEy too ... this could be a challenge, especially because you have too much COI in this ... BMW  (drive)  18:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * When it comes to scolding others about excess of bite, some people should practice |practice what they preach. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, also, in response to your concern, I think I've figured out what happened with the nomination. See this discussion. It's lengthy, so bring a snack. My findings are at the bottom. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

In response
Hi Mike (can I call you that?). I am really not the best person to ask for advice on DRV – I only did that once, when I started as an active editor, and I made a total jackass of myself (not the first time that happened). However, I can say that you didn’t really write a DRV appeal – you wrote a slam against the guy who nominated the article for deletion, which will weigh poorly against any appeal. However, I do share your concern that the nom is a sockpuppet – his contributions seem very suspicious and maybe the Checkuser folks can clear this up (get in touch with User:Sam Korn on how to proceed). I might recommend pursuing this further, since something odd is taking place here. Hope this helps. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi! I wanted to tag on to what Ecoleetage said and mention that I left you a note on my talk page. Cheers!  TN ‑  X   - Man  20:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not very well-versed on DRV matters either, however there really is no set formula for appealing a deletion or requesting a review, as long as you state your concerns clearly, are willing to back them up, etc. You've made a detailed argument, so you can probably go with that. Of course, the AFD is still open, so I assume you're preparing for an eventuality. Remember though that it's not a majority vote and the closing admin (I do not close AFD debates myself because I participate in too many of them) may well choose to keep the article, or declare a no consensus, which is the same thing. 23skidoo (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you have the right to edit the article while the AfD is in progress. No reason not to, especially if you have material and references that pass WP:N and WP:RS.  Give it a go -- or if you want me to help, let me know what needs to be addressed.  Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

DRV
Sorry, Michael, I haven't had any previous involvement with the DRV process and am unable to provide you with any advice on how to approach it. I understand that you are preemptively preparing for deletion of the Michael Q. Schmidt article (although it appears to me it could possibly end in a "no consensus" decision). I may be wrong, but as I understand the DRV, it is only to dispute the afd closer -- asserting that they made a wrong decision -- and it is not a dispute about any of the substantive arguments in the Afd itself. Nor of the nominator, even when the behavior of the nominator is so blatantly suspicious (hey, how does a funny fat man make such viscious enemies anyway?)

Now please don't take this personally -- but in any of these cases which can appear to be COI or self-promotion or spam -- it is best to step back. On this, I have some experience. Four members of my immediate family have WP articles -- none of which was written by anyone even remotely connected to them. And a couple of other family members could have articles but don't -- and they won't unless someone else decides they are notable enough. I think that is one of the unwritten criteria for notability -- other people, completely unconnected to you in any way, personal or business, should desire to see an article written about you. Until they do... you don't deserve one... but no big deal.

By the way, I enjoyed the web interview you cited -- you're a funny personable guy. So don't sweat the Wikidrama. Just walk softly and carry a big schtick. — Cactus Writer |   needles  14:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review
Hi Michael, I'm also not the best person to ask about the deletion review process. I think generally it should be used if you feel the AfD discussion was compromised and/or the concensus was wrongly interpreted by the closing admin; it shouldn't be used merely to reiterate your arguments for or against keeping an article. I've left some detailed comments on your user subpage. Regards. PC78 (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

More on DRV
Sorry for delay replying, and I am afraid I am another in the list of people who has to say sorry, I haven't been involved with DRV, I don't know much about them. Such general ideas as I have are: Specific ideas: I think Pharmboy's advice is good. There is of course no prohibition on editing an article during AfD, so you could yourself restore it to a better-sourced version, but in view of COI concerns you are probably wise not to do that. What you could do is, provide a link to a better version of the article from the history, and say that Nominator's bad faith is not really all that relevant and I wouldn't spend too much time on it - he may be nominating for malicious reasons but the question is, are his arguments good? SPA !voters are another matter though and certainly relevant.
 * If your AfD is closed as "Delete" I think you are expected first to approach the closing admin with your concerns, and go to DRV only if you can't agree with him,
 * DRV is rather like a legal appeal - not intended as a rehash of the same old arguments, but arguing that the judge (closing admin) got it wrong and why,
 * Useful preparation is probably to read up past DRVs and see what sort of arguments were deployed and what were successful.
 * were it not for COI concerns you would have restored it to that,
 * that is the one you would like DRV to consider,
 * and (if they agree) to restore.

Finally, I agree with Cactus Writer  above - don't let it get to you. All the same in a hundred, or ten, years. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, I looked at the AFD and your DRV argument and came here to share my thoughts, but it looks like you've gotten plenty of feedback. :) I first saw the AFD when you included it at Deletion sorting/Film, but I chose to stay out of the discussion.  Since I've had interaction with you, I didn't want to second-guess myself in my action, such as voting "delete" to offset my possible bias.  To be honest, I did not find the SPA to be a major concern; like someone said later in the AFD, once editors of good standing weigh in, it does not really matter.  I think that it would be nice for all articles to have some kind of review, and for the kept ones to achieve Good Article and Featured Article statuses, which is obviously humanly impossible.  I think that it can be a challenge to tackle articles of persons who are light on notability, but from what I could tell at the AFD, sources seemed light.  I'll admit my lack of depth due to my self-exclusion, but it seemed to me that the article, after numerous evaluations by others, did have the most adequate sourcing, current and previous.  It just seems that what is left is your IMDb profile conveyed in prose.  I just hope that the outcome of this AFD won't detract you from the Wikipedia duties that you have been carrying out very nicely.  My apologies if my feedback was redundant or has gaps. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 15:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

More AFD
I don't keep track of every AFD so I can't answer your question, however in terms of "ignoring" past AFDs, the problem is there's a little Wikipedia guideline called Consensus Can Change. I'm not a fan of it, but it basically means that an article declared perfectly fine and dandy by the community at one point can be declared unacceptable by the same community 6 months later. It basically opens the door to people who disagreed with an earlier AFD -- or who did not participate -- to put in their 2 cents on an article they'd rather not see. My personal view is articles that are kept, unless there is accusation of wrongdoing in the closure of the AFD, shouldn't be renominated for at least 6 months (preferably a year). But that's just a one-man crusade on my part. There is a WP:NOTAGAIN guideline that frowns upon repeated renominations, and there are some articles (particularly about porn stars or other controversial subjects) that are renominated regularly, even after Snowball Keeps. That's why I routinely put "speedy keep" on AFDs that I feel have come up too soon after the last one. AFD's closed with "no consensus" are different animals and can be reopened immediately if someone wants to keep trying to find consensus. That wasn't the case here. If the AFD you're concerned about ends up with a close, the fact a previous AFD voted to keep less than a year ago can be used as legitimate defence, as far as I'm concerned. Unless, once again, the previous AFD was conducted improperly. 23skidoo (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Crisp
Thanks for your note. I agree, I think. I keep hoping that someone with expertise on NZ literature will step up to the plate. I searched JSTOR and the MLA and that gave me nothing. Of course, the sample poetry is of the really old-fashioned, sentimental kind--the poetry of a hobbyist. For now, I agree that a merger is the only possible solution, since the alternative is probably going to be deletion. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, not again
Can you please help me out here?: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flush!: The Scoop on Poop throughout the Ages. A book article of mine is up for deletion again. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 04:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

A Bullet in the Arse
Michael, I can appreciate your effort to establish notability for this film -- but I think you might have forgotten what the term "coverage" means in this context. As stated under WP:FILM and defined under WP:GNG, coverage excludes all self-submitted websites, blogs, press releases, etc. As such, there is not one single solitary reference in that article which qualifies as coverage. None. Although Screen Australia looks impressive, the only info there was submitted by the filmmakers themselves by using the website's "Submit Your Film Here" button. (check it out) Most any semi-pro filmmaker (or even amateur) could add their film to the website. It doesn't qualify as coverage -- and certainly doesn't establish any notability. As far as the MUFF festival awards -- minor awards at a very minor film festival. Screen Australia doesn't even include MUFF among the listed Australian film festivals. In fact, any articles I find about the 2003 MUFF only mention Bullet in the Arse in passing when talking about the glut of local amateurish B-movies and the general lousy schlock quality of the films. And these are by Indie film guys. As I said, I can appreciate your attempts to salvage small indie film articles. But this one? I think you're trying to sow a silk purse here. There are too many which actually deserve that effort. — Cactus Writer |   needles  11:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I'm going to keep looking too. I agree with what CactusWriter says too, to an extent, but I still consider that the film is notable and would rather err on the side of caution. If the closing admin/other editors disagree then oh well, at least we tried. --Banime (talk) 11:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Hopefully things work out but I see either way at this point.  Good luck in the future. --Banime (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Michael Rudd
Hello, I've added prod2 for Michael Rudd since I agree with your assessment. However, I noticed that you messaged a lot of people about the proposed deletion that may have just done passing edits. For example, only did clean-up via AWB. My suggestion is to contact editors who may have worked on the article substantially. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem; just use common sense where applicable. Even the article's creator has not edited since May, so it's doubtful that it would be useful to contact that person.  Just save ya some effort! :)  The article would not really fall any of the general criteria for speedy deletion, in my opinion.  Some editors interpret them pretty strictly, while others are more flexible.  prod is the right way to go.  My addition just gives the article a little more attention, I think, through a more narrow categorization. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 04:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Believers
No problem. Best, Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, as long as the reviews are representative of the critical response, otherwise you'd be in trouble with WP:WEIGHT -- that is, if the reviews are all negative, and you put up only a positive review, that would be putting undue weight on that review. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 06:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Good or bad, a review is a review Yeah, but I work in the theatre, in NYC, and on more than one occasion, a single review (the New York Times, of course) has prevented a show I was working on from moving to Broadway -- so all reviews are equal, but some are more equal than others! Ed Fitzgerald t / c 06:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Richard Adams (inventor)
Hello Michael, I was looking at your merger proposal and was wondering if you would look at the pages from yesterday and before. I removed lots of info last night being in a time crunch and trying to keep the page alive. Happy Computers wasn't the only thing he was notable for. This is my first jump into Wiki, and it's a lot to soak in. Do you think perhaps I should put the timeline back in as a reason for keeping a separate page? Thanks Eggzactly (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The Roadents
Another article of mine is up for deletion here: Articles for deletion/The Roadents. One of the three sources is trivial so I think that it might get deleted. Can you please help? Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 00:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I found two more sources. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 00:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And I added comments from LA Times and Tilzy TV. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 01:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Svetla Lubova
Dude! (that's a compliment). Glad to see humor and bonhomie are alive and well on Wikipedia! --Quartermaster (talk) 01:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy Computers
I don't know if any of those sources are The Richard Adams from Happy Computers. Maybe he should setup an account here to answer questions like these? Good idea? Eggzactly (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Dentally Disturbed
I am minded to AfD this article about a four-minute film: it seems to have been screened once on Australian TV, the only sources are participants' home pages and Youtube, and though the actors may have appeared in other notable shows, that notability doesn't rub off on this. But it gets a few Ghits - do you think the article is salvageable? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, well saved. It wasn't me who put the notability tag on, but as far as I'm concerned you could take it off now. JohnCD (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Cats in your sandbox
Hi, Michael. Just a quick heads-up. While flipping through some categories, I noticed one of your sandbox/work pages listed on it -- you must have left the category listings on it when you transferred User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox Patricide.. So I went ahead and neutered the cats on it. Just a reminder to stomp on those cats in your sandbox. You don't want them making a mess in there. — Cactus Writer |   needles  18:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Got the others too. — Cactus Writer |   needles  18:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Bride Service
Fair comment I suppose; I've looked at some of his other film articles, and they're just as brief as this one. To what extent they could all be covered at Tim Asch, I don't know; perhaps they could all be covered in a single List of films directed by Tim Asch, or something. (Great minds think alike, eh? :) I see you've just made a similar suggestion on my talk page.) Dunno, then. I'll see what others have to say at the AfD. PC78 (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To answer your questions: I think so, and I don't know. :) PC78 (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Might need some layout tweaks, but looks good. Might be best to raise the subject at WT:FILM and get a wider range of opinions. Regards. PC78 (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Imnotacoolguy
I have posted on his talk page that I will report him to WP:ANI if he continues to harass me about my articles. If I report him, this edit of his will help my case. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 21:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Check User
Can you please comment here?: Requests for checkuser/Case/Imnotacoolguy. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 22:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It was declined. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 23:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I did a report on WP:ANI. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 23:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I took it to Check User, I took it to ANI, and I am not taking it to Alerts. This has been to much trouble. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 09:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD
All I am getting is dead links and pages without bloopers. You sure? &mdash; neuro(talk) 10:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Casanova & Co.
Ok, when I tagged the article it was blank, but now notability has been established I'll withdraw the AFD. cf38 talk  22:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Schuym1 vs. Imnotacoolguy
Look, I'm going to rehash, but my issue is the Schuym1 already had a checkuser started. He was told that he didn't have enough. Fine. He went to ANI to ask for help ("This user has been being constantly bitey to me about my articles." doesn't scream sockpuppetry but typical incivility concerns). Fine. Instead of a simple explanation he said to review the checkuser edits. Fine. Those edits are far from clear (this for example is him removing Imnot's text and talking with you). I'm sorry but I don't like puzzles. You want help, be clear, don't act like you are doing me a favor by telling me. He could have easily just said "look at his edits" and that would have been clearer. Since then *I* notified Imnot, to which Schuym says "I removed the discussion.". However, instead of having removed the discussion, he started a new section which doesn't explain what's going on. Why tell someone you have ended the discussion and start another one? Since then Schuym has been anything but civil with this comment. I see Imnot is clearly screwing with him (and should be blocked for that), but seriously the guy had stopped editing for two days at that point. There is no need for the crazy drama. I'm guessing it was just an ass who got mad at him for trying to get his article deleted. No larger sockpuppetry, no larger history, just one jackass. Schuym can keep going on with his he's working with other people but it's just going to make him look paranoid. Follow Occam's razor - a single jerk acts like an ass, not a huge conspiracy of socks and meat puppets. That guy should be blocked for harassment, that's clear, but you have to ignore idiots like that. The more angry he got, I'm sure the jerk was happier. Revert, block, ignore works for a reason. When you have jackasses putting this kind of crap on my userpage, you just get used to it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, I wouldn't worry about it. My comments are probably going to work him up enough.  Also, don't use his age as an excuse.  There are plenty of youngsters here, some even admins or higher up, so it's just a matter of maturity.  If he cannot control himself, he needs to learn to sleep overnight when he's about to lose it and then respond.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)