User talk:MichaelQSchmidt/Archive 002

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.

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)

Happy Computers categories
That's funny that we were both adding categories at the same time. I guess the uncat tag got our attention. Anyway, thanks for all the help. Please see the new new additions to Richard Adams (inventor) and the discussion in its talk page Eggzactly (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
I did over 30 minutes of searching and I couldn't find anything else. It has been withdrawn. It's good that you added those refs before an admin noticed my csd-g7 tag. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 21:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I found several of those sources, but I thought they wouldn't show notability. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 21:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources have been added. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 21:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Everbody is Different
Wowzahs. Lots of sources. I've never given a barnstar before... but I think I can confidently say you deserve this one:

Peter Max Lawrence
I am a real stickler for reliable sources and WP:V. I did not find anything that would be significant coverage by third parties. The reviews were mere blurbs. I saw no RS for biographical information. Unless/until significant coverage exists, I'd not try to rescue the article. IF on the other hand, I felt the subject met notability, I would add sourcing and indications of significance until the AFD closed as delete. I would also make mention of any improvements a the AFD so that my improvements were taken into consideration. My natural reaction to the stridency of the deletion attempt was to attempt rescue. I was unsuccessful in finding anything helpful. You might check with User:DGG. He's better at rescue and at swinging discussions to keep than I. Hope that helps. Dloh cierekim  22:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Taking another look at the thing, I still have a sense of it being promotional as well. There's a fine line between promotion and listing accomnplishments, though. Dloh cierekim  22:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Short answer in light of your Barnstar-- yes. Dloh cierekim  22:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

U R welcome. happy to help. Dloh cierekim  22:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey Michael. Thanks for your note. First off, I applaud your activities in rescuing articles; I think it shows an aptitude and knowledge of WP that is very welcome and true to the spirit of the project. I admit that I can often err on the side of deletion, which is one of the reasons why I think that efforts such as yours are invaluable. As far as the AFD in question is concerned I was frankly disheartened (to put it mildly) by the actions of the nominator which (in my opinion) overshadow any sockpuppetry or WP:COI... verging on a bad faith nom. Trying to look past that, though, I had a bit of a look around and wasn't convinced of the notability of the subject. That said, I commend your actions and look forwards to giving it another look, hopefully without too much interference from those with personal axes to grind. I'll also have a second go at finding sources myself. Cheers,  one brave  monkey  10:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I come to you with good faith and I really appreciate you, being a neutral party, attempting to rescue an article that I felt had a huge COI because it was self-published and maintained. The one thing I want to note about your changes thus far is that I am pretty sure Big Mag Magazine does not exist as a real publication. If you do a Google search, the major things that come up for it is the "interview" with PML by Roberta Soltea. (Also note the link to that interview is located at the subject's own website.) I think a lot of this stuff is made up - not out of malice but I suppose as a performance. Please see this faux timeline of "historical events" which uses a lot of his aliases: http://www.petermaxlawrence.com/Art/WEB/PLAG/PLAG_CH_index.htm. Other than that, being from San Francisco, I think Hoard is real.Modestprotest (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am ignoring the fact that your own account seems one created to only encourage the deletion of the Lawrence article. I am ignoring the various other SPAs and puppets who have argued for its keep. I am looking at the article itself, and trying my best to source assertions of notabilitry. If I cannot source something, It will be removed. Simple. If the remainder shows a minor notability, the article might get to stay. If it does not, the article will go. Please trust that the system in place does work fairly well.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. I'm not a big fan of "minor notability." My sense is this person doesn't meet notability. It's best to let the deletion discussion go the way it goes. Sometimes I agree with the outcome. Sometimes I do not. The important thing is to do one's best to save an article and then accept the deletion discussion outcome with quiet dignity and grace if your efforts come to naught. I think you've given the article the best chance it good have. And I like your patience in dealing with the partisans on both sides of this mess. Cheers,   Dloh  cierekim  21:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Left you a note on my page. Modestprotest (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Many Thanks for your contributions!
I was so happy to see that Happy Computers and Richard Adams were both kept. Having never been through the AfD process before, I wasn't sure what to expect. I have to admit I am more than a little overwhelmed by all there is to learn, but thanks to people like you, the frustration level went way down and I'm glad I kept trying to improve the 2 articles.

Now, what about the Notability and COI tags that are still there? What is the process? Do I need to start a discussion on this, or should this have been done when the AfDs were closed?

Eggzactly (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

How nice it was to see the articles without tags! Thanks again for that! Oh and I will take your advice and start my next article in the sandbox! Eggzactly (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You survived!!!
I haven't been around much lately but I saw that someone tried to delete your article! Just wanted to say it didn't look very fair to me and I'm glad you're still here (in both senses)!!! miniluv (talk) 13:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Benson and the Little Giant, CoI and assorted issues.
Michael,

I was wondering if you might take a look at Benson and the Little Giant. I've tagged it as having CoI issues given the identity of it's major contributor. The poor chap has been working on the article since and, frankly, he's beginning to get a bit antsy about it. Since you've got experience in these things, I immediately thought of you when he asked for help on the article talkpage.

Personally I think there are notability issues here and that it's a candidate for deletion, but Thelittlegiant has been making such a genuine effort I thought I might hand him and his cheerful little article over to the Forces of Inclusionism as an act of good faith. :) Be well, X MarX the Spot (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Krysten Moore
Thanks for adding the cats. Do you think my improvement might save it at the AfD?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a passably borderline article as it stands. The main improvement would be to better the sources that have been identified about her anti-bullying efforts and to integrate them into the article. Ideally, these would talk about what she has done, who she has spoken to, etc. that would round out her portrayal. I am watching the article, but I cannot promise that I will be able to devote any time to it before this AfD ends. Alansohn (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * At your convenience, please review the rewrite. I took your advice to heart and tried to better incorporate the sources into the article. I am not the best at this... but being aware of the strictures surrounding BLPs, I sourced the heck out it. Thanks,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A good step in the right direction. I added another source, as well. Try to flesh out a bit more about Moore from the sources. What did she speak about? What did she say? Who did she speak to? etc. You're headed in teh right direction, and I agree that more sources is almost always better. Alansohn (talk) 04:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice source! I will do as advised and flesh out Moore from the sources, to give the viewer a better "sense' of the person herself, her background, and her messsage. Thanks for the nod in the right direction.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Quantum Quest: A Cassini Space Odyssey
The article looks much improved. :) I'll have a proper look at it tomorrow when I'm less sleepy.... PC78 (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

AFD
Can you please help me out here. I tried to show notability, but my attempt wasn't good enough. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 23:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm kicking butt in that AFD. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 00:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't think I need help finding sources. I think that the three reviews is good enough and I'm kicking butt in AFD. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 00:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. Can you leave an !vote since you improved the article significantly? Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 01:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Adventures of Cow Too
I had to reword it because someone will probably think that it is an advertisement. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 02:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

AFD
An article of mine has been nominated for deletion again even though it has 4 reviews: Articles for deletion/Why I Will Never Ever Ever Ever Have Enough Time to Read This Book. I'm so unlucky. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 12:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is two keep !votes so far. Since Captain Tucker had a good !vote and a good explanation to why reviews show notability, it looks like there will be even more keeps. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 13:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Three keep !votes now. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 15:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The result will obviously be a keep. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 16:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films October 2008 Newsletter
The October 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. If you have suggestions or comments related to the newsletter, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you and happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The Ant and the Elephant
Do you think that this article has enough of a notability claim? Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 01:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * All of the links that you posted on my talk page are ones that I aleady added, about a different book, and unreliable. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 02:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for trying though. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 02:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Talkback
A More Perfect Onion (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Rent
Good work, though I'm concerned that there are some editors who are trying to get reviews disqualified as sources (happened with a book AFD awhile ago). Re: song lists, I think we can go either/or. Other musical film articles include a soundtrack listing and it could be of interesting if it's not the complete songlist for the stage play. 23skidoo (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A song list might be valuable in case someone does a search for the name of the song, or visits the article looking for the name of a specific song. A film of a musical is a lot like a record album. But I don't have strong feelings about whether to include a song list. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Rutherfraud
Thanks a lot man, I appreciate it. Don't know what that other guy's problem was. Keep up the good work!!! DanyaRomulus (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Rent: Filmed Live on Broadway
I took the assertions of notability in a different direction and think I did okay. Opinion?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did a good job. Thank you. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me- well done. I don't think the Rescue flag is needed anymore. 23skidoo (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

So yeah, I go off to defend you and apparently you left these clangers on the editing floor. References addressing a completely separate film production? Can you clarify? I'll defend you, but I'll call you out on yer crap too (or maybe I'm missing something). Regards! Franamax (talk) 08:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Those were not my catches at all. See at User_talk:Fletcher. Remember that if you are making any kind of stretch at all in your editing, add a note to the article talk page to describe your rationale. Even if there's a shadow of doubt, you can't go wrong by making a note. Archive-bots are cheap currency.
 * PS, I don't know your preference, mine is to keep the entirety of discussion on the user talk page where it started, so as to keep it coherent for other readers. Franamax (talk) 09:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Uhh, didn't I just say that I prefer to keep the discussion on the talk page where it starts? That would be this page, right?
 * oops. Thought you meant the article's talk page. Sorry. Tired. Very long day/evening at work.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 10:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I, me, myself, am furthering the point of two substantive mistakes you have made in articlespace. I'm hoping for an explanation, an abject apology, and a plan to avoid further mistakes. You mentioned, in relation to ref formatting (which I'm not pushing here, there's lots of time to get that right), that you take shortcuts when you're in a hurry. What I'm telling you Michael, is that you've arrived, you're becoming a full-fledged editor - and you will now increasingly be judged on the quality of your contributions in the articlespace (and projectspace). It's unfortunate that you've ended up with me dogging your edits, my own personal standard is uncompromising excellence, and I do try hard to drop the bar a little for others. But ultimately we're all here to meet the standard of excellence - not "good enough", not "I was in a hurry". Excellence. Do it right. Hmm, does that sound a little hardline? Anyway, examine only your own actions - they are the only ones you can control. Why did you make those two mistakes in mainspace? Franamax (talk) 10:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Mistake one and two explained here diff. And though it is a difficulty at my end, I have been having for about 10 days straight now, problems with my internet provider... with my connectivity dropping out after sometimes 5 minutes of flawless conection... and usually in the middle of an edit... and remining off for perhaps a few seconds or sometimes an hour. Unpredictable. Unforseeable. Most disconcerting. Not an excuse... simply a perhaps mitigating factor in my trying to get as much done in the few seconds I have before the signal drops off again. At least we are not etching things in stone on wiki. An error can be acknowledged and corrected. I apologize to you that they slipped past my own bleary eyes. And I have absolute no problem with you "dogging" my edits, as I admire your standards and I aspire to follow your example.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 10:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well thanks much - that only confirms my assertions that you're collegial and open to feedback. Of course, now we're back to the problem that I believe you identified earlier - a dopey list of songs. So it goes - back to the grindstone :) (And I'm waiting for when they have the internet on typewriters myself - a five-minute dropout gives me the shakes, and I only have so many paperclips to use to reset the modem :) Franamax (talk) 10:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well... when I first began cleanup, the article pretty much consisted of only that list of songs. They really do not add anything to a reader's understanding of the notability. I am of the opinion to remove them again, as I did before... but this time have no link to other (incorrect) versions. Opinion?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 11:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You just answered your own question. Does that list significantly contribute to the readers' understanding of the topic? (damn if I know where to put that apostrophe, I think it should be in there somewhere) Do any items in the list blue-link to notable song articles? Franamax (talk) 11:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Schmidt's use of the article "a" rather than "the" forces it to be singular, in which case it is clear where the apostrophe goes. That's about all I have to say. Fletcher (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So what was it Franamax? Were you referring to "a" reader and his understanding, or mutliple readers and their understandings? If the former, your apostrophe goes before the "s". If multiple, after. As you wrote it in the sentence, either would be a correct usage. However, as written it is seen as a reference to multiples.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe my original instinct to remove them was the correct one. It was my linking them somewhere else in an attempt to please everyone that was in error. Of the 44 songs in this list, 5 could be blue-linked.... but still, inclusion of them here does not contrinute to the readers' understanding of THIS topic... and the lists are included elsewhere. I will remove them but at the bottom include a "see also" down by the external links.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 12:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Exercise your editorial judgement. That's what we're here for. Anyway, someone else might come along tomorrow and exercise their own judgement - which you will then have to evaluate and possibly modify or revert. It's a wiki! (note: if they change it to "poopoo" or "Alison is my bset firend", those are good signals that reversion is necessary :) Franamax (talk) 12:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Inre the song list, I have posted my thoughts on the article's talk pag diff. I hope for some input from interested editors.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphan tag on Harry Kloor
There's no strict number of incoming links which all articles are required to have - policy only requires us to link to other articles 'where appropriate'. But typically, Orphan is added to articles that have 1 or 0 incoming links - that's how I use it, anyway. This article now has more links than that, so feel free to remove the template. Terraxos (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Matrudevobhava
Great work on the article. Let me know if you need any help with "moving". LeaveSleaves talk 20:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Since I'm not sure if you are still watching the page, I wanted you to know I've left some of my views regarding HHey Gujju on the article's talk page. I'm interested to know what your thoughts are regarding those issues. LeaveSleaves talk 18:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Its a stub.... and barely that. I also found quotes stating that it was to come out in November 2008, and one that said last June that the funding was pulled and the project was shelved... only to find continued and extended coverage in subsequent months. India Film is a strange place... where you have the same film released in 7 different names with 7 diferent name translations to English and seven different languages. You have some of these released the same week or moth as their brothers or years apart. Cast and crew are even tougher when it is common practice to use only one name... and even then that one name of full name itself is presented in multiple spellings due to translation to English.... as if you saw a billboard advertising "New Improved STAR WARS" starring Bob and Albert and SMITH!" (who??)... or a billboard right next to it saying "starring Bhobb and Ahlberth and Smeeth"... and then their whole film industry is amazingly prolific. If somebody sneezes, they'll make a film about it... 5 times over. Their press coverage for films is equally confusing and difficult to follow. And then the changes in names due to translation difficulties... YIKES. It is accepted practice to not judge Cinema of India in as strict a manner as anywhere else. I'm not saying this courtesy is right or wrong....I'm just saying I recognize its existance. If I can find the section of guideline or discussion where this is spoken of, I will send the link.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, on a critical level, I would totally echo your thoughts. Indian cinema has a different work ethic that is completely different compared to its American counterpart. I mean, you wouldn't find a lead actor making international tours in the middle of shooting, but that is what the case for HHey Gujju. But when judging the film under current policies and requirements, it doesn't pass the inclusion criteria. And unless there are any other criteria set for Bollywood films, I think we should follow current standards. LeaveSleaves talk 01:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I will find that reference, as Cinema India is treated with a slightly more relaxed use of guideline.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.

Bow Ties
Don't let it get to ya. Have some tea instead. :) I mean if a fire-breathing, 24 karat, fur-lined, water -tight, sea going deletionist like me voted to keep it then I think things bode well for your sort in this debate. X MarX the Spot (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Michael, thanks for keeping me posted. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Here you go, Michael.--otherlleft (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Our Feature Presentation
I was going to post a response on the AfD page, but I don't want to increase the chances that the article would be deleted, especially after all the work you've done to add sources. Someone else could make the argument later that the sources (tcm.com, hollywood.com, hollywoodupclose.com, etc.) seem to be copying off of imdb.com (several of them have the synopsis "Cody Weever wants to make a movie but his tycoon mother refuses to fund the production...", or that there isn't any recent news after 2006 production. Clearly, filming took place at Palo Alto a couple of years ago, but no film has been released.  If Gardner Loulan has released other films, the next logical step might be to make an article about Loulan, and incorporate the OFP information into that article.  Anyway, I can forsee that someone might challenge the new additions in the AfD discussion.  Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

IMDb and Alastairward
Thank you very much for your input on the subject. On a similar note, what are your thoughts as for citing South Park Stuff.com as a source for cultural references on South Park episodes? I think the community that runs that website seems broad enough for their cites to be deemed as reliable. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ypu may wish to persuse the recent IMDB discussion here. As for the Southpark site... well, Wiki holds blogs in low esteem. Though their informations may often be true, such informations are not vetted... confirmed for accuracy. That's where you bump into problems. Now, even though IMDB does have a accuracy checking editorial process, it is still in contention as a source. Blogs are a horse of a different color. No fact checking. Lots of opinion. Even if you include them as a source, with a sentnece beginning "According to SouthParkStuff.com...", you'll have editors dismissing any such information out of hand because of the site being a blog. Sorry, but this is an argument that you will not win. Try instead to use the blog to find out where a blogger got the information he is posting. Track it down to its source and see if you can find something that passes WP:V and WP:RS. Good luck.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Michael, thanks again for your opinion on the subject, very helpful. Alastairward (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

DRV for bow tie wearers
Looks like you found it on your own. ;-) Orlady (talk) 04:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The point that User:JBSupreme made on the AfD talk page isn't a bad one. According to WP:DGFA, admins can override even a clear consensus if it goes against policy. But in this case I think Ryulong would have to convince the closing admin of the DRV discussion that the AfD keep arguments about policy were all obviously wrong. Maybe he's a genius, and he'll do just that. -- Noroton (talk) 04:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahh... but thrice in AfD and thrice kept per policy. Fourth AfD delete did not follow policy as established and used at previous AfDs. We'll see how it is finally interpreted at DRV... and woe to many, many, many other articles if the delete is upheld, as AfD just might then become quite backlogged.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes. If this deletion is sustained, I know of hundreds thousands of articles that I consider to be silly and useless that I would want to see deleted. ;-) Orlady (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I was going to quote Ryulong's user page at the DRV, where it says "I'm working on contributing to pages in: Category:City of Heroes" which is "a massively multiplayer online role-playing game based on the superhero comic book genre". But no sense in raising the temperature. I'm actually a little surprised by how opposed some people are to this article. They almost seem to take offense at it, which puzzles me, because it's harmless and they can't really point to a policy it violates. Live and let live, for crying out loud. -- Noroton (talk) 05:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Some people seem to feel really threatened by other's wearing bow ties. I don't understand it, myself, but then I don't have the "conformist" gene. I suspect there's some psychological thing going on, but haven't a clue as to what it is. &#x22C8 htom (talk) 05:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Be a pity if there's a tit-for-tat on the horizon... but good for goose is good for gander, and all that.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Nasty and incorrect closure by that admin. May he be tarred and feathered. X MarX the Spot (talk) 05:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, thanks very much for notifying me about the AfD. I really appreciate it. -- Noroton (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly. I almost put my two cents in on that, too, at the DRV (but I was all out of cents because I commented all over the rest of that page). So many deletes in those first 10 minutes. And 2 minutes between the nomination and the first delete. How could the editor possibly have read enough of the article in that time? Maybe the editor had participated in a previous AfD? I haven't checked, but it's very suspicious. And add in one of the worst closing decisions I've seen in a long time. I haven't checked, but I wonder if those first editors have a lot of other things in common. It's possible some chat room or message board somewhere started discussing this, so they all knew about it. -- Noroton (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My curiosity was peaked, so I took a look. This was interesting. Not nefarious or anything, just interesting. -- Noroton (talk) 06:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Namespace issues
Yo Michael, you seem to have inadvertently created a sandbox in the article namespace at Our Feature Presentation/Temp. Sandboxes don't belong in the article namespace, so I've userfied it for you at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Our Feature Presentation/Temp. Sorry for any difficulties this may have caused. Regards, the skomorokh  19:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Gardner Loulan
Since Loulan is currently one of the four VJs on the mtvU network that's a staple of college campuses, it looks like he would be notable enough for his own article (Kim Stolz has an article, as do two former VJs. I've added his name to the mtvU list of current VJs, along with the three others besides Ms. Stolz; he's a red link right now, but a click away from having a blue link.  If the OFP article gets deleted, you might want to recreate it as a section in a Gardner Loulan article.  I think the big hangup for a lot of us is that we haven't seen any indication that the film has been released.  Anyway, I go by the strategy that it's always good to place information in more than one location, just in case.  Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Bot
Michael, the bot, as soon as we can get someone to create it, is supposed to be designed to create the links in the EL section when it removes it from the infobox. I would think that there should be some stipulation in the coding that would have it create the actual section if one does not already exist.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Turning it off or removing it outright yeilds the same response, and that's the link don't show up. As for being removed from the EL, they shouldn't be. That's been a separate issue, where some editors feel that if we're using them as a source then we shouldn't link them in the EL section. But, since we deem IMDb to be unreliable, the official websites rarely provide any real information, that's probably not a real issue. If anything, you should see more people adding them to the EL section when they realize that they aren't showing up in the infobox. As has been stated before, few articles don't have them already in the EL section, and that's primarily with the stub articles because they were never developed enough to get that section started.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Eric Koston
The table is very impressive - good job! -- The Red Pen of Doom  03:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I am impressed with the table - good job! --Pizza With Cheesy Crust (talk) 03:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Pornstar (film)
Agreed, with all these notables in the film I don't see any reason for it to be deleted, especially after you corrected the copyvio. Good work on the sources and editing :) TheXenocide (talk) 02:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Your email re IMDB as reliable source
Hi there. I just came across the email that you sent two or three days ago about this issue. Sorry I missed it, I would have liked to weigh in on the issue that I now see was going on at the Film project's talk page, but it seems that the discussion has been considered over, and someone assumed consensus to remove the IMDB link from the infobox? It's especially disappointing that any discussion would take place and then be considered as done, when some of us are in the midst of holiday plans. I know I was not the only one who's been a little busy the last couple of weeks, and would have otherwise contributed to this discussion. I agreed with your take on the issue, for what it's worth. IMDB can give you information on a film that might be more difficult to find elsewhere. Sometimes films are very difficult to find any information on, especially low-budget films, independent films and some foreign films. I would say it should be allowed to be used in these occasions at least, not in the sense that it confers notability, but at least in the sense that it can verify that the film exists. In fact, after seeing Roger Ebert's view of IMDB: "I often consult IMDb, and considering that it indexes virtually every film, it is correct as astonishing amount of the time. IMDb cannot maintain a staff large enough to compile the cast, credits, technical specs, etc., of those countless films. It is usually a film's publicist, distributor or even director or producer who supplies them. When an error appears, there is a mechanism for IMDb users to correct it. These corrections are vetted by IMDb. It is usually safe to trust." I would argue that it perhaps may be more reliable source than most people realize. Since I missed the discussion however, I guess I'll have to wait for the next time it comes around, to weigh in on it. Thanks for pointing me to it, however, it was interesting to read. Raven1977 (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the barnstar. You know what the old-time Congressman Sam Rayburn once said: "Any jackass can kick down a barn door, but it takes a carpenter to build one!" I like to think of myself as a carpenter. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 09:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wilson
Good work on the article, but I am very concerned at the number of items sourced to the single Daily Motion page. Daily Motion is not really considered a reliable source and I do feel it weakens the case for the article, though there are plenty of other sources cited, too. 23skidoo (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * me again :) StarM  22:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Film Company AFDs
In the Young Films AFD, you said that the production company wasn't notable even though it produced notable films. So why did you change your mind on Big Sky Motion Pictures? Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 20:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In that instance, there were no independent reliable sources that wrote of Young Films... only about their films, mentioning their name as production company and including background on Young himself. However, in this instance we have both... sources which speak of the production company, its operations, AND of their films. With Young films it would have definitely been trying to assert notability through inheritance as they had no articles that spoke of them... only their works. With Big Sky, there are article that specifically speak OF Big Sky AND their works. In my mind that gives Big Sky a pass through WP:GNG. The Young Films article will be welcomed back once a reliable source writes of them AND their products, rather than just of their products. With Big Sky, that is the case. Not only are there multiple RS writing about their products, but there are RS writing about them. Young films is barely mentioned... almost as if a throw-away. Big Sky has coverage that Young does not... as of yet. Different example: Warner Bros is a huge production company that makes many notable films. But that is not what give then WP:N through WP:RS. They have notability because Warner themselves have major write-ups as a production company in concert with there films. Notability between film and production is intertwinned, but if the company itself has no coverage, it fails GNG. Look... its a very close call, but Young Films was narrowly on the wrong side of GNG... while Big Sky just edges over. I expect Young to be back.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Registration
I understand, but per External links, we can't treat them as external links. Maybe you could actually write in some content? ;) — Erik (talk • contrib) 23:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I looked at each link, and all of them required registration. I would have left a link if it did not require one.  Are you sure it wasn't because of a subsequent login that you were able to view some reviews with ease after the first one?  Also, do you think that a stand-alone DVD article has merit?  As you can see from my comment at the AFD, it's mostly reviews.  Some praise the collection, some complain about how some films are missing, some like the bonus features, some don't think it's enough.  It just doesn't seem like an encyclopedic topic all by itself. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 23:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hah, I actually used that one at the filmography article. I guess it's okay, then... I just think that you kind of get linkfarmy with every instance of the topic.  Goes all the way back to that apocalyptic trailer article, remember that? :)  I think in this case, it's just all reviews... how do you think that kind of thing should be presented? — Erik  (talk • contrib) 23:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I know we probably have different AFD approaches, but I did do a decent rescue once at buddy film... see the AfD. — Erik (talk • contrib) 23:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films November 2008 Newsletter
The November 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. My apologies for the late delivery, and thanks go to both Wildroot and Erik for writing the newsletter. Remember that anyone can edit the newsletter, so feel free to help out! Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD confusion
The first AfD was under "Commanche stallion" (lower case S). The title was later changed to an upper case S, hence the confusion. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD
Hi! Would you mind weighing in on this AfD: Brownmark Films The discussion has been re-listed several times and I'm hoping to finally get consensus on it. Thanks! SERSeanCrane (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! SERSeanCrane (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ha! No, I just wanted some opinions on the 'nom' since it had been re-listed 3 times and probably would've been kept by non-consensus. I saw you commented on a media-related afd recently, hence I asked you. Good job on the sourcing. My concern now is whether the sourcing is enough to merit the subsidiary having a seperate article from the parent production company (or vice versa). (SERSeanCrane (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying the imdb issue. While I've got your eye, is it against wiki-policy to write articles about one's own artistic work? (assuming it is not OR and just using 3rd party sources). SERSeanCrane (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Having a hard time sleeping
...figured I'd drop you a line. Can you believe this? Over a month... — BQZip01 — talk 09:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: belated thanks
No problem. :) Best wishes to you and yours this season, Glass  Cobra  09:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Piper Reese
Hi Michael! I just wanted to give you a BIG thank you for rescuing the "Piper Reese" page! Your note about seeing more of Piper in the future means alot. She is branching out a bit and starting to get involved in helping other kids more directly. I didn't see any way to reference this on the Wiki page (couldn't find it in print), but Piper recently MC'd a fairly large, local holiday event for "Friends of Abused Children." We also have another celebrity interview planned and a few in talks. It's really exciting...and interesting. It's nice to see that the show is making other kids smile.

I was considering putting up a "Piper's Picks TV" article, but I didn't want to have 2 contentious articles at the same time and see them both deleted. Of course, next time I'll stick with subpages and get input!

Thank you so much!--J2K (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Michael! I've made a bunch of changes that I *hope* you'll agree are improvements to Piper Reese. Please let me know your thoughts - formatting, content, etc! Thanx so much!--J2K (talk) 05:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Great article!
Yes, move it to the mainspace and put it up for DYK, too! Ecoleetage (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:DYK -- I have a couple of those. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Try this:


 * … that filmmaker Daniel St. Pierre led the team that developed the Deep Canvas system for enhancing the apparent depth of backgrounds in animated films? (new article, self-nom).
 * Hope that helps! Ecoleetage (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It will get verified and you will get a DYK honour. Be patient and it will come. Merry Christmas, Mike! Ecoleetage (talk) 01:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh dammit! :)
Why am I trying to fix up yer sandbox article when it's already gone live? Anyway, see my changes here, use 'em if you can. Regards & happy holidays! Franamax (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

happy holidays...
...and see you on the next AfD. All the best in 2009! Drmies (talk) 05:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

re Arizona Sky
Thank you for your work on improving this article. I wish that there might be a greater sense of "inclusion" of information, so that if anybody wanted to know anything about anything they could confidently turn to Wikipedia. Arizona Sky may not be a masterpiece, but IMHO it is deserving of an entry in Wikipedia. Thank you for your work.--JRiverton (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: The Kings of Appletown
No problem. I have come to deeply appreciate your improvements to film articles. They really help to distinguish between the poorly written and the unsalvegable. In this case, I'm a bit frustrated by the reflexive "Keep, in production" comments especially compared to the votes on the Last Airbender AfD which are mostly "Merge, hasn't started principle photography". As the original author the the WP:NOTFILM guideline (though its been substantially updated and rewritten), I am sensitive to people citing it reflexively instead of reflectively. The totality of the circumstances and sources needs to be considered not just the exact place in the production cycle. Though it can provide a helpful if rough initial guideline. Sorry for the rant, which is not directed at you at all really, and thanks again for your great work. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.
 * I have verified your hook. Please don't be stressed out -- the interpretation of articles represents a traffic in opinions, and sometimes the traffic goes down bumpy avenues. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was grumped because he questioned notability per WP:BIO but seemed to discount its basic criteria which state "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability" when I had multiple less-than-substantial sources. And he did not seem to even acknowledge WP:CREATIVE stating "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.". Your insights are most appreciated.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

re: Home Movie
Yes, that sounds fine to me. Wasn't quite sure if it was considered rude or not to move a page that was under the AFD microscope! Have a great 2009.  Lugnuts  (talk) 09:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
The pic of the cat cut off the text: "Congratulations to Coren, Wizardman, Vassyana, Carcharoth, Jayvdb, Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke and Rlevse, who were all appointed to the Arbitration Committee after the ArbCom elections. I am sure I am but a voice of many when I say I trust the aforementioned users to improve the committee, each in their own way, as listed within their respective election statements. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to update the 2009 article, heh.   Best wishes,  neuro  (talk)

DYK for Daniel St. Pierre

 * Happy New Year, MQS! Great way to kick off 2009! Ecoleetage (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

To me: A link to the hook in situe.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

IMDB
Hi MichaelQSchmidt

I received an e-mail from you on IMDB policies. As I have no affiliation with IMDB I am unable to answer your question.

Rgds, Bongo  matic  22:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films December 2008 Newsletter
The December 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) 03:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)