User talk:MichaelQSchmidt/Archive 003

Self-published and questionable sources about themselves
An important lesson from Wikipedia... and I quote:

Self-published and questionable sources may only be used as sources about themselves, and only if:
 * 1) the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject being discussed;
 * 2) it is not contentious;
 * 3) it is not unduly self-serving;
 * 4) it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * 5) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * 6) there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
 * 7) the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Emphasis mine. Tiger by the tail? Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Uno (Segway inspired) cycle
Clearly a bio article, or an article about the invention someone is best known for, is enhanced by a video of the inventor discussing his invention. I arrived at a video of this young inventor by circuitous means, and apparently the link I pasted was not a direct connection to his appearance on the venture capitalist show. The actual video seems to be a Youtube video, which for obscure reasons may not be usable on Wikipedia. If it is a copyvio from the TV show, the onus should be on Youtube and not on Wikipedia for linking to it. Thanks for your catch of the error. Edison (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Res
See.  MBisanz  talk 00:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Movie
Maybe expand a little on plot and give some background information on director, actors, and actresses. Cheers! Wandering Courier (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * I was actually on my way here to give you a barnstar for keeping your cool, but looks like TexasAndroid beat me to it. :) Nice job keeping a cool head! — Erik  (talk • contrib) 01:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Kelly Overton (actress)
Hi MQS, care to have a look at this one? The discussion was a bit contentious, and I'm not weighing in since I'm a. not convinced of the automatic notability of having IMDB entries and b. not well-acquainted enough with any consensus on such entries. I did clean up the actual article... Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ha, yes, that's exactly what I had in mind. Nice work! Drmies (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing this work, Mike. (Doing my best Sarah Palin imitation: "May I call you Mike?") I didn't really mean for the initial discussion to get contentious, but you know, I look at hundreds of articles, and I tagged this that notability was questioned and the creator didn't bother to fix it. With new biographies like this started by an editor who has been around for a while, it should have the basics to establish notability. What annoyed me was what seemed to be a lack of concern on that editor's part in doing anything to clarify it and instead suggested that I do it. Well, the responses are pretty clear in what annoyed me about it. I'm not committed at all to its deletion, I was committed to its establishment of notability. Also, thanks for your gracious tact. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a good feeling to start an article and it stands, doesn't it? Your article was about an interesting person, I rather enjoy the Trek world. I've started a lot of biographies for less than prominent actors, but I always make an effort to add sources to it, plus anything else that can round it out. My biggest whole article effort to date was List of No Country for Old Men awards and nominations, which I created on December 20 and decided to nominate for featured list, which I can happily say passed on January 4! I helped work Gene Wilder to good article, but I've not pursued GA/FA outside of that, so I was thrilled when the list was granted FA. Anyway, thanks again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for rescuing Kelly Overton (actress)!!
I saw this one on Monday (and saw how ugly the deletion discussion had gotten) and knew it could be saved by adding and sourcing the filmography but I didn't have the time to put in to it and frankly am a little afraid of making major changes to any article.

I was planning on taking some time today to do what I could but was extremely pleased to see that you had already improved the article and the AfD debate had been closed.

Thanks very much.Raitchison (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Fashion: The Movie
Sorry I took me awhile to respond. I now believe that the movie has been made but I have found no updates about release or distribution. I haven't found any mention of the film that is recent. This makes me think the film got shelved or got lost somehow. Until I hear some news about it, I'm keeping mentions of it off Wikipedia. Anonymous9498 (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Bush ballads
It was created the first and worked on a lot on the second. I had some concerns about my grasp of the subject so I took a break from working on it to get more of a feel for the the background and scope. I also wanted to see what kind of feedback it would get. Then I came back to it. Many of the DYKs are for shorter articles and subjects, but this is a pretty big topic with a long history. Just getting a feel for some of the major balladeers and poets, and who to include and who not to took some time and there's a lot more work to be done. The article was very incomplete so that's why I didn't nom it, but I came to realize that scrutiny and input would be a good thing and might help move it forward, so that's why I decided to add the nom. It's still incomplete in many ways, but I think it's actually a pretty good article that gives a lot of good information on an interesting subject. Anyway, it falls outside the 5 day window, so if that's the rule I'm happy to live by it. Badagnanni has helped out a bunch now, so I'm happy about that. G'day mate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not too worried about it. It was just an adjustment from being a noob and getting slapped with all kinds of tags and every possible criticism and edit conflict when I was trying to fix or source something, to no input at all. I don't know if it's because I've gotten some respect and trust or am a better editor or what, but I kept waiting for someone to tell me I had it all wrong and it should be redirected or deleted. :) I guess the increased freedom is what it must have been like in the old days. Just me and the Wallabies. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Fellow rescue squad member
Hello! I just wanted to say that I am going to use this: "I'd Rather fix the damn pipe rather than complain about having wet feet." I love it! Best wishes. travb (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Uno (motorcycle)
--Dravecky (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC) 
 * "Oh how the fellows shall pluck at our sleeves with envy!" (I forget where that quote is from). Thanks much for your help with the article and the DYK! :) Franamax (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help again with that article. You show a better bed-side manner than I did. -AndrewDressel (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No complaints about bedside manner from me. :) AD acted in good faith, I reverted based on the reliance on other wiki articles (and that I'd tried to take particular care in the wording, which AD could not possibly know), AD provided followup on the talk page. I will note that it should have paused there for a few days to allow comment, since the whole wiki won't fall apart in the meantime and that's the normal WP:BRD cycle. But whatever, I'm quite used to seeing my text changed and sometimes reverted and I was somewhat AFK at the time. Andrew, there's no harm in allowing a pause, even when you're sure you're right. Other people will weigh in while you smell the flowers, and the truth shall out in the end. :) Franamax (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Art
First off, I apologize for the spam. You are receiving this message because you have indicated that you are in Southern California or interested in Southern California topics (either via category or WikiProject, or I happen to know personally).

I would like to invite you to the Los Angeles edition of Wikipedia Loves Art, a photography scavenger hunt to be held at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) on Saturday, February 28, 2009, from 1:00 to 7:00 PM. All photos are intended for use in Wikipedia articles or on Wikimedia Commons. There will be a prize available for the person who gets the most photos on the list.

If you don't like art, why not come just to meet your fellow Wikipedians. Apparently, we haven't had a meetup in this area since June 2006!

If you are interested in attending, please add your name to Wikipedia Loves Art. Please make a note if you are traveling to the area (train or plane) and need transportation, which can probably be arranged via carpool, but we need time to coordinate. Lodging is as of right now out of scope, but we could discuss that if enough people are interested.

Thank you and I hope to see you there!  howcheng  {chat} 00:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Seattle Film Critics
I'm still not convinced they're actually notable, but the requirements seem to have been fulfilled. Nice cleanup job. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Questionnaire
As a member of WikiProject Films, you are invited to take part in the project's first questionnaire. It is intended to gauge your participation and views on the project. At the conclusion of the questionnaire, the project's coordinators will use the gathered feedback to find new ways to improve the project and reach out to potential members. The results of the questionnaire will be published in next month's newsletter. If you know of any editors who have edited film articles in the past, please invite them to take part in the questionnaire. Please stop by and take a few minutes to answer the questions so that we can continue to improve our project. Happy editing! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Quoted you in an AfD
Articles_for_deletion/Newfoundland_Trail Best wishes :) travb (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I responded: User_talk:Inclusionist Thanks! travb (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would strongly suggest changing your vote to "merge". This is because:
 * 1) the article history is retained for all editors to see,
 * 2) the article will not accidentally be remade then deleted again,
 * 3) if the article becomes famous (murder there etc), there is already a base to build a new article on. Thanks!
 * Personally, the only time I vote delete is if the article is an obvious hoax, and even then I am sometimes wrong.travb (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * RE: Articles for deletion/The Alyson Stoner Project Why do you vote delete so much? When userfy and merge is always better? travb (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you.;) You are up early on a sunday morning....I keep bumping into you in the AfD circuit. I found absolutly no sources for that article, how about you? I noticed the  tag.  I don't even know who this women is. travb (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed in use tag
I removed the in use tag at: The Alyson Stoner Project :) travb (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

User:G-man80
Done. He also tried tampering with the AfD, but was reverted there too. Regards. PC78 (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh, maybe you should post a message on his blog! :) PC78 (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD: Christopher Rojas
Regarding an artist, I definitely do agree with your interpretation of the notability criterion. However, as a record producer/studio artist/sound engineer, I am not so sure. In my mind, it is a little like being in the credits for a major feature film. Even though you're associated with the production and get your own name listed, that doesn't mean your contribution is notable. Without any further objective information that shows significant contributions, I don't see the attribution in itself proving notability, any more than someone listed in movie credits for being one of the makeup artists or assistants. Then again, I might be way off base in my reasoning. =) Delaque (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not at all convinced. The article is in no way showing any notability in any of those roles you mention. To be considered a notable artist, he would have to be involved in notable works based on that role. If I work with catering on a movie set of a major motion picture, but also have been employed as an extra in a low-budget movie at some other time, I can hardly get acclaim based on being in the credits for the blockbuster. The fact that he credits himself with multiple titles proves nothing, especially since he has 4 or 5 roles in each of those productions. I would say it is less likely he has a major part if he both produces, arranges, plays violin, and engineers all at the same time. It is more likely that he is doing a little of each, thus not being a major part in any of the roles. Delaque (talk) 07:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that a studio musician would be considered part of the ensemble; In my mind he would have to be a part of the regular band behind such an artist for that interpretation to work. Bringing in a choir to sing behind Aretha Franklin doesn't automatically make all the members of the choir notable enough for an entry either. Ah, well, this will be interesting! Delaque (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * {{WP:WAX]] arguments do not apply. Other guidelines do not apply. WP:MUSICBIO was written with being part of the ensemble as a consideration. WP:MUSICBIO does not exclude "studio musicians. It does not exclude Aretha Franklin's backup singers. His article asserts that he is a multiple platinum artist and the works which went platinum with which he was part of the ensemble ARE the notability being asserted.  Schmidt,  {{sup| MICHAEL Q. }} 08:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Schmidty, I am concerned that the article seems to be a hype piece that makes it seem like the person was the creative force behind multi-platinum records. In fact, while he may have had some role (not clear to me from the article what role) his accomplishments don't seem to have been covered substantially so as to establish notability. I have been involved with muli-platinum albums. But buying them doesn't make me notable. :) Is it possible to clarify what this guy has done? Is there any substantial coverage? I added some citation needed tags and made some tweaks. Let me know if you think I'm still off base. And to answer your question, yes, I think you're crazy "here". :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You could make a note at the AfD discussion that you are working on the article and would like more time. Cheers. Also, you can always get the article moved to your userspace if the article is deleted. If that is easier than copying while you go...ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My point wasn't to disqualify this article based on that Aretha Franklin's choir does not have individual pages, but rather that notability is not inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED. WP:MUSICBIO doesn't have to exclude studio musicians, because they are not part of the ensemble, and songs [do not automatically achieve notability] for being on a notable album. More is needed than partial writing credits for one bonus track on one CD that is notable for the writer to be notable. Delaque (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The second sentence of the introduction is the key sticking point for me and I don't think the citations are enough to support the assertion made. Did he do studio work on them or did he actually come up with the composition? Is there a difference? What is meant by his being the composer? I'm not much of an expert in this field, but you can consult with user:Drmies and/ or user:Badagnani and I'd be inclined to respect ther opinion in this regard. If I'm not being clear enough let me know. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that being listed on credits may not be enough. In movies and music my understanding is that lots of people are given "credit" but that doesn't mean they were key or driving forces behind the productions. Is there any evidence this individual was? For what it's worth the deletion debate is looking relatively favorable, but that can always change. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as the music biz, I think they're pretty guarded: to get listed as a composer, you have to have actually composed something, otherwise the "real" composer is going to complain. Contribution credits directly affect how the royalties are divided, so I think it's well-scrutinized. (As in - examined carefully by all and frequently lawsuited over). In music, composer and arranger credits mean a lot, they mean $$$. Movies OTOH, they credit the typist and guy who gets the coffee - MQS can clarify, but in the case of movies I believe that the contract is just "my name shows up, it's such-and-such a size on screen, it scrolls so-and-so quickly by" - but it has nothing to do with getting paid. Music - ASCAP royalties come into play - composers get X%, arrangers get Y%. I could be completely wrong on this, as it's long-past personal knowledge. Franamax (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I am impressed by your attempts to unstubify the article, and even though I still don't agree with you on the notability and worth of this particular topic, I respect your consensus-seeking and eagerness to improve the quality of articles! Delaque (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur. I was pulling for you and am happy to see the article live on in testament to your efforts. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think it was a no consensus ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I hadn't read your comment carefully and completely enough. Cheers. I'm off to do some composing of my own. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Response
User_talk:Inclusionist travb (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Socking
Yes, I'm pretty certain as well. I thought of reporting it, but neither account had made a lot of edits, so it didn't seem worth the trouble. He'll probably go away. But if you want to bookmark their contributions pages, you could keep tabs to see if it becomes persistent. --Rrburke(talk) 03:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you object if I added you to Wikipedians with articles? --Rrburke(talk) 03:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied on my talk. Such as it is - I agree with you, tried a filing, but not much good on advice except "oohh, that's difficult" :) Franamax (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied again. If you can figure out how to do the SSP notice (not the big banner on the upage thing, but a talkpage notice) - please do, I'm barely able to sleepy-type, I was just logging out, but you're right - I missed a step there. :( Franamax (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:WP:Wikipedians with articles -- userbox
Hi, Michael. I you want, you can drop on your user page. The syntax would be --Rrburke(talk) 20:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Nordine Zouareg
Yes, there are definitely multiple references to support his claims, i am still left wondering though whether we should be referring to the title as Mr Universe if WABBA themselves do not and apparently never have, and there seem to be no other WABBA winners who have ever referred to themselves as Mr Universe either. It seems to be a NABBA title. That's the discrepancy I don't like, but unfortunately his books use of the term seems to be continued by his friends' books and newspaper reporters and whilst some of them may have the resources to have checked the facts, from some simple googling it looks highly unlikely that they did. After all he definitely won the WABBA Overall title, so the spirit of the facts were correct but the term itself is misleading. Mfield (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi
You rock.--ragesoss (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Your question
Have we ever crossed paths in the real world?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I took a look at your WP article and the picture, but it didn't ring any bells. After reading the article it appears the chances of us meeting have been pretty slim. I've been to the US only once Rayleigh-Durham, North Carolina (visiting JFK international Airport and the airport of Cincinatti along the way). The only other way to have met would've been if you have visited Europe at some point. Did you? - Mgm|(talk) 23:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Now you've made me curious. What did you read? - Mgm|(talk) 00:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Blargh, I should've been clearer. When I said I "know them" it was in the sense of "know who they are". If I did actually know them personally, I wouldn't have time to edit Wikipedia, I'd be writing screenplays and try to get those actors to be in the film (or I'd take it up myself). Yeah, I wish! - Mgm|(talk) 00:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's showtime!


 * The section needs a reference. He obviously made the film, but it should be checkable if indeed all the actors and animals you mentioned indeed appear. If you can't dig up that source, you should add a fact tag. - Mgm|(talk) 01:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've put up an barnstar award for anyone who references a completely unreferenced article (or three stubs) on the Reward board. Interested? Also, you appear to have helped out with a Philippine article. Do you have any special connection/interest with/to that country? - Mgm|(talk) 01:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Article
How far away do think I am to getting Noella Marcellino to DYK? Schuym1 (talk) 04:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Katrina Darrell
MQS to the rescue again! Drmies (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

On the notability of women wearing bikinis
Almost always a strong keep. No seriously, there are all kinds of biases and prejudices on here. It's just like the real world in that respect, and it's far from perfect. But I hope you don't take it all too seriously and enjoy the comraderie and craziness such as it is. There's nothing worse than taking deletions personally. Win some lose some. Articles can always be recreated and moved to userspace, so it's never worth getting worked up over. I say all this just in the hopes that you keep it all in perspective. I'm happy to see your contributions and good efforts recognized by barnstars and appreciation. There's a lot to be said for rescuing articles and bringing them into line with policies. Incidentally, I thought your website and photos of mythological creatures and such quite intriguing. Nice of you to share. I wanted to let Kristen know that I was recognized as a talented finger painter at a very early age, but I have so far restrained myself. Have fun and take care. Please let me know if you ever need any help with anything. Most of all, have faith and respect the communal process here for what it is... ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a quote from an AfD discussion I thought you might enjoy:
 * "It's amazing what a small handful of editors with the goal of improving this encyclopedia can do to create properly sourced and thorough articles in the face of the still-festering forces of knee-jerk deletionism." -A Wikipedian believer
 * :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, this seems rather a fun article that desperately needs better sourcing: Vatican conspiracy theories. If it doesn't catch your interest no worries. Drmies seems to have a lot of free time so I'll see if I can put him to work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No sweat. I like what you did. The conspiracy doesn't have to be proven true, just that the conspiracy existed and has been covered by reliable sources. I agree it's a massive project. I think you've done more than your part sir. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Taking a quick glance at some of the "sources" you added, I would say that on controversial stuff soemtimes less is more and reliable sources covering the controversy may be better than shady sources advocating the conspiracy itself. But I thank you for your help and interest. I feel a little guilty about putting such a disputed and sizable task on your plate. In addition to having been recognized for my finger painting talents, I'm also a world reknowned delegator... ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not complaining and I don't have any problems with the sources you added, many of which are very legitimate. I'm just letting you know that on controversial topics at AfD, I've seen people get testy about sourcing and if they have to wade through sources that aren't great that sometimes hurts the cause. But I think weak sourcing is always prefereable to no sourcing. It was just a perception of mine I was trying to share. I'll try to add a couple sources too since I turned you onto this heap of trouble, but I don't want to edit conflict so let me know when you're finished. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2009 (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.

Hi again. Your hook is better, but it needs to be stated in the article. You can add it in now if you want. It also must be cited. See my comments at the DYK suggestions page. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Shubinator (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the syllabi posted online these days, without a password, are usually just a page or two with the textbook and a skeleton of the topics. Good luck on your search. And keep an eye on the DYK, other DYK editors might still comment on it. Shubinator (talk) 04:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Skene Catling
I'm expanding an article which I hope to bring to DYK. Unfortunately, the most interesting hook is plagued by redlinks. Could you whip up a nice stub or even a small article about this guy, so I'll have an article with a bunch of bluelinks instead? - Mgm|(talk) 09:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was expanding Asa Butterfield. There's nothing to send, because this (Patrick Skene Catling) is one of the red links troubling me. I was hoping you'd have better research skills than me and be able to write something worthwhile there. - Mgm|(talk) 19:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I nominated on Jan 20, so with the 5 day limit in mind, it should be up for featuring around the 25th, so having it ready around the 24th would be the mark we're after. - Mgm|(talk) 08:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed a typo :) Go figure, in all the searches I did, I never found out he was a children's author... - Mgm|(talk) 08:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds fine for mainspace. - Mgm|(talk) 09:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe my searching was crooked, all I found was info that he was a reviewer, so the fact he wrote himself surprised me. - Mgm|(talk) 09:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the confusion Mikey. Creating chaos is what I do best. Keep up the good work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to have categories. What is hotcat? Is there a template that automatically categorizes? I've always wondered how this gets done. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The Big Gay Musical
The official website is not constructed, and imdb has no release information. AnyPerson (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * MySpace is not a reliable source. AnyPerson (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Troublemaking (Terry Moloney)
Quit mucking about fixing that article I put to AfD. A bit of a stretch to put it to AfD in the first place, I know. Does such an ill considered AfD make me a bad person? What excuse can I use? I would tell you that the article was at the tail end of new pages and was a mess in need of clean up, but of course AfD is not the place to send articles needing clean up... so I would never even consider doing such a thing. What about the line about foreign stem cell procedures saving people? Surely my efforts to save countless millions from being misinformed that there is a magical stem cell cure just waiting off shore justifies my action... right? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This USA Today story appears to be about his movie project and he's quoted in it. I would add it now, out of guilt, but the article is "in use" and I've opened the airplane lavatory one too many time on an unsuspecting occupant... The article is a bit confusing because they don't give his full name until after they refer to "Maloney said". Anyway, I'm off to dreamland, but I'll take a look and try to help fix it manyana. I can't swear that some political bias at the characters and assertions seething beneath the article's surface didn't perhaps influence my rogue AfD nom... ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've moved to withdraw my ill considered nom. So work at your leisure if at all. I'll clean it up tomorrow as best I can. Good on ya mate! Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm unable to solve the mystery of what's left to do... ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
I’m more than happy for your message and also thankful to you. You’re anytime welcome to guide/suggest me. (Footage 11:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC))

Keeper of the flame
Everywhere I turn I see evidence of your good works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChildofMidnight (talk • contribs) 18:08, 22 January 2009

Articles for deletion/Stuart Draper
You should somehow work the votes on both entries into one comment, otherwise the closing admin will have trouble keeping the votes for the different articles apart. (Never liked multinoms anyway) - Mgm|(talk) 08:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I can offer no advice on the content of the Draper article itself except perhaps ask if there are more sources (and not trivial database ones) - Mgm|(talk) 08:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Unreferenced Article Cleanup
Since you're cleaning up so many articles, perhaps you're interested in this project. - Mgm|(talk) 13:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the same stuff you did for me, just in collaboration with others. Just don't burn out. - Mgm|(talk) 19:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

HotCat
Heya Mike, CoM asked if I could give the low down on HotCat, here is the gist.
 * 1) First on the article you have to go to the bottom where the categories are.
 * 2) Beside all the existing category there is a (-) (remove) and a (±) (modify)
 * 3) The (-) removes the category all together (very handy for redundant categories)
 * 4) The (±) lets you edit the category in a box that opens up, it will bring up suggested categories for you (for example if the category is Category:Canada and you enter a space it will bring up Category:Canada and World War I, Category:Canada articles by quality etc.), it doesn't always bring up everything you might be looking for and it helps if you know what the category is called exactly (or at least mostly).
 * 5) On the far right there is a (+) (add new), that adds a new category completely, the same way as in 1.2, except you have to start from scratch.
 * 6) When you have a category that you think works, hit the ok, and if you want to cancel hit...well cancel (pretty straight forward).
 * 7) You don't have to do anything else, it fills out your edit summary marks it as minor (debatable if that should be done but it does it anyway), and does all the work for you...Presto!

If you have any other questions feel free to ask, also if you use a lot of templates you should consider using Twinkle and friendly, they work pretty good, I do a lot of speedy deletion on new pages and Twinkle marks the page, welcomes the user (if they haven't been already) and puts the CSD notice on their page, all with the push of a button, very swanky.--kelapstick (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Boot Camp
I'm afraid Bongomatic slipped in a delete vote before I could respond. I'm not confident enough to close this speedily now. Perhaps you should ask him what criterion he feels it fails, since no one else agrees. - Mgm|(talk) 21:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I asked diff. When I saw that the nom himself voted keep after improvements... I certainly did not expect a succinct little "Fails WP:NF"... when it in fact passes with flying colors. I hope to learn the reasoning behind the 2-word opinion. In any case, I expect a keep.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't let such a thing discourage you. I tried to religiously save all worthy articles a few years back and I literally had a wikiburnout that made me quit for a whole year. It's simply impossible to save all those articles on your own, so instead you should work on making WP:RESCUE as active as you can make it and recruit new members so you can handle a larger influx of new articles. - Mgm|(talk) 08:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Very, very sad news...


Disagreements are one thing, but this is taking things WAY too far. I think we can both agree that while we disagreed, he was one of the debaters that kept us honest and working towards a compromise. He will be missed. — BQZip01 — talk 06:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Shania: A Life in Eight Albums
Just to show you I'm following my own advise. Here's an article I touched up today. If you go into the history to see how it looked before I got there, you see why I had to fix it. :) - Mgm|(talk) 13:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

fiction
IYou may be interested in a discussion on my user talk page, initiated by one of the other people who feels strongly that the guideline should be rejected. Feel free to reopen it if you want to comment. DGG (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Birthday Bash AFD
The result of the discussion was userfy to User:Horrorfan80/sandbox (Birthday Bash). - brenneman  04:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you
thanks for taking the time to comment on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction). I am glad you see how important this guideline will be, this guideline will determine the inclusion or exclusion of television character and television episodes. You maybe interested that it looks like several editors replied to your contributions. Best wishes. See you on the AfD circuit. Ikip (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Big Bad Love
Hi Michael, whenever you have a minute or so, will you look at this stub I've made? I've filled in all the blanks I could with the help of IMDB, but I'm at the end of my rope now. Your help is appreciated, as always! Drmies (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Big Bad Love
Thanks! Good man! You ARE good at this. But, eh, a "DYK hook"? I'm not hip to that language (the "hook" part, that is), I'm afraid... Drmies (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you see my hook suggestion/ modification on Drmies page? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Henderson's Boys
Well done on finding that source, Mr Schmidt. Greggers (t • c) 08:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

THANKS!
Hey MichaelQSchmidt - thanks so much for sticking up for the pages I was trying to rescue Kriss Perras Running Waters, Running Waters Productions and First Canyon Rain. Awesome! :0) Happy Editing Love, Anna (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

time to leave for good
I am telling you, the longer I stay, the more disgusted I become:
 * Wikipedia Signpost/2009-01-24/Flagged Revisions Ikip (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The Capture of the Green River Killer
Thanks for your work on the above; thanks to it, I've withdrawn the AfD. Job well done! Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeonguijeong
Hello, Michael Q Schmidt. Thank you for your interest in the DYK nom for Yeonguijeong. I see you have a hard time understanding of the article because of my uncleared description. Since there is no convention for old Korean titles in politics, I want to ask you about your stance. I guess you're not familiar with East Asian subjects as would be most of our readers. The title loosely can be translated into "Chief State Councillor" (not the quite correct translation but scholars use so), but there are many titles that have not been translated into English, so I don't know whether going with transliterated terms or using translated English titles would be better for readers. Can I get your opinion on that? Also if possible, could you fix my poor grammar? I look forward to your reply. Thanks.--Caspian blue 18:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you very much for your help. The suggested description is much clearer than mine. I will implement the article per your suggestion. I'm really grateful for your contribution. Thanks again.--Caspian blue 19:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you deserve to get a credit for the DYK entry if you copy-edit the article. Could you do that for me? Thanks--Caspian blue 19:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wonderful! What a nice job you made it! The prose and meaning are clearer than ever. I put your name into the nom of the DYK. I hope you enjoyed the process of reading and fixing the article. I really appreciate your help.--Caspian blue 20:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your cooperation. But you did not receive the DYK credit. How come?? I'm gonna ask about it to an admin later.--Caspian blue 23:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Adam Cowan
Talk to the deleting admin and show him/her your proposed replacement article. If he/she still defends his/her decision to delete the article, feel free to bring the issue up at WP:DRV. Question: were the Emmys he won regional or national? See Emmy. If national, he's probably notable per se; if regional, DRV may not revive the article as these are not truly notable awards. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page. Closing admin wishes those delete voters who did not have time to review the improved article have an opportunity to do so before I take this to DRV.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Weatherman story
Mikey, I saw a not about that weatherman article that you fixed up. The one where he re-evaluated his life and helped out in Kenya and such? But I couldn't find the DRV. Will you let me know if it's out there or when one exists or how I can help or whatever? The notability of the subject is well established now after the work you did. Thanks kid. Sorry things with Kirsten didn't work out well. She sure racked up a lot of trouble. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Using a "DVR" is easier than DRV. :) My general impression of DRV is that like appeals generally here, unless there's a glaring error people are reluctant to overturn. However, it's probably worth a shot especially if you contact the nom and the other voters and ask them to weigh in. I think people are pretty respectful of good faith efforts and would be willing to let you recreate, but who knows. If not, then I suppose you can recreate a "new" article which seems to be a gray area of when it has to go through DRV and when it doesn't. But given that you've filled it out pretty nicely I expect people will let it have another chance. I would just ask that it be allowed to be recreated without prejudice since you did so much to it and since you're not sure that the voters got to see the completed article. This might work better than focusing on overturning a valid result. People don't seem to like overturning each other... Anyway, that's my rambling for now. Impressive job though. The version I saw looked great. It would never have been listed in the first place as it's written now. Cheers. Please let me know when it's listed so I can weigh in. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Understood. I will have no problem recxreating the article... and will expect an "AfD of a recently deleted article"... and look forward to comments at a new AfD. Though editors are encouraged to improve articles during the course of an AfD, if no one comments on the improvements, and the article gets deleted 25 minutes later... it kinda makes that "encouragement to improve" seem quite hollow. With respects to the closer, I might at least have hoped for a relisting since the article had been improved to meet the AfD concerns. By looking at the discussion only... and not the article's improvements 25 minutes before deletion... the closer acted in complete good faith. I have no expectation that a closer will review the article to see if opinions have been addressed or not. An honest and well intentioned error perhaps... but very much nade in good faith. However, I do not expect any of the delete comments to reverse themselves, as they have gotten what they wanted. A DRV is likley within the next few hours.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My suggestion would just be to request permission to recreate an improved version of the article. That it's not the same article as the one that was deleted (insert diff here) and that you certainly wouldn't object to another AfD, but you'd like the article to be judge on its merits as written not as it was written. That way you skirt any effort to overturn or question anything that preceded your efforts. ;) Good luck. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's more of a subtlety of tactics I'm suggesting. Rather than asking for overturn at DRV I would just say you'd like to recreate the "new" article that is much improved. You can state that you've notified all the previous voters of the DRV and would welcome an AfD on the new article. That way you're not asking anybody to overturn what's done, but for an opportunity to move forward with a clean slate. I don't really understand the process completely, but it just seems that they wouldn't have to overturn the closure, but simply allow you to reintroduce the new article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films January 2009 Newsletter
The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject Films 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 and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Reed Cowan
I applaud your efforts in attempting to rescue the article, but you have to admit that some articles are un-rescuable. This is one of them. At the end of the day, Reed Cowan is still a local TV journalist. It is long established here that local TV journalists are not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Also, like I said in the delete discussion, there are many resolutions by state legislatures for the purpose of honoring various people, and personal revelations/epiphanies is merely a personal renaissance, and both of them are definitely not a ticket to an article here on Wikipedia.

If you can further improve on the article, and prove that Reed Cowan is more than a regional Emmy-winning news reporter and a two-bit motivational speaker, than I will support the restoration of this article. Arbiteroftruth  Plead Your Case 06:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Adam Bagni AfD
...go ahead and merge the secondary articles (no need for sandbox as they're still there) :-) ( talk→   Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 11:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
When I get annoyed by something, I flounder around for the right words. Please note I did not say IMDb was unimpeachable, that was the way the IP misrepresented it. I am guessing you read his comments to me, at least briefly. No, there was nothing contentious about the uncredited roles. I've run across this guy at AN/I and it's been basically an "I'm right" kind of thing. As I noted on WP:FILMS, there is no policy against using IMDb because there is no agreement on what is not reliable. I've never had cause to question a film's cast listing there and found this whole thing a bit too much, if you know what I mean. I don't give credence to the "in no case" argument given at the film project either. In any case, thanks for your comment. I've seen the Penn role, too. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, now it's your turn for a policy lesson. He apparently thinks WP:FILMS is an administrator board. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's one way to describe it. I'm glad you stepped in to say something different. Unfortunately, the one person who was most outspoken on the project page is actually the one whose opinion more often strays from the rest. I'm not convinced of the validity of everything I have read in the last few minutes - what was added after my last post there. No respectable newspaper would ban the use of IMDb and accept Wikipedia. As I said, this is why there is no policy about it, there is no agreement. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did get what you were saying. Even while it was still winding down, after I stopped posting, he came to my page and wanted me to tell him it was all right to put in the cites and was it "going to create a problem with you against me?" No, I already had a problem with him and how he misrepresented what I had said. Okay, maybe I was being a bit contentious with putting the 3RR notice on his page, but it was a legitimate post, he did continue to revert after he went to WP:FILM and I also thought he needed to know. He saw it as a threat. He had come in to my page to cross post his response to you on my page, which annoyed me more. As I said, most ungraciously, he's already been an issue at AN/I and I've had my fill with people who run to admins at the least provocation. It reminds me too much of grade school. Then he pops back on my page to add his agreement to my response to someone about something entirely unrelated to this. I told him twice to stop coming and posting on my page. I just have no patience. I'm not entirely sure that this isn't a cross-cultural thing. And then something else, added to your observation about IMDb vs. Wikipedia... if a newspaper won't accept IMDb as a source for an article, but does accept Wikipedia, then why would anyone insist that what we have from IMDb would be right for any of it? If it is obvious it is from IMDb for the rest of the roles, then wouldn't one, logically, doubt any of the cast listings? The other thing, I'm really tired of being called "he" on here. Wild Heart... doesn't Stevie Nicks ring a bell anymore? Livie?? Is that a male name somewhere in the world? Sheesh. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I just came to respond to Michael's post on my page, to say that in my experience, editors generally archive rather than erase.


 * But I need to correct something. I never said we'd accept Wikipedia. In fact, we have a policy against it. I was referring to the citations, i.e., the source of the claim ... which in this case are books by professional writers and editors and vetted by fact-checkers and a legal department. --207.237.223.118 (talk) 03:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, to go read the source book pages or magazine articles themselves, yeah. Thanks for understanding.


 * If you're interested, some of the others are: Frank Langella: "Body of Evidence" (1993); Mickey Rourke: "Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man" (1991); Brad Pitt: "Cool World" (1992); Anne Hathaway: "Passengers" (2008); and Angelina Jolie: "Cyborg 2" (1993) -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 03:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw that Stevie Nicks tour too, but Dylan didn't play with her. Though I did see Dylan a couple of times besides that. That was back when a person could get a concert ticket for less than a week's wages. My first concert ticket cost $5.50. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it was probably in Indianapolis at the now gone Market Square Arena, although it could have been in Columbus or Cincinnati Ohio. I've seen her, and Fleetwood Mac, several times. Well, except for the last time, when Fleetwood Mac was charging $75 for a lawn seat and $125 minimum for the hard cold plastic seats. It was getting too pricey for me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia
Dear "Please Insert Name Here", thank you for becoming the newest member of the WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. Welcome aboard. If you have any questions... Oh, Crap! It's only you again. What the hell? A wee bit on the young side for senility, aren't we? Or were you just one cup of coffee short yesterday? — Cactus Writer |   needles  10:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Rescue
BTW, Michael, in case I have a bad reputation as a deletionist--I've picked up a few stragglers myself, haha. See User:Drmies, and you'll see that I too have a problem sometimes with those who shoot from the hip. Later, Drmies (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't believe it. He was born to delete valuable and well referenced material. Keep a close eye on him. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet - Barnstar
Hi there MICHAEL, VASCO from Portugal,

Thank you very much for your help and the nice gift you bestowed upon my "humble" talkpage. It really makes me sad to see individuals like the one i reported acting like that, what's the point, if we could all work together as a team (naive, naive, naive :))...

Anyway, keep up the good work, have a great week,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: You thread on WT:Sockpuppet investigations
I have created the case for you: Sockpuppet investigations/Pararubbas. Cheers! -- lucasbfr  talk 14:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Big Bad Love

 * Wooohoooo! Thanks--this was (almost) all your work. Later, Drmies (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

thank you
Mike, thank you so much for your support of User:Benjiboi when he needs help the most. It would be such a loss to Wikipedia to lose him, and it is gratifying to see so many editors rush to help him. Best wishes to you. Ikip (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Malaka Dewapriya
could you plesae Give your Contribution To This article Malaka Dewapriya best

(Jets (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Well... its gonna take some major copyedit to address the issues. I'll see what I can do.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Account-hopping vandal
Hi there MICHAEL, VASCO here,

about this on-going investigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations#Disruptive_editor.2FSockpuppet), bad news: the vandal rested for a day, supposedly waiting that we (i?) would forget, but returned today, doing this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_Carlos_Fernandes_Vidigal&diff=269806802&oldid=259804600)

I appreciate your kind/wise words, but will leave the project as i intended after seeing that "persons" like this do not learn. Still, i will leave after i see the vandal (to not extend myself in other denominations) gets this account closed...Of course what will he do? Open a 5th account, and then a 6th, and a 56th, too much for me too handle, i'll tell you that :(

Keep up the good work,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You can only do so much. I am sorry that you are leaving. Perhaps after a short while you might return. We'll be here for you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

A "thank you" and a question
Hi there MICHAEL, VASCO here,

I found out that the situation with that vandal has been resolved for now (let's see for how long, he seems the resilient type, unfortunately), ty very much for your inputs.

Still having 2nd thoughts about leaving or not but, in the meantime, will ask you a (related)question that i have posed to some users and admins and no one has yet dropped me a line (and i mean that literally): What vandalism situations qualify for long-range blocks, what are the patterns? Maybe it's a wiki-secret, maybe that's why i have received no feedback?

Ty very much in advance, keep it up,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Most folks on Wiki are concerned with their own edits and don't always have time to immediately follow up on the deeds of others. I can suggest you study Vandalism. It details the steps an editor should consider in resolving a situation before it escalates beyond control. There's no "secret"... its just that there is no one whose specific job it is to deal with vandalism. That is done on a volunteer basis by any of a number of Admins. And a problem with vandals is they might go to a neutral IP, create a dozen accounts, and then use them up one by one as they attack the work of others. It can be quite tedious to wait for a vandal, determine if what is being done IS vandalism, act to block that vandal, and then await for the next to show up with identical or similar editing patterns and go through that same determination process. Sometimes the best thing to do is outlast the vandal. To step away from an article for a week or so... dealing with the angst of seeing the article vandalized, and then going in to repair the damage or seek help from another in repairing the damage after the vandal has moved on to another article. Once a true vandal does not get the "attention" they were expecting, they usually get bored and move on. Also, keep in mind that there are "bots" that deal with reverting the changes of vandals. As an editor you do not have th babysit an article. The system often grinds slowly, but it does work... more often than not. If you show greater patience in dificult situations, you will more often than not become the victor. The key is patience.
 * I invite other editors who read this to respond as well.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note
re this AfD. I had been away and offline and would have forgotten to see how it closed. Glad it was kept and thanks for the work on it, as always. StarM 02:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:UGH is the hardest thing to fight. Glad it was kept, but I have a sense it will be returned to AfD at the nom's earliest opportunity.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * oooh, nifty new-to-me shortcut. I think a third re-nom so soon will be speedy kept as disruptive. He's made his point. StarM  00:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
For the barnstar thingie, it's my first :) Reversing an opinion on an AfD is a responsibility of any editor participating in the discussion, I think. Deleting substantial content from the encyclopedia (I'm not counting speedy deletes of cruft here) is not a decision that should be taken lightly and the process exists for that very reason. Maybe some people just forget about that. In my opinion, the happiest outcome of any AfD is a keep, and an article that has been substantially improved since being nominated deserves no less. Cheers. §FreeRangeFrog 23:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Too many do forget about it... and then feel "cornered" and fight tooth and nail to maintain their original delete opinion even in light of an article being improved. Which is why I am getting into the habit of writing something like "Keep because the article has ben improved since it was first nominated"... and then hoping a closing admin pays attention to the fact that the delete opinions have been addressed nad that the original reasons for AfD no longer apply. So as for your barnstar, it is my way of recognizing YOU as being a diligent editor. Cheers right back!  Schmidt, ' MICHAEL Q. 23:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry for butting in, I just happen to agree with both of you and felt the need to share that. ;) Drmies (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ramse Mostoller
Hi Michael, this person has done a bunch of costumes, apparently, but is up for deletion. Can you have a look? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I will do what I can to show the importance of her work as a costumer. No doubt some of her projects have won various awards for "best cosuming" or some such. Will just take a lot of digging. The article may never be more than a stub.... but a good stub is better than none.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Glad you had a look at the AfD. I'm glad I could follow MGM's keep, but this was really easy to say keep to: that one Google book search is proof enough, it seems to me; your SNOW comment I think should and will be followed on quickly. So the article is safe, for now--thanks again! Drmies (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Eagle (newspaper)
Those Google results didn't make the "almost 100 years in circulation" clear. What was the exact source of that claim? - Mgm|(talk) 12:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Have been doing some expansion and sourcing. Have been able to source foundation in 1889. Any assistance will be welcome.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

New articles default to user space
Thanks again for your support. I'll work this up as a proposal (it'll probably take a week to do) and try it out on you and any one else who is interested. As it doesn't take sides on the notability debate, I'll be aiming for feedback from a wide spectrum of opinions.... - Pointillist (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of wiki farms
I suggest you revert your edit in light of the actual situation. Ikip was not even involved in the discussions when I reverted. More importantly, Ikip has yet to address any policy or guideline issue. As far as anyone can tell, he's simply edit-warring because he doesn't want to follow these policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then best to roll it back to a point before either of them began bumping heads, so as to not appear to give credence to one side over the other. I will myself spend a few minutes studing the changes and the reasons given by both parties. Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.`
 * Thanks for reconsidering. Looks like another editor familiar with the situation has stepped in as well since.  If you have the time, your viewpoint would be helpful.  Basically, we just have a couple of editor trying to change WP:EL by example rather than consensus. --Ronz (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * After careful study, I see two different interpretations of WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE. I think what would best serve all involved is for it to be restored to an earlier version when all the links (save one) were treated as footnotes or refs. I can understand the ease and utility that would have Ikip wish to simply include them under ELYES and ELMAYBE, but setting them as refs as they were earlier addresses his wish to improve the article and your wish not to have EL's used in an iffy manner. Fair enough? Everybody wins. And this skirmish can end.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time. We've tried it in various fashions in other articles where these same editors insisted on keeping these same types of links.  Besides not being reliable sources, being self-published sources, and being promotional in nature, these exceptions to multiple policies and guidelines confused other editors and continued to attract spammers. --Ronz (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The rules in subsections of WP:EL allow for these circumstances. You guys need to both step back and take a deep breath. An earlier version of the article has these links.... but as set in references. A rollback to THAT version gives both sides a win, rather than have you all duke it out over interpretations of WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE. This way the links can provide proper WP:V of the Wikifarm concepts being described. And later you guys can have a discussion about the intent of WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE as those were included in WP:EL for a reason.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We've done all this before. Written RfCs.  Had lengthy discussions in Wikipedia talk:External links. Timeshifter just keeps trying, sometimes finding others to join his cause.  I don't see any need or reason to compromise against such disruptive editing. --Ronz (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No disrespects to either of you, but he may feel that you are the disruptive one. It is always best to look at a situation from eyes other than one's own. Consider, if the only source to WP:V that A+B=C is the site that first said A+B=C, then it is allowed. If with wikifarms you are discussing spam sites, a link to that site is permissable if one cannot find a link to some other site discussing that spam site. An article about a SPS can show that SPS as an example of itself, as long as that SPS is not being used to source notability or something in grave contention. I agree that exceptions confuse some, but they must be made on occasion, no matter how distasteful. If another is confused, then an explanation to him or her is in order. If a spammer feels cart blanche, then the spammer gets blocked. Here is an old saying that is at the heart of Wikipedia and the intent of WP:IAR: "It is the occasional exception that strengthens the rule rather than weakens it." And with respects to all... one must give serious consideration to what IAR means when each and every guideline begins with the phrase "...best used with common sense and the occasional exception". That's there for a reason... and it would be prudent for all sides to ask themselves what that reason is. If the rare use of EL's in this manner improves Wiki, then they become that "occasional exception". Maybe... just maybe.... both sides can meet somewhere in the middle.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've looked at it from their eyes. Timeshifter considers all members of the spam project to be disruptive editors, and frequently notes it when he any such editor disagrees with him. Those who join him, like Ikip, are usually strong inclusionists.
 * Ikip appears to just be looking for a fight. He's had plenty of time to discuss the issues.  Months in this case.
 * There are many other problems with having these links: WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT have all been brought up by multiple editors. When you compromise on so many of the pillars, you're no longer writing encyclopedia articles. --Ronz (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW: I removed all mention of WP:GRIEF from my comments in an effort to de-escalate the tension. I hope you don't mind though you've mentioned it in your own comments in reference to mine. --Ronz (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (Outdent) I did not get that deep into it and the history of all the contributors. And again, each and every guideline begins with the phrase "...best used with common sense and the occasional exception". Its there for a reason. If "occasional exceptions" were not anticipated and expected, those words would not be heading every single guideline. it would not then exist. All editors.... so-called inclusionsists and so-called deletists must ask themselves what itmeans. Why it was included.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reasons to make an exception to multiple guidelines and most of the pillar policies. --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not? Or rather, why do you think all guidelines are tagged with the caveat that allows/suggests exceptions? What do you think that phrase means? Why do you think it was included in all guidelines? If you are unable to answer or explain why it can and should be ignored, then we have a greater problem here that indicates a systemic flaw in every guideline and in wiki itself. You say you don't see any reasons to make an exception to multiple guidelines, when it is all those same multiple guidelines that each begin with that caveat "must be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". Each does. Without exception. Why must all other parts of the "suggestions" of the guidelines be adhered to as if they were some iron-clad policy, when each also contains that caveat. Again, why do you think it is a part of EVERY guideline. Look.... I am trying to understand your position, and simply wish to understand your selective interpretation of guideline. If you are truely unable to clarify why the most important part of each guideline can be ignored even as the lessor parts are being followed, this is likley something that needs either be removed from every guideline, or strengthened to ensure proper application. And no one is suggesting you ignore the Pillars, as nothing within the pillars acts to deter consideration of "the occasional exception" to a suggestion within any guideline. Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Simply, no one has offered any such reasons. If you're trying to understand my position, ask questions about my position.  As far as exceptions and WP:IAR go, I think WP:WIARM, WP:UIAR, WP:EXCEPTIONS, and WP:UCS are all pretty clear that we don't make exceptions just to make exceptions.
 * Okay. My sense is you have no use for that part of each guideline, as you have pointed to esays that explain the exclusuionist view of that part of guidelines. There are essays that promote an inclusionist view, but I have no conflict with you no matter which "camp" you favor. That all aside, how would you yourself then handle the EL's? Eliminate all and leave the unsourced/unverified facts? Simple cite refs per WP:V to avoid a linkfarm? Explanation one by one as they are added as cites to explain how and why each is needed to WP:Verify a fact? Certainly there must be some middle ground.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The links are not being used to verify anything. They aren't references in any sense.  They are simply there to provide readers a link to the official site of each wikifarm.  --Ronz (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So the information is not in contention, only the use of the links? Since all "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable", what options meet the middle ground for involved parties?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no information in contention because of its verifiability. There are WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT concerns that cannot be resolved by citing primary sources. --Ronz (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As you can see, Timeshifter has returned to the fray. He refuses all dispute resolution approaches from me, and still has yet to offer any additional points to the discussions.  His arguments are nothing more than consensus cannot change if he's against it. --Ronz (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Have not revisted the carnage before commenting here, as I have no wish to be bounced around in anyone's edit war. If you feel Timeshifter is ignoring requests for discussion, or he feels that of you, its time for one or both parties to seek a ruling from a higher body. Else everyone may well suffer temp blocks and a cooling-down period.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you suggest? I was planning on summarizing all the policy and guideline-related concerns in preparation for moving forward.  If there are any at all from both sides, I'll start discussion on the relevant policy/guideline talk pages.  However, I don't believe that anyone has ever come up with any in favor of including the links.  --Ronz (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and included a summary, trying to cover everything ever listed for exclusion. I can't make sense or find any consistency in the arguments for inclusion, so I basically just said that. Hopefully, someone will give some clear rationale. --Ronz (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Kougari Oval
Hi Michael - I've just removed the expand notice you added to Kougari Oval - if something's marked with stub templates it shouldn't also have an expand template (as per the instructions at Expand/doc). Thanks for the comments at afd about my improvements to the stub, BTW! Grutness...wha?  07:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

and again.

Patrick J.Donnelly
The author of this has appealed to me saying, please don't bite a newbie and, what proof do you need that he exists? I have replied here saying the issue is notability, and offering to userfy the article as you suggested in the debate. I hope you don't mind that I have suggested you as someone who would be willing to help him develop the article if it is userfied. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/A Substantial Gift (The Broken Promise)
I've found a Boston Globe article. I have trouble with my email, but I can forward it from an alternate account if you want it. - Mgm|(talk) 11:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Nom?
Do you have any aspirations to become an administrator? I'm considering nominating you for adminship (if you promise to keep your focus on article writing/rescue - wouldn't want to lose a content provider). - Mgm|(talk) 12:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * An Admin??? ME????  Tell you what... look over my histories of the last year and decide if anything I did or said in the past (as certainly opposers will bring up things that happened a year ago) might make you regret such a nomination. I do believe I try to be be peacemaker, and I do like saving things from the bonfire... but the first thing that will be said is that I do not have enough experience. SUre, no one "started" with experience...but RfA's can be most unseemly.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference format
Comparison of wiki farms. As you requested I made a start in improving the reference format for the home page links being used as primary-source references for the features and options listed in the table. I also clarified the reference column title to show what the references were sourcing.

I have filled out so many hundreds or thousands of references in articles that I do not need to use a template such as this:

That is a little overkill for these particular references in my opinion. But to show you that I do know what you are talking about please look at the many references in Casualties of the Iraq War. I did a lot of editing of that article. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that it may be overkill, but apparently such "overkill" is neccessary at this time and in this place to address the continued concerns of three other editors who do not accept the inclusion of such information. Doubtless the dozens of others who have edited the article since its inception might wonder at the concerted effort by these three to assert their view. While they have reached a "consensus of three", ArbCom may feel that it is not reflective of the consensus of all involved. I appreciate you being willing to address their concerns in the ultimate improvement of wiki.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahhh, ARBCOM. I have been around before and after WP:ARBPIA. I am a member of WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. WP:ARBPIA was decided in a week by the arbitrators. That doesn't sound too bad just now. Considering all the time spent so far by everybody at Talk:Comparison of wiki farms. I am not sure any other dispute resolution in this area of computer-related lists would make any difference. What exactly do you think the home page reference should consist of? Maybe something like this?:


 * Wikia.com home page.


 * Feel free to help out. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"Consensus of three"
Look through the AfD's and the complete talk page. There are many more that just three editors. --Ronz (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are much more than three editors involved. I was responding to this statement: "...what is unclear about my suggesting that consensus has been reached? 2005, Ronz and I are all on the same page that the links don't belong in the page" and my pointing out, just as you do here, that there are more folks involved... on both sides of the discussion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But this is not a vote. Your emphasis on counting the number of editors makes it appear that consensus-building is based upon the number of editors. --Ronz (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course its not a "vote by numbers". But that was just how Annyoung was making it appear. My point is simply that it takes more than three to create a proper consensus. Consensus must reflect input from as many affected editors as possible, not simply the most recent to be involved. I was pointing out, by including Ikip and Childofmidnight, that a consensus has not actually been reached... just an agreement among three editors. The "consensus" must be a bit wider ranging.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. In this case, I can simply look and see that one side is supported by multiple policies and guidelines, while the other has none that I've been able to find.  That's clear consensus.  It doesn't matter how many editors are on each side.  This is not a vote. --Ronz (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

deletion of patrick j donnelly,actor
Dear sir,

I'm an norton3600,i am a new member to Wikipedia,about 4weeks and the above article was my first attempt.

They say:' that every donkey has its day' and wasn't it barnon who said:'everybody should have fifteen minutes of fame'? What is notability and how long does it last?

Patrick j Donnelly exists,he's a professional actor who's a member of both Irish and British acting/casting organizations(irish actors union and spotlight uk--the biggest casting agency in the british isles and europe,he's also a member of the irish tv and film academy)'He's has Irish/French and American Ancestry.

I can understand some of the irish contributions,espeacially as he has an military background and served in the lebanon,and as you know ireland is full of pacifist--until they need their army! And this guy nearly lost his life twice doing the right thing--not noteworthy enought??

But you Sir confuse me,first as an actor--i'v researched you website,very impressive-- and second as a self-publisher and editor of some very fine articles,you're extremely talented and very intelligent,and yet,don't think this man's article means alot in the greater scheme of things. I'm sad,confused and wonder have i made a bad mistake joining Wikipedia!

I have asked the other folks who wish to delete my article to give me afew days to try and complete my work and do justice to this man's life,i promise after that i shall delete this article myself and refrain from submitting any other topics.

Sir, i thank you and wish you well,no matter what the outcome is.

norton3600Norton3600 (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternative to notability
Hello! I am working on an objective alternate to notability in my userspace. Please read User:A Nobody/Inclusion guidelines and offer any suggestions on its talk page, which I will consider for revision purposes. If you do not do so, no worries, but if you wish to help, it is appreciated. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Mail
What address bounced? My wiki address or the one I gave in the message? Try sending it again. - Mgm|(talk) 05:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Mr Aaron
Oh dear. I have just read the comment that you moved to the AfD talk page. A small thing, but I do consider this breaks our code on civility and have logged it as such on his own talk page. I wonder if you might intercede gently there and suggest a positive course of action to him?

I'm a big boy. I don't care a jot for his attack one way or the other, but it is outside our spirit here, and needs to have a shot across the bows.

My real hope is that he goes and edits articles that are so far away form his COI territory that he starts to enjoy himself and avoids areas where he can be accused of advertising. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

deletion of patrick j donnelly
Hi Mr MichaelQSchmidt,

Many thanks for all your help and kindness,regarding this article!

yours humbly

norton3600Norton3600 (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Another rescue
DANILOG. I know you love these :) §FreeRangeFrog 03:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The Fifth Beatle (film)
Hiya MQS. Just wanted to point out that The Fifth Beatle (Film) got recreated again, both of us voted for deletion at Articles for deletion/The Fifth Beatle (Film) in December. It could go up for Speedy Deletion now, but being the film buff and AfD rescue guy that you are I thought that you might want to have a look before I did anything. I don't know if it is any more notable now than it was 2 months ago, I doubt it. The lead says it is upcoming, but the release date says 2007...curious...--kelapstick (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (I couldn't resist looking into this given the title). Looks like the movie was originally intended for '07 release, but it was stalled. The news from the official site's blog and news pages indicate that it's still in early production.  It might be notable if a reliable source has picked up some of their news releases and written about the movie. --Ronz (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I will rescue when rescue is an option that improves wiki. Thanks for thinking of me. But in this case, the recreated article is still too premature. First checking the "official website" I find no new news. I would still suppport a deletion without prejudice and redirect to Brian Epstein, as there is still no indication that filming has begun and there is no indication that press about the project has even tickled the GNG. Even WP:V is only supported by a 3-year-old single article in Rolling Stone. A major problem in a search for relevant articles is created by the title itself... a search term which brings up lots about "the fifth beatle" and Brian Epstein... but nothing new about the film. IMDB does not list cast and shows the film as still in pre-production.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thought I would czech with you first, CSD as recreated material it is.--kelapstick (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (copied from my talk page) How does the saying go? Shoot the messenger...or something like that.--kelapstick (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Margo Sappington
I cannot userfy the page because it would still be a copyviolation (it's better to start from scratch). However, there are some wikipedia mirrors that have not deleted their versions yet:, , , and a copy of the original press text. Hope this helps in your article.-Andrew c [talk] 04:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Visually looking at it, my first impression was that it seems like it is overlinked. Too much blue (and red). Going into the thick of it, I noticed a sentence like "In 1993 Ms. Sappington created Slide for the Joffrey as a section of the company's acclaimed evening-length work, Billboards and danced to a score by rock musician Prince." which can compare to "In 1993 Ms. Sappington created Slide for the Joffrey Ballet, which was a section of the company's highly acclaimed evening-length work, Billboards, danced to a score by rock musician Prince." There is still way too much verbatim copying. You need to put this in your own words. That said, the sourcing is very good IMO. My take: you need to write this from the ground up. I almost wish I hadn't shown you the copyvio version. It would be much better if you ignored the copyvio version, trashed your current text, and just wrote from scratch using the 17 sources you found. I don't believe we should take someone else's bio, change a word here, remove a word there and then call it our own in good faith. Hope this helps.-Andrew c [talk] 01:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

patrick j donnelly(actor)
Good evening sir,

Once again many thanks for your help with this article. I have read your works,very interesting and it does make a difference what you do. May i wish you the the best of 'British Luck' in all things you do!

norton3600Norton3600 (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
StarM 03:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/L'Absent
Hi MichaelQSchmidt! The article I created, L'Absent, has been improved and expanded since it was nominated for deletion. I would be truly obliged were you to take the time to view it and give me your opinion.--Iswearius (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Am working on some format and cleanup right now. Give me a few minutes as I find additional sources. You'll like it when I am done.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice fix, thanks! Looking forward to collaborating.--Iswearius (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
TN X Man 00:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Michael Q. Schmidt
Hi Michael, I just read this article for the first time after finding it at AfD. I was too late to comment (it had already been kept), but I'd just like to say that I'm pleased to find out that that you're older than I am. From the standard of discussion I often get the impression that everyone here is a teenager, so it's good to see that I'm not the only quintagenarian around. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh... there are a few here older than myself (chuckle) but the numbers of wiki editors who can take advantage of senior specials are by far the minority. I too get the occasional impression that many editors can still get into theaters using their student discounts. Thanks for looking in, and best right back at'cha.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think MQS avails himself of the many age defying wonders on offer in Los Angeles. His youthful glamour and star qualities depend on it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hah. LA is full of the transporial seeking eternal youth. Luck for me that being among the "not so pretty" is of greater benefit.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Question from power corrupts

 * User_talk:Ikip Maybe you could help answer? Ikip (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Smile!


A NobodyMy 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, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Devdas
Thanks for the info, I have happily retracted my delete vote. I can't stand the pre-internet (1980 or so) bias around here).Vulture19 (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the great info,I have already retracted my delete vote. It is strange that imdb is not fully RS and even there is no indian site referring that RS. Even History of Assamese cinema is not refer that.strange!!!!!!-Thanks. Jayanta Nath (Talk 08:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad to find the source. My sense is, specially since Barua was also working on two versions of Mukti in 1937, the Assamese version of Devdas may have taken a back seat historically and then been essentially forgotten. And I do not have any idea of what kind of distribution it might have has in 1937 India... specially when Assamese films were themselves in an infancy. Like any filmmaker and his films, we tend to remember the winners and forget the losers. If the Assamese one was a box-office failure... it would quickly have faded to obscurity whil Barua was promoting is more widely screened Mukti versions.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad, sad news
Hi there MIKE, VASCO here,

As the title says, bad news, i should have left the project as intended originally. Stuck around, only to find out the FIFTH account of vandal PARARUBBAS, now called SVZ08 ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Svz08), examples here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=H%C3%A9lio_Sousa&diff=prev&oldid=272781239, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fary_Faye&diff=272106667&oldid=266427541).

Have reported this just now to WP/ANI (seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations#Sockpuppet_.284_and_counting.29), what an incredible moron...No personal attacks? Why? Does he deserve to be treated nicely?

Cheers man, take care - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Margo Sappington
--Dravecky (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That AFD and ArbCom fait accompli
That case of the radio plays is, IMO, borderline fait accompli; the fact they were all created by the same person in the same time frame with the same details in certain places was probably not appropriate to start with, and because of their nature of their creation, need to be dealt with at the same time; this doesn't mean one or more alone may be separately notable. (Plus, given these are not original works of fiction nor similar articles from a fiction series, they technically may not fall under the ArbCom issue) --M ASEM (t) 19:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood. And thank you. Still though... I sometimes wonder if in such cases the indivudual articles might have otherwise been improved over a course of time if given a chance.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case, it's hard to say. The circumstances behind this is unique. Take something else like every episode of a TV show that have been created at different times, and try to pull the same, and you'll likely bring into play.  It is a good thing to call a "procedural close" if you feel they need to be treated individually (as to remind other editors that option exists as well), but it still is up to a closing admin to decide if there's enough support to delist the AFD and require separate ones. --M ASEM  (t) 20:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt of the good faith of the nom, and will leave the result up to the closer. Your advice has been much appreciated. Thank you. It may be that only 2 or 3 or maybe 10 of the individual articles have merit enough to remain... but this becomes a confused issue when all 63 are nomed at once.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
-- Ged UK  22:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Schmidty, get to work!
I'm blasting through "new pages" from Feb. 23 that no one has looked at. This one is unsourced Donald Graham Burt, but seemed like something you might like to add a citation to? It's about some sort of Hollywood related film production activity. So you probably know the guy. There was one on some sort of Rainbow film festival in LA, but I didn't want anything to inferred by my mentioning it you so there you have it. I'm always getting in trouble, so I'm trying to keep my head down. Let me know if you want me to help out on anything. Thanks for all your good work. Make sure to have fun and work on things that interest you and not just be a slave to AfD and spammers looking for a saviour. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow that was quick. You da man.  Are they doing some sort of LA get together?  Are you attending? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No doubt there will lots of Hollywood A-Listers doing the big do.... but I am not quite D-List (chuckle). Glad to help out with Don Burt.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm dumping this one on you too. Marty Riskin. Next time reply to me immediately that you're busy, but thanks for thinking of you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll see what can be done.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The German Student
I thought I'd discuss this outside of the group consensus argument because I believe we agree on the end result but disagree on the means to get there. Therefore, I think that if we can come to an understanding about why we disagree on the means, we can probably provide a good solution and stop the childish argument everyone else seems to be having. From what I see, it is:
 * "The series is notable, but each episode isn't."
 * "The episodes are notable because the series is notable."
 * "No, they aren't."
 * "Yes, they are."
 * "No, they aren't."
 * "Yes, they are."
 * repeat...

I do not believe that there is anyone claiming that the series is not notable. The issue is: Should every episode of the series have an independent article? To me,that implies that every single episode is automatically notable just because the series is notable. It is, to me, similar to claiming that every single song by The Beatles is automatically notable just because the Beatles are notable. That is not the case. Every article for the Beatles' songs makes an independent case of notability. For example, the Dear Prudence article includes cover versions to show that others have found the song notable enough to cover and it includes proper references. The information in the song's article is not about the band or the album. It is about the song itself. So, if the Dear Prudence article just said, "This is a song by the Beatles. They are a very notable band," then I would suggest it be deleted and made a bullet point on the album's page. When someone decided to create a proper article, the bullet point would become a link to a proper article. That is basically the case we have here. I suggest making the episode articles that do not, in themselves, demonstrate notability of the episode itself into a bullet list on the main article. When someone wants to expand on the content about the episode (not the series), it is easy to do so. It appears to me that you want to keep the articles as, at least, stubs so someone can come along and expand them. The end result is the same - someone will eventually come along and expand the articles. I just suggest we expand from a bullet list and you suggest we expand from stubs. Is this correct? -- k a i n a w &trade; 21:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well there is at least one editor who believes they are non-notable, and he refuses any consideration or offer of compromise. And certain of the more vocal delete comments do mot even allow consideration that some might actually be suitable and demand ALL be removed as spam. So what exists now is the basis for articles that can be expanded, based upon the informations currently provided. To delete them would mean that someone else would have to come along and do these initial preperation phases all over again after all 63 get deleted due to the mass nomination. Putting the good and the bad all together demands a "keep all to work on" or "delete all as inherently unsalvagable" with no middle ground. That's why my very first comment at the discussion was a procedural keep so that the articles can then be examined one-by-one to discover which had merit and which stodd to be deleted as lacking. Curently, WP:List article would allow a large single article that can itself be expanded... and such is specificaly allowed by WP:STAND that wisely only requires conformance with the Policys WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV... not then requiring an additional meeting of WP:N. But I do not think that is what you are getting to here. Currently they are perhaps fat for stubs, and a whole lot more thsan the 1-line summation being advocated. I created a sandbox a couple days ago in anticipation of them all being tossed on the ash heap. I cannot even begin to relate my dread of have 63 articles to sort through if userfied. A "keep" allows editors to work within WP:DEADLINE as now there are voiced concerns that editors might address. As you recall, there were no delete votes at the previous AfD and the then nom's concerns were entirely dismissed out-of-hand with a speedy keep... perhaps indicating to any who came across those discussions that they needed no improvement. So now, if "kept" there are issues to address.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I do agree that they are fat for stubs. However, most of the content is copy/paste from the main article and copy/paste from the original book's article.  If they were combined, the copy/paste from the main article would not be repeated 63 times.  As for the summaries - that is in the main book's article.  So, a link to the book would suffice.  I have looked through the episode articles and I do not see much of anything else that there is to keep.  That is why I have asked what is unique to the episode pages that is notable and too "fat" for a list.  Unless I've missed something, the only claim of episode notability in the discussion so far is that the series has won awards.  I would like to see something notable about a specific episode to say that it deserves a unique article as opposed to something like a season article with a small summary of each episode. --  k a i n a w &trade; 23:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Which brings me full circle back to the Mass Nomination. I usually spend perhaps 30 or 40 minutes digging for sources for difficult cases... often more. Time 63 means I'd have to dedicate at leat 42 hours to research 63 tough cases. Allowing 2 hours for a proper rewrite of each could bring the time required to 168 hours... that's 7 days straight if one went totally without stopping for food or sleep. That's not a fair nomination... not fair at all... and so was perhaps the desired idea behind tossing them all to burn at once. You ask what is unique about each? 42 hours of straight research... not stopping to eat or sleep or poop.... could give an answer. Mass AfD are a disservice to you and me and all of Wiki. I would agree that combined/merged into one article there would be less to do... which is why I am not against a merge to a new article. But they'd have to be "kept" first.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand now. I do agree that it will take a lot of work to research every single episode.  However, I do not feel that the mass deletion nomination was done in bad faith.  I feel that it was done because the nominator felt that any decision on one episode would be equivalent to a decision on another episode.  He was apparently attempting to avoid 63 nearly identical discussions.
 * As you have noted, a page with details on 63 episodes would be rather large. What if it took on the same form as most episodic articles and had a page per season?  I have been looking for a season-by-season list and can't find one (yet), but there shouldn't be more than 13 episodes per season.  I believe there are templates specifically for seasons that organize the multiple episodes in a clean and easy-to-read article.  Then, they would not be deleted and they would be more than a one-liner in a list on the main page.  Does that sound agreeable? --  k a i n a w &trade; 05:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like I was too late to try and come up with a consensus both extremes would like. I'm just going to try and get all unique info in the bullet list before it is all deleted. --  k a i n a w &trade; 17:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The WQA, and Nixon
"I had thought the "Its with a hevy heart" bit came from Nixon's resignation speeach and both were using it on wiki decades later. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)"


 * I thought that was "I will go to China"..."I am not a crook". (LOL) Edit Centric (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the smile. I needed that. Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

WQA

 * 1) I have a dispute with Ikip on page X where Ikip violates CIVIL, TALK, and NPA repeatedly, and is eventually briefly blocked for violating HOUND.
 * 2) I have a dispute with Newbie User A on page Y and page Z (which are unrelated to X, but related to each other).  A's dispute is also with every other experienced editor on the page, each of whom inform him that his edits violate OR.  I politely explain to him several times the OR rule and SYN rule; I discuss the issue on the talk page before removing material, and do not remove material until A acknowledges that he does not have sources for his claims, but is basing them on his own analysis; A responds by edit-warring and making false accusations of OR against my sourced edits. I also politely notify him about the edit-warring and 3RR rules.  I compliment him on his good edits.  I suggest he seek guidance from WP:HD or WP:NORN if he does not understand the OR rules.
 * 3) User Ikip then "mentors" User A to ignore me and go ahead and edit-war.

How exactly is this my fault? Because if I can do something different in the future I will. If it's not my fault, it's rewarding the bully to make a comment that blames both of us equally. THF (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No doubt, that since he has been involved with that aricle since 2005, he feels a bit protective of it... though not quite meeting WP:OWN. You and he started to bump egos and it got out of hand on both sides. I am not an arbiter of who is at fault, only in recognizing that 3rd parties are being affected. You and Ikip are both tremendous editors with the improvement of wiki as your goal. So perhaps as editors you might both modify yourselves... you to loosen up a bit and he to tighten up a bit. I am sorry that you feel my comment rewards him and punishes you, but this is a case where one of you is complainant and the other is cross-complaintant. Just as neither of you is 100% wrong, neither is 100% right. On wiki, there are no absolutes. So my comment was directed at both sides. And it is important to consider when editing back and forth in a rapid crossfire that pushes the edge of 3RR, that there is no rush. He might make 40 edits with which you disagree, or you might make 40 with which he disagrees.... but the answer is discussion... even if it takes either of you a week to finally respond personally. The article is not going anywhere. All edits of it are saved in its history. There is no rush for either of you to make sure of what version remains. Wiki encourages editors to not fret when their edits get reversed. I will just as happily inform this as I have you... and will do so immediately.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * NB that I didn't even pass 1RR on Business Plot. And my WQA complaint is not about the content dispute, but about his talk-page behavior. You are punishing me when you disregard my complaint and accept his complaint and treat this like a mere content dispute.


 * And again, let's assume that I'm not 100% right: but then what did I do wrong wrt Abbarocks? How can I improve my behavior, when you can't identify anything I did wrong, but are simply assuming that I must have because Ikip is "experienced"? THF (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My reference to 3RR was only by way of description of a process that can get out of hand, and I suppose more as a caution to him than you as I am sure he has read what was posted here on my talk page. And it must be granted that it was the content dispute led to the subsequent inter-actions off-article. With respects, Abbarocks has a distinct impression that you called him a meatpuppet and so he made that statement, not I. Even if not so, he thinks it is. If misrepresentation, he should retract it. If not, then someone owes someone an apology. And to note, I just posted on Ikip's talk page encouraging him quite strongly to "mellow out".  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The "meatpuppet" was a misunderstanding; I had complained to Ikip about trying to use Abbarocks as a meatpuppet, and didn't actually accuse Abbarocks of acting as a meatpuppet. I've apologized to Abbarocks.  Whether he updates his WQA statement is up to him, but you can see the discussion at User talk:Abbarocks. THF (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have now read the comment at the talk page. I hope he corrects himself as well. I can understand how the original skull and bones statement might certainly be seen as an allgation of meatpuppery by a newcomer even if only intended as warning to not become one.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you correct your statement? THF (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Did so even as you were asking.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Many many thanks, sir. THF (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Travis Irvine: the sandbox edition
Hi. Sorry for the delay in getting around to looking at the references for the Travis Irvine article you are working on in your sandbox. You didn't specifically state what you were looking for in asking me to review the references so I will answer in two dimensions.

The first is verifiability. On the whole the references verify the facts of the article. The one spot where I would say it might be dubious would be the sentence "Irvine is best known for his critically acclaimed film Coons! Night of the Bandits of the Night ." These are then referenced with 5 articles. (8) is a good reference for notability (see below), but I don't think it supports "critically acclaimed". (9), although coming from the New York Times, is really content syndicated from Allmovie Guide for their online site and isn't an NYT review. And as Allmoview Guide reviews everything, it really isn;t selective enough to lend support to the assertion. (10) I am not familiar with. (11) and (12) are university press, so it doesn't really carry the weight needed to support crically acclaimed. What's really needed is some festival awards, or major positive reviews. Given the current referencing, I'd tone down the description.

The second is notability. I suspect that despite the references, there might be some rough waters if the article were to be nominated at AFD. The reprint of the Columbus Dispatch article (8) is significant coverage. In conjunction with the assorted other coverage in the local papers such as (13) and (14), for me it would be sufficient from a notability standpoint. However, others may not view the local papers' supporting coverage to be sufficient.

Good luck on the article. -- Whpq (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As it is only a work-in-progress, your input is greatly valued. Thank you sincerely.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February 2009 Newsletter
The February 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Phylum Monsters
Hi. Where are the works of Hayford Peirce on a university curriculum? He doesn't even show up as a Hugo nominee. I'd like to find out how we decide what notability for a book entails since I thought the nominated article was pretty clearly not about a notable book, as well as a result of conflict of interest. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I look at the article and form an opinion without concerns for who wrote it, as any COI kinda goes away once something becomes the property of Wiki and any interested editor can address such concerns. And since this article does not make any controversial cliams... all I have to think of is Jimmy Wales himself. As for the author's works being part of a curriculum, it will simply be a matter of some deep and diligent digging... though I am tempted to ask the author himself... for even 30+ years ago when I was in College, his works were on the professor's assigned reading list in our study of "Science Fiction as Literature". I will not leave you hanging and will do just that search. All I ask for is a little AGF and some patience. Thank you,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I look forward to the results though I'd be a little surprised if Peirce was on the reading list in 1979 - that was years before the novel in question came out and only shortly after a few short-story sales. And if it takes "deep and diligent digging" to turn up the novel on a reading list at some obscure SF course somewhere, this does not bode well for notability. If the author of the novel hadn't started the article, it wouldn't have been here in all probability, so I think COI is still a consideration. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Which is why that proviso is in the GNG. It often takes digging and even the GNG recognizes that notability is not in headlines and news articles. Wiki is not about "what newspepers write about", its about "what is notable to the society/culture and why". Thanks though for remaining open.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Metod Trobec
Thanks for that. I just slammed them in quick to counter some strange goings-on. Peridon (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Any editor who noms something at AfD, might be wise to make sure his own articles are up to standards, as he has now caught the eye of other editors... for good or bad. On the talk page of the article, I explained what I did and why.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Theater
As a man of the arts, are you familiar at all with this subject: Table work? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

While the article is concise and laudable, it belongs or should be redirected to Table read or Read-through. Same process being spoken of at length.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Call me crazy, but it doesn't seem to be exactly the same thing. Is it? As life is my stage, I'm no expert on the more formalized theater arts. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Read this.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It would seem to confirm my suspicion. :) Did I misread? It looked like two different headings.


 * One is a sub-set of the other. Both related and happen at the same time. Much depends on the individiual director. You'll appreciate my rewrite and sourcing and then will feel comfortable with the redirect.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * How are things up that way? Sunny down here along the coast.  Is winter finally over? Do you hit any festivals, art shows and what not?  How was the WikiParty at teh museum gathering?  I was hoping you'd attend for me and report back... ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Cool and sprinkling in SoCal today. Two recent projects of mine have both apparently won awards (not me, but the projects themselves of which I was a part). The Clean-Up Crew and Cost of Living both gave me a chance to work with some terrific A-listers. I was just notified by production of C.U.C. that their will be a celebration and screening in Hollywood March 23rd. Same letter "mentioned" that another award-winning piolot will be screened as well... C.O.L.. Imagine my surprise and pleasure to learn that I am in two films being celebrated at the same event. Me on the red carpet (twice). Nice... very nice. Monday, MARCH 23rd, 8pm-10pm, Cinespace Hollywood, 6356 Hollywood Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90028.

Very cool. Did you go to Netherlandia for the Diana at Bath role? Mies, Dr.'s family makes an excellent blinde vink. And you can take some architecture photos for me. Don't foget to bring your ice skates. That's cool that you're in so many fun roles. Congrats. Keep up the good work. I guess you do Wikipedia when you're waiting on set for your shots??? Party on. Let me know when my presence is required at fabulous Hollywood pool parties. I think a Hieronymous Bosch movie is in the offing... ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Had to leave something for others... can't be selfish... but you may feel a redirect or merge of Table work to Read-through is now suitable. And I did my work as "Diane" at a location in Hollywood.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw the Michael Christopher article mentioned on this page (below) so I took a look. My inclination was a keep, but I thought the editor's comments about rejecting notability were a bit strange/ interesting. Definitely not a winning argument at AfD I'd say. So I figured I'd do the logical thing and ask what criteria they think we should use. Not my nomination though and there's some pretty outrageous stuff on here and Wikipedia is not censored, or so I'm told. Not sure what I think about the issue. Some adult filtering would probably be good to at least veil some content and at allow the usual filters to work. I'm surprised it's not set up that way already, actually. But I guess clicking "yes" I'm 18 or over isn't much of a barrier anyway. I don't know. I'm still in awe of your Hollywood career. Maybe I need to hire an agent. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have absolutely no doubt that editors will go over his filmography and find at least 8 or 10 of his titles have won some sort of award based upon his sexual gymnastics. I am myself not going to bother, as his notability will be a lock. I advised JRiverton that his vote was likley to be validated by those that follow. Maybe you might drop a note and explain the falacy of his particuular argument to keep... and that opinions at AfD are based upon a sounder understanding of guideline and policy? See... now I can give you a task. (hee hee).  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael Christopher article
If you deem it important, I would like to bring to your attention the AfD for Michael Christopher. There are other individuals who are similar to him who have entries in WP. The problem is that the only sourcing online comes from sales websites. If you think that it is right to delete this article, then I will withdraw my "keep" vote. Thanks for looking into this.--JRiverton (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Coons! Night of the Bandits of the Night
Your inflammatory language at the above-captioned talk page ("pre-emptive attack") is inappropriate and I suggest you refactor it. Rather than heaping on disdain and hoping "others don't pay it much heed", I would have thought that you would welcome the opportunity (for you and the others you suggest ignore the comment) to improve an article and/or rebut claims of lacking notability. Bongo matic  08:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I will be glad to refactor. I do however, believe your posting misleading opinion is a disservice to all working on improving that article. Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Dream House (HGTV)
Sorry, but I had to revert your edits to this article as that was stuff about HGTV Dream Home which is a completely different series. As I've noted in response to your question on the AfD, they have absolutely no relation to each other at all. The big house give away is HGTV Dream Home. Dream House (HGTV) was a much much different type of show. I know you often disagree with me on AfDs, but I'm asking you to please trust that I know what I'm taking about as I created this article, and watch both shows :P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)