User talk:MichaelQSchmidt/Archive 012

Re: Flutter AfD and Incubation
No problem, I withdrew the AfD, but apparently once you place the AfD tag on the article, there's no turning back, unless the majority of !votes are "Keep". I now understand that incubation requires a deletion, but if other !votes are "Delete" instead of "Incubation", you're still able to incubate for a period of time and then return it, right?


 * If the lone delete vote agrees to an incubate, any non-involved editor could then close the AFD and move to incubation, or even now with your nominator's withdrawal, any non-involved admin could see that the one delete was based on the good faith error of thinking the film was still in pre-production and thus close and send to incubation as a result best serving the project. But if deleted it would then require an admin to undelete and send to incubation.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.

You do a lot of work on film articles... what about this?
Every decade has its own films in that decade page, listing notable things that happened that year. I don't pay attention to films, but you always seem to in the AFDs. Any suggestions on what to feel that article with? 2010s_in_film Previously it was just a redirect to 2011 and beyond, skipping the year 2010 entirely, which made no sense at all.  D r e a m Focus  02:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Your reversion appears proper and in line with established precedent, as each decade in the varrious "XXXX in film" articles are all seen to begin with the decade number ending in "zero"... 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, etc. The article for films of the 2010 decade, per established precedent, must begin with 2010.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Candyjam
I've just done a complete rewrite of the above article following the format you used in Pro and Con. If you have time to review/improve/complete my changes I would be very grateful. (This page is now on my watch list if you prefer to reply here).

(Both articles are on films by Joanna Priestley and the original version of both articles appears to have been a copy/paste job from Joanna's company website Priestly Motion Pictures by User:Joannapo. The articles created by this user are all on Joanna Priesley's films. I leave you to draw the inference! The articles are in varying states of repair).

Cje (talk) 09:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Always best to immediately address any copyvio, as you did. Good job. Now do some g-news searches using film name, or film name+writer, or film name+production company... etc. Find some articles and reviews in reliable sources to help lock notability. Also check the websites of the various festivals where it was nominated or awarded and cite the awards too. It always best to give an article as strong a sourcing as possible.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
DES (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
DES (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

WT:ACTOR
Hi. I'm looking to wrap things up soon; poke, poke. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Jami Floyd's Page
Hello Michael!

I was referred over by NuclearWarfare with an inquiry about why my page has been "deleted."

He explained all the reasons why a page is flagged by editors for sourcing. All so fascinating for me as someone who didn't know much about how Wikipedia was edited or maintained.

I did not post the original "Jami Floyd" page but noticed it was down and asked NuclearWarfare all about it.

I was so surprised and flattered to have a page at all; and I would like to help get it back up, for professional and personal reasons.

What can I do to help you source it? Unfortunately, I do not know any of the original posters. But I can refer you to many independent sources, if that is helpful...?

Thank you for this and most of all for Wikipedia, in general. It is truly amazing for me as a reporter and for my children as students.

No rush on my page, btw. I will make sure to Watch your page so you can just get to it when you get to it. I am sure you have many other better things to worry about. Nice to meet you, here and on FaceBook.

Best,

Jami Floyd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floydjami (talk • contribs) 15:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Jami. First off, remember to sign your comments by using the four tildes " ~ " which will automatically date and sign for you.
 * I has asked that the page be moved to my userspace because I feel it has the potential for return. I note that yes... you did not write it, and during its existance for 4 years and with it being editing by dozens of other contributors, you edited it yourself only back on December 3 of 2007.... three years ago... and never again since then... and that's for the good, as even the slightest perception of self-promotion is not well received, even if not strictly prohibited.
 * The reason it was reviewed after so long is because there has been concern at Wikipedia about a large and growing number of articles about living persons (WP:BLP) that are/were either unsourced or improperly sourced. Articles about living persons have a potential for harm, and informations contained within them must be well-cited to reliable sources outside of Wikiedia. So those that were lacking then became subject to greater scrutiny by the volunteers of the Wikipedia community. Many were deleted outright, and many were sent to a 7-day deletion discussion to determine if they should stay or go. That's where the Jami Floyd article went.  It was discussed over a period of several days and found lacking by a majority of the few who discussed it.  It was then deleted.  However, as one of those who argued and belived that it had potential for improvement, I requested it be userfied to me in a workspace where I might send time improving it. And that where we are today.
 * Now hopefully, you have spent some time studying User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Newcomer's guide to guidelines. You will see that your being concerned about an article about yourself is understandable, but that it is far preferred that you do not edit it yourself, and so leave it to others who do not have any possible conflict of interest.
 * So to answer your offer above, yes... please feel free to send me links to the sources that speak about the Jami Floyd career and awards. The more reliable the source, the better. The more in-depth the report, the better. I can review them for suitability for Wikipedia and include them as sources as I rewrite the article. You may post them here, or email them to me. Above and to the left of this screen there is a link that says "E-mail this user"  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Shin splints
-   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 01:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion
I start my reason for deletion with a bold delete because I don't propose things for deletion that I am ambivalent about. I notice that some commentators, particularly those new to those discussions, seem not to have read the initial statement. Starting it with a bold delete encourages them to read it as part of the discussion, and not to ignore it as part of the header. --Bejnar (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your reasoning, but as I stated, a nominator's deletion opinion is inherent in the nomination itself and the reasons should be then included within the nomination itself as is done in the majority of AFDs per Articles for deletion, rather than as a separate !vote. This is so as to not give the possible impression of two delete !votes.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Decisions about deletion are not votes, but are based upon the quality of the reasons given, so there is no harm. --Bejnar (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So why make it appear that you are giving them twice?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 13:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you actually read the whole Afd it does not give that impression. --Bejnar (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know what AFD you two are talking about, but you don't need to list delete twice. Administrators that close AFDs usually do so with just a glance.  Rough consensus is done by seeing how many people favor things one way or the other.  I recall a recent AFD where a new person wrote in bold Keep before each reply they made to someone's comment, and someone had to explain to them you only were suppose to do it once, and then deleted the extra ones.  There should be an actual rule listed somewhere.  Also, if you are concerned about someone not reading the statement of the nominator, relax, the closing administrator I believe will, and that the person making the decision.  D r e a m Focus  06:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If admins are closing discussions by doing a glance and are judging consensus by seeing how many people favor things one way or another, they are not doing their jobs. Woogee (talk) 06:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wiki-markup does not form a substantive portion of the discussion in any case. A good admin will start reading from where the bold-italics-underline most-super-strong-ever part ends. Bolding just helps to demarcate individual thoughts. Franamax (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It was Articles for deletion/Ainsley Earhardt. Some hours after my March 30 reply the nominator above, I struck my comment at the AFD. Any possible perception of the nominator's emboldened Delete being seen as a second !vote, is only "a possibility"... and not a certainty.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
Michael, I really want to thank you for the work you're doing on the Brian Sterling-Vete page.

I put the page up initially, and I can see that I, as a newbie, have a LOT to learn. Your changes have made a huge difference to the readability and credibility of the page.

I see that you have added a lot of references, and I really appreciate that. I have a few more online references that I'll be adding too. One of my challenges is that some of the attributions I have are not on the internet, and therefore can't really be used, I'm assuming. I have .jpg images of titles, certificates, world records and the like, but anyone with Photoshop can make those, so I haven't used them. I don't know if there is some way to use these things.

Again, your help has been amazing, and I really appreciate all your hard work. I'm hoping we can get the article approved to keep soon.

Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!

24.118.46.1 (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The page still has issues... but they can be addresed through regular editing. And it is not neccessary to include everything the man has ever done, as this makes the article seem too "busy" and full of trivia. So proper organization of the information is always important... and remember, proffered information that cannot be reliably cited is likely to be removed. I'd like to see more references and quotes about how others have recognized his works... perhaps in a "recognition" section. Don't be discouraged and keep up the good work.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Films March 2010 Newsletter
The March 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Libel against you
Hi, I notified Keepscaces about a potentially libelous claim that he made in your recent RFA. He had claimed that you flirted online with a girl who said she was underaged, but this was completely false. I asked Keepscases to publicly retract that claim because it bordered on character assassination. I haven't got a reply yet, but I'm just letting you know. Thanks.--75.23.33.194 (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The RFA is closed. It is extremely unlikely that he will retract the mis-statement.  The claim on the "female" editor's userpage asserted an individual of legal age, not a minor... and shared that (s)he was a adult artist interested in bodypainting.  The entire limited coversation of January 18 is here.  After later discussions at an ANI, the editor was determined to be a sockpuppet of User:John254 and subsequently blocked per WP:DUCK on January 27, 2009... 10 busy days after my brief exchange.  So... though I did my best to be polite to a (presumed) newcomer and properly assumed good faith in what the editor asserted, I discovered the danger of having followed that guideline in cases where someone is later declared an enemy or the project.  Anyone ever courteous or polite to this (supposedly new) editor... and there were more than a few... is now on the list of editors and Admins that may forever be accused of being irresponsible and easy-to-dupe.  It turned out to be a no-win situation, and further underscores the encouraged anonymity of Wikipedia. When anyone responds anytime to any anonymous editor, they can never know for absolute certainty if the editor is male or female... or if the editor is 18 or 108.  Because of cases exactly like this, and specially since the project includes topics and links to sites completely unsuitable for minors, there will come a time where Wikipedia will be forced to mandate some sort of adult-check and user registration... for both current and newcomming editors.  Until that time, all one can do is remain polite and hope not to get caught up in someone else's campaign of deception.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So much for WP:AGF... — BQZip01 —  talk 22:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Bcause of the courtesies shown me by many when I was myself new, I decided to remain and be productive. Had I let myself be chased off by rudeness and incivility,due to my then lack-of-understanding... as are too many newcomers, there are, as of this date, some 230 articles that might not have been improved to serve the project and some 22 that might never have been written.  No small wonder why I choose to believe the best in someone and continue trying to help newcomers become productive.  That it bit me in the butt back in January of 2009, or that minor errors made as I continue to learn these pages, might be used as a bludgeon by some, is no reason for me to stop being courteous and helpful.  BQ... thanks.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * HUA! — BQZip01 —  talk 04:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

AFD
Hi, thanks for the note on my talkpage. I noticed that the other article I nominated for deletion at the same time, Scott Hilley, was eventually deleted while you were working on it. Give me a shout if you'd like it userfied. Thanks, Black Kite 19:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Survey on quality control policies
As part of a project funded by the European Commission (QLectives), we are collecting and analysing data to study quality control mechanisms and inclusion/deletion policies in Wikipedia. According to our records, you participated in a large number of AfD. We are currently soliciting editors with a long record of participation in AfD discussions to send us their feedback via a very informal survey.

The survey takes less than 5 minutes and is available at this URL. Should you have any questions about this project, feel free to get in touch.

Thanks for your help! --DarTar (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Robert Kovacik Page
On the Robert Kovacik Page, I believe the issues in question have been answered, what are the next steps for removing the messages at the top of the article? Thanks, Tgarrett24 (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * When the deletion discussion is closed, many of those tags will be addressed. Just be a bit patient and worry not. And to let you know... one of the notices on your talk page invited you to comment at the deletion discussion. As the article author your opinion is as worthy as anyone's.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness
for fixing up the Vamps article looks awesome!!! wow! even better Pumkinhead001 (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

For all your hard work
Here have a warm puppy!

Pumkinhead001 (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm back now
As you probably noticed, I've been mostly inactive this entire year. :( However,  I think I am starting to get back into things fairly consistently now.  If you are still interested, I'd be happy to continue the admin coaching from ages ago.  Let me know, ThaddeusB-public (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I was unaware of the RfA (obviously, or I would have supported). Skimming through it, the vast majority of the opposes were of the "ZOMG INCLUSIONIST!" nature it seems.  That will be difficult to overcome, and after that I'm sure you have no plans to run anytime soon.
 * That said, I will be glad to write up some more lessons in the near future. One of the things I'd do is write up a number of hypothetical AfDs, since your potential closes are obviously the main source of concern. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks a lot! ^_^ You're also quite amazing for taking the time to work them into the article. I've seen your work elsewhere as well. You are an inspiration for all ARS members. Silver seren C 05:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome. I figured it was best to be preemptive and incorporate them rather than allow anyone to squawk about a WP:Linkfarm. My personal moto: I'd rather fix the damn pipe than complain about having wet feet.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.

an AFD you participated in is up for deletion review
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Tim_Marriott  D r e a m Focus  04:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The AFD ran 8 days and I find no flaw in the good faith closure.    Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Icon Group books
Just a note that Icon Group books are not reliable. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Hi, Michael. I've mentioned you in a thread on ANI and figured I should ping you. It's me supporting bulleted lists in filmographies after your comment. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:ANI


 * Yikes. I worry about even being "mentioned".... as I have scrupulously avoided being the subject of any such. Thanks for the heads-up.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

WT:ACTOR 2
I wrote a comment about how to approach lists and tables. See discussion here. Please overlook the heated exchange before my comment. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Stole your userbox
I just stole your userbox format style, I hope you don't mind. :3 The up and down ones work much better than trying to place them side by side, they get all weird. I still have a huge space on my userpage, but maybe I can fill that with an About Me section or something. But that's enough for tonight. Silver seren C 07:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Honored to have been of help.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.

Talkback
Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Pauline Kael
I think the references you added to When The Lights Go Down are useful, but I don't see why the other editor deleted the list of movies reviewed. I'll keep an eye out for more reviews of the book - I'd like to quote Quentin Tarentino - "I would study Pauline Kael's reviews like class assignments", but that's not specific to this collection of reviews. Sayerslle (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The nom withdrew the nomination. The Tarentino quote might actually serve as lead sentence in a section titled ==Representative reviews==, that then perhps shares maybe 5 reviews as representative of her work and her impact. As for why the matereial was removed... worries about even a perception of copyvio are always of serious concern.  If modified portions are returned, it will best serve if they are kept to a minimum, reduced in length, and any actual quotes of the book's author must be acknowledged as quotes and propely  back to their source and author.. whether Kael herself or others such as Tarentino, much as I attributed quotations in the ==Critical reception== section . This is something that can be done over time and so further improve a reader's understanding of the topic.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 16:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Well
I decided to post on this site again. Joe Chill (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome back. You were missed.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Vanessa Lindores
I completely agree with the redirect. Do we need to wait for the AfD tag to be removed by an admin before doing so? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Being properly bold in improving the encyclopedia should not be a problem. Perhaps consult with Bearcat as the lone delete vote, and then have a non-involved editor or admim do a close and redirect?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Ashley Lauren Fisher
It's been at the top of my watchlist this week because she's trying to replace the current version with some zero-context zero-indication of notability version. I've been looking around for sources to back up what she's asserting but boy, searching for her name returns nothing but spam and blogs. Even the google news results that were given in the last AfD seem to be dead (he mentioned six, I clicked and got one, and it's not even notable).

I've got a PROD-BLP on it at the moment so we'll see what happens with that, but otherwise, do you think enough time has passed to re-list it at AfD? Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS April Newsletter
The April 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

re:Barnstar
Well thank you! Please don't hesitate to contact me for help on any Japanese or Korean film editing. (I'm a little pushed out of shape the first AfD went by without my noticing it ;) I know I'm an overly-emotional, temperamental, artsy-fartsy type, but when there's editing work to be done, I'll forget whatever is bugging me at the minute, roll up my sleeves and get back to work. Thanks again. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Random Question
It's none of my business, but I was just wondering what "+ / ." signifies on this page. Yilloslime T C  00:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In looking at it without knowing my personal shorthand, I suppose anyone might look at it and ask themselves "what the heck is this?" Well... after my failed RFA, where I was quite heatedly and repeatedly referred to as a "extreme inclusionist" (among other less polite epithets), I thought it might serve me to keep track of my discussions so as to determine for myself why some choose to label me as an "extremist".  If some editors feel so strongly, I should darn well try to determine why.
 * As I am not gifted in creating templates and tools to follow the results of AFD discussions where I offer my input. I began the long slow way of creating a diagnostic for myself in evaluating my opinions. The "+ / ." are little talley marks... self-notifiers of the results of AFD in relationship to the opinion I offered at them. The "+" means my !vote opinion was born out by the resulting consensus. The "/" means my !vote opinion was not born out in the resulting consensus. The "." is for discussions where I simply commented and did not !vote a keep or delete.  And you may also have noticed that I emboldened those times where I opine a delete, so as to differentiate those from the keeps.
 * What I seek to find out about myself? Well... am I too often wrong in my assessments?  Do my opinions too often run contrary to consensus?  Do I tend to !vote too often to keep?  Do I tend to !vote too often to delete.  Are my delete or keep !votes seen as unjustified or unreasoned responses?  Are my opinions included with a decent rationale? Am I perceived as irrational or combative?  Is my demeanor conducive to discussion?  Do I accept criticism with grace?  Am I willing to change my opinion in the light of discussion?   Am I seen as recalcitrant and unyielding?  etc, etc, etc.  I figure it's sensible to do whatever I can to always improve as an editor, and "looking at myself in a mirror" is a good way to start.
 * I have been adding the new discussions to my self-diagnostic over that the last few weeks. This way I can evaluate and re-evaluate myself. And I figure I should try to keep track of my discussions going back at least 8 or 9 months, in order to see if any negative patterns develop or have developed.  And, as I have time, I am also adding older contributions to fill in that 9-month contribution time-frame. So far, I am only back to the second week of February.  Yikes.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was doing something similar for a while here, but stopped updating it. Yilloslime T C  01:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ooooooo..... I like the way you set-up your table much better than mine.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Any suggestions?
Do you have any suggestions on if Recast should be re-worded anywhere? Joe Chill (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I gave it some copyedit and restructuring. I might advise expanding the reception section and adding a manga infobox.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the link to the manga infobox? Joe Chill (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope that you don't mind me asking you questions about articles. I want this to look nice for DYK and I don't know who else to ask. Joe Chill (talk) 03:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. Not having the link memorized, I simply copied a template from an existing manga article to the Recast page and removed the non-Rrecast info. Fill it out as you are able.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How is this for a hook? "...that the style of the Tokyopop publication of the manga Recast is different from most of the other manga that is published by the company?". I read Tokyopop manga so I thought that it was interesting (I'm such a nerd). Joe Chill (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, not a nerd... a Wikipedian. But the two look very much alike (chuckle). How about  "...the publication style used by Tokyopop for the Korean manhwa Recast differs from that of most of the manga published by the company."   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely better. Joe Chill (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * DYK reviwers like it when suitable bluelinks lead a reader into other related areas. For instance, before you asked for me to look in, I never knew that manga was made ever in Korea, nor that it was called manhwa there.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.

Too Soon
Nice essay. I added two links. Bearian (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool. What about creating a wikilink link for WP:TOOSOON? Or is the idea of a WP link itself too soon?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Anya
In a biography, I always like to see referenced biographical details from reliable and independent sources of where the person was born and when, and something of her background, which the first two articles provided. One WP:BIO is satisfied then any details from press releases, or the subjects website could be used. Edison (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A very fair acknowledegement. Thank you much for your contributions. Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This person has requested that Haim Cohen (her ex husband) and her son Aaron be removed from her biography. That is why I included "Verkhovskaya has 3 children."--Hiller17 (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Which person? And where is a source saying she has 3 children? Is there any bio online anywhere that states that she is now divorced?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Iceland–Mexico relations
Please express an opinion at Iceland–Mexico relations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Need help
I found interviews and reviews for Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy, but there is still a consensus to merge the article despite that. Do you think that you can do something to stop the unnecessary merge? I'm asking you because I don't know anyone that's better at finding film sources or working sources into film articles. Joe Chill (talk) 10:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've begun work on it. Preventing an unneccessary merge of such a documentarry involving a veritable and notable "who's who" of the horror genre, requires presenting the information in an encyclopedic manner and not have it seem full of "flyjacket hrperbole". Reviews are good, but keep looking for interviews of the director and principals where they speak about the project... and articles in the press about its origination, creation, and production. I think it can be an easy "keeper".  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I found this review, this review, production information, and poster information. Joe Chill (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think that Bignole is bias? Joe Chill (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Bignole just wants what he feels is best for the project. Even on the talk page his comments seem more addressed toward style that could be improved through regular editing. As the film meets WP:NF and WP:GNG, I believe that if those few continue to push for a merge, then sending the article to AFD is the only way to assure wider input and consensus.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's just let it go. Two users can't win against that. Joe Chill (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just remain calm. Don't let your buttons get pushed.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Salvation, Texas
An article that you have been involved in editing, Salvation, Texas, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

I'm sorry that I neglected to notify you when I initiated this AfD. At that time, I didn't read the article's history attentively enough to notice how much you contributed to the current content. Deor (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

WebCite
You go to the archive page at Web Cite, add the url and your email and it will render a webcitaton link. To add it to a reference you add archiveurl= | archivedate=. If the original url is still up, you hide the archive parameters using the. So it will look like this. –
 * No problem. Articles that I work on, I personally web cite all references.  So if it has to go through a GA or FA one day, the references will always be there.  I hate losing good sources.  On the Never Sleep Again article, I have never seen references done like that.  Is that something new?   Mike   Allen  21:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well... it's been around for a while, but fairly new for me. I found the style in another article on which another editor and I were working... and felt is is a terriffic and much cleaner way to place and easily keep track of citations.  Name 'em, use 'em, and have the named cites set up in the ref section in that manner. Easier to find, easier to add to. At least that is how it works for 10 or less citations (though for one or two I simply would not go to the trouble). For article with more than 10 cites, such as Amr Waked, I start the section listings with "  " after the final ref to perform the same function as " (refs here) " you observed today... but acting to show that greater number of refs in a slightly smaller text.  As long as the refs included in the section are properly named (" ") in the article text, it works perfectly every time.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I be damn. I will be transferring refs for "my" main articles into this format.  I'm sick of wasting time scanning through article text looking for a ref to edit.  This format is so much easier to use, it needs to be the standard.  I guess we can use whatever format we want?  Mike   Allen  22:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a few (ahem) earlier articles to convert as well... and for exactly those same reasons. It is pretty cool. Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.
 * Actually this format is kind of "new". It was implemented on September 2009.  See list-defined references.   Mike   Allen  23:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That new? Wow. It is such a sensible format.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.
 * BTW, it is highly advisable that any Fangoria sources be WebCited immediately. Fangoria has the uncanny reputation of "archiving" their news articles (i.e. deleting them) a couple of months after they run--probably to save server space--and thus they become useless. Since they are not out long, the internet archive doesn't have a chance typically to archive them...thus, if you use any you should probably do it immediately so as to preserve the page somewhere when it does get "archived".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah that's the one I was telling him about. My guess is that they want you to buy their magazine, and if it's all on their site, why buy it?  That's what I think.  Mike   Allen  05:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Heartily agree with you both.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you know how to group references into columns with this format? I think 30 references is too much in one column.  Mike  Allen  04:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well.. I just tried the usual  {{reflist|2|refs=  to no effect... but maybe on a computer with a higher resolution setting it appears differently? As for 30... well many article have many, many, more refs. I don't think it's at all a problem.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Or break the usual caveats and make the reference "way small"?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.
 * Well for me it appears in two columns using {{reflist|2|refs=   I tried {{reflist2.  No wonder it wasn't working. LOL Thanks.   Mike   Allen  05:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Must be my IE7. Even with my monitor set to its highest resolution, I still get one column.  Same with Google Chrome... I get one column.  However, with the latest Mozilla Firefox, I do get two colums.  Good job!!   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Nightmare Legacy
You've done an excellent job, and surprised even me with how much info you've found. I don't have much experience with DYK, so I don't know why it is messing up. The last time I had something in DYK, all that happened was a request was made on the page and another editor approved it. I don't remember a bot having any hand in its decision...though, that could have happened behind the scenes. Also, that was for Clark Kent (Smallville), Lana Lang (Smallville), Chloe Sullivan, and Lex Luthor (Smallville)....which I created from scratch so maybe it recognizes brand new pages better than already existing pages. Have you posed this question at the DYK Wiki page? Maybe someone there has the answer, as it's clearly enough of a change and I think there is a time limit on when you can propose a page for DYK.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy
Hello! Your submission of Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ~ Nerdy Science Dude  (✉ • ✐) 03:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Got to it ASAP. Thanks.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.
 * The DYK nom is all good now. Nice job! ~ Nerdy Science Dude  (✉ • ✐) 04:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Much.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The Census Taker
"Prodded for deletion 2 minutes after its creation". What's wrong with that? That gives editors a week which is usually more than enough time to improve an article. Also, the deprodder didn't try hard to establish notability. A one paragraph review does not equal notability. I also don't like Dream Focus's comment that I should have used common sense. It's not common sense that the film was theatrically released when I couldn't find significant coverage, the creator didn't even bother to add it to the article, and the deprodder only added a very short review from TV Guide. Joe Chill (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it gives editors 7 days. But was anyone notified other than the newbie author?  Speaking only for myself, I might have tagged it for sources and improvement so that it neeeding attention would have popped up on more places and maybe get more input.  I might have dropped the author a friendly note and suggested he get his butt to the library to find pre-internet hardcopy reviews in sources that do not or have not archived their pre-internet issues... a dificulty that must be recognized is for a film that predates the net.  Yes, you can state that 7 days is "more than enough time to improve an article"... and that's a judgement call to which you are entitled.  However it must be granted that newbie authors are less likely to have the editing or reseach skills as might more experienced editors... and thinking they do, can butt heads with the precepts of WP:IMPERFECT.  Had the film been something from 1994 or 2004 we'd likely have far better luck online, certainly.  However, its 1984 release and then its 1988 re-release under an entirely different name simply make immediate (or 7-day) improvements that much more difficult.  But "difficult" does not mean impossible.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't editors have their own opinions without being rude about it? Can't you respect the fact that editors have different beliefs? I have to deal with lots of editors spouting their beliefs at editors that I admire and me in a rude way. I don't want an editor like you, who has helped me so much, to do that. Joe Chill (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As editors looking in at AFD usually look at currrent article... and not usually at the early history (I know.. not always so), I'm really sorry that you felt it rude that I pointed out the quick prodding. And yes, with all respects, in this case I think 2 minutes was a bit hurried... but that is my own opinion.   And I am sorry you felt it rude that I pointed out to whomever might subsequently visit the discussion that the article had undergone major improvements (WP:POTENTIAL) since the prodding.  Or is it that you feel Dream Focus was rude in suggesting the common sense be used?   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't even know that you did the last thing which isn't rude. You are the first editor ever that has pointed out when I prodded or speedied something without having an intention to be rude. As for Dream Focus, I would have nothing against him if he didn't always say things in AfD and other places, when he feels strongly about something, that could make the discussions a battleground. Joe Chill (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just imagine how you feel when something you write is prodded or tagged or sent to AFD. At least you've been on board long enough to be able to call for help to those willing to pitch in... and when asked, we do.  This newbie apparently has not.  Who could he turn to?  What does he know of N or V or RS?  Tough to know anything about someone so few edits.  And no, I'm not saying that every article from every newcomer must be given special treatment... only suggesting that we be patient when we can.  And again, nothing I wrote was intended to act as rude against your judgement... only as a notice to others that things could and definitely had changed since the prod.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion please

 * I have a deleted article usified on my page. I have cleaned it up somewhat.  I don't think there are publicly available transcripts of every single news broadcast ever done to Google/search through, so I can't find any proof of the claims it has been mentioned and quoted on various television news programs.  Most of the mentions in printed news media I found is rather short, just quoting something from it.  Many links that were in the article before, are dead links, and searching through those websites, I find no mention of 411mania at all.  Any suggestions?   D r e a m Focus  22:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a dictionary
Please check out Articles for deletion/Lady. Thanks.Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

9to5 – Days in Porn
When I moved 9to5 – Days in Porn to prep 1, I changed you from DYKnom to DYKmake in the credits because you expanded the article significantly. Joe Chill (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay and thanks.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 16:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 9to5 – Days in Porn
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
╟─ Treasury Tag ►  You may go away now.  ─╢ 18:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Norton picture
Where has new discussion been started and where would one find that it has been returned for discussion? Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The link to the newest deletion discussion is included in the notice. The previous discussion was closed 01:05, 31 May 2010 here and a discussion was again opened 17 hours later at 18:17, 31 May 2010 HERE.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't agree that grade school pictures are automatically copyrighted. This seems like furthering of a vendetta. I don't always (or even often) agree with RAN, but this is ridiculous. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * At most, the close should have gone to WP:DRV, or the closer might have re-opened and then relisted. But a new AFD 17 hours later? .. and one where the nominator suggests that those who opined in the earlier discussion NOT opine at the new discussion? Yikes.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILMS May 2010 Newsletter
The May 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)