User talk:MichaelQSchmidt/Archive 020


 * Through October 2011

Flight of the Old Dog Afd
Thanks for posting the links. I was wrong about them being at the top, as you demonstrated. I looked, but didn't see. Coincidentally, I found a copy of the paperback of Old Dog and have just started reading the technothriller. In the initial adventure of the hero McLanahan, his B52 is on a practice simulated bombing mission, when the misbehavior of others and equipment failure causes consternation among the crew and the mission's success is in doubt. He calmly calculates a bombing approach in his head, spots the target on cluttered radar, notes that his stopwatch is correct and the computer is 7 seconds off, and scores a direct hit, among lots of unexplained techno-mumbo-jumbo. The techno-smuggness and satisfaction was strangely familiar, but I soon realized that it was reminiscent of the imagined triumphs of mild-mannered and henpecked Walter Mitty! So some of the popularity of the series may be with mild mannered and henpecked readers having a vicarious moment of being a devil-may-care rebel. Regards. Edison (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * When you had posted that it was there, I went and check the edit-by-edit history of the entire discussion to see if it somehow got removed accidentally and found it had never been included. Kinda tough for editors to use a Find sources if its not there. I'm sure it was simply an inadvertant oversight by the nominator, as I'd hate to think the template is broken when used for mass nominations. And toward that... can the template itself be checked? I recall other multi-nominations that did not inlude the Fs for all the nominated articles, and only had it for the first one so listed. In any mass nom, there should be an Fs for ALL the nominated articles being discussed.
 * And lucky you to find the book!  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph of the actual Walter Mitty story, with updated jargon would fit perfectly in a Dale Brown technothriller. Edison (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. Most of that first paragraph sounded like dialogue one might hear on an episode of Deadliest Catch.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Guy Williams
Yes, I agree with your explanation and the redirect to Guy Williams (actor) is a good idea. I have no objection to that. Regards -- Joaquin008  ( talk ) 10:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you could mention that at the AFD, it would be helpful. Thanks.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 16:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Another nice save
I think I've been working on unreferenced BLPs for too long. It's turning me into a deletionist. Thanks for reminding me that saving articles is more interesting than deleting them. Pburka (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And more fun too. :)  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Jeff Szusterman
Per consensus at the mass AfD, I have relisted every entry individually. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Silent film posters
I thought you might enjoyhaving a look at the posters for these films. As usual go to the links. Some nice ones this time around..


 * Glorious Betsy(1928) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]] Done!
 * Sherlock Holmes(1922) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]] Done!
 * Expensive Women(1931) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]] Done!
 * Fury (1923) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]] Done!
 * Roads of Destiny (1921) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]]
 * Three Sinners (1928)[[Image:Green check.svg|15px]]
 * Believe Me, Xantippe(1918) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]]
 * Big Timber(1917) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]]
 * The Side Show of Life(1924) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]] Done!
 * The Lady in Ermine(1927) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]] Done!
 * The Actress (1928) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]] Done!
 * Miss Lulu Bett (1921) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]] Done!
 * A Trip to Chinatown (1926) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]] Done!
 * The Garden of Eden (1928) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]] Done!
 * The Branded Woman (1920) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]]
 * The Great Gatsby (1926) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]] Done!
 * Singed (1927) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]] Done!
 * The Christian (1923) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]] Done!
 * Sick Abed(1920) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]] Done!
 * Kindling (1915) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]] Done!


 * The Great Meadow (1931) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]] Done!
 * Ladies of the Mob (1928) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]] Done!
 * The Isle of Lost Ships (1923) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]] Done!
 * Old Lady 31 (1920) [[Image:ProhibitionSign2.svg|15px]] Nope
 * Reggie Mixes In (1916) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]] Done!
 * The Good Bad Man (1916) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]]
 * Eyes of the Soul (1919) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]]
 * Experience (1921) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]]
 * Gentlemen Prefer Blondes(1928) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]] Done!
 * Ponjola (1923) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]] Done!
 * The Man with Two Faces [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]] Done! (1934)
 * Hot Pepper (1933) (1921) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]]
 * The Sea Tiger (1927) (1921) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]]
 * Miss Nobody (1926) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]]
 * Second Fiddle (1923) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]]
 * The Ice Flood (1926) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]]
 * Three Faces East (1930) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]]
 * Madame Sans-Gene (1925) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]]
 * Bluebeard's 8th Wife (1923) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]]
 * Zaza (1923) [[Image:Green check.svg|15px]]

Koplimek (talk) 00:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Quite the list. :)   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The Apocalypse
Check out this headline I saw today! :) Was our discussion over the short film really three years ago!? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It would seem that in 5 months we may be merging the article Jay and Seth vs. the Apocalypse into a "pre-development"/"promotions" section of an article (and if the new name pans out) about The Apocalypse (2012 film). Nice.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
JDDJS (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
JDDJS (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination Withdrawn
Due to your determination, I have withdrawn my AFD, however I'm lazy so I didn't officially close it, so feel free to do that. JDDJS (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Is Hammer to Nail a reliable source?
Hi! There is a discussion going on regarding the same. Thought you might have a say on this. Thanks. morelM William  11:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM September 2011 Newsletter
The September 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The Garden of Eden
Hi Michael, I remember running across that poster. The other one I had was already shrunk size and I thought better fit as a thumb in the template. The one you included is somewhat reminiscient of "A Trip to Chinatown" wouldn't you say? perhaps the same trace artists but more than likely from the same famous litho poster company Morgan, still up and running since 1866. Cheers! Koplimek (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Posters
Those posters are wonderful! Good show Michael! I don't think lobby posters ever looked better than they did in the 1910s and 1920s. Art Deco style of the 30s is too 'ballish' and 'blockish' in plainess. The sad thing is that the majority of those 1920s movies represented by the posters are lost forever. Just curious, how did you separate "The Isle of Lost Ships" lobby part from the rest of that package, you know the photo with Anna Q. Nilsson and other? Nice cropping that you did there. The Norma Shearer "The Actress" and Gloria Swanson's "Bluebeard's 8th Wife" are two of my favorites, quite evocative they are. The "Old Lady 31" I had found a way to lift it off of the Flickr page, first clicking the '500px' and then upload using an ISAPI file then re-download it from there. Just a little experimenting, it was fun figuring that out. The posters look wonderful. I hope film fans and buffs cruising by the pages appreciate the initiative some of us take to make those pages nice. All my best. Koplimek (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See your talk page.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Projects : Coordinator
Hi Michael, forgive me for getting back to your message a little late. I appreciate that offering of becoming a coordinator but I am happy with my present stance of opening articles for the films. Especially the lost silents, as they can't tell their own stories through viewing. Updating and correcting for accuracy is more of what I like to do. A lot of articles are poorly or hastily written, several being entered that way for years and forgotten. Their is much much to do on performers filmographies. It will be a marvelous database once it is all in place(and that will take years but hopefully in our lifetimes). Curiously there was an interesting topic on comparing Wikipedia to Encyclopedia Britannica on the "Kim Komando" internet show. I can't say I won't change my mind in the future about being a coordinator, hopefully the offer would still stand, but for now I'm happy with being your common, ordinary, basic, wiki contributor. Thanks much again.Koplimek (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood. Project coordinators are all common, ordinary, basic, wiki contributors. No special tools. :) 02:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pol Goossen
Hi. I understand what you were trying to do when you modified the nominating statement, but it's never a good idea to modify another editor's comments. I've undone your edit, and added a note to point out that the first "delete" at Articles for deletion/Pol Goossen is the nominating statement. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your solution was perhaps the better one. Thanks.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Jenna Rose
I appreciate you bringing your concerns to my attention, but I stand by my decision. I understand that articles have been published, but I still don't feel they establish notability. This is just my opinion. In any case, nothing is cited in the article and it sounds too much like an advertisement. I'm going to let the AFD run it's course. Thanks, Rogerthat94 (talk) 06:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, wishing the article to include the available citations is laudable, but not an absolute mandate in determining notability. As long as sources addressing the subject directly and in detail do exist, including them in and cleaning up the article are addressable issues that do not require an AFD in order to force the work. Thanks for writing back.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand where you're coming from, but I feel that redirecting the article is the best solution. The notability criteria is only a guideline. Rogerthat94 (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * While "only a guideline" (ahem), WP:N has been created over time through the efforts of many editors and is accepted as one of the building blocks of this encyclopedia. If editors choose to ignore the applicable and consensus-built notability guidelines such as WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE, they do so at their own risk. The crux here is that per policy, a wish to redirect would have been more appropriately handled on the article's talk page. A return to AFD 20 days after a non-consensus default-to-keep, is not the recommended course of action. But as that boat has sailed....  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you read MUSIC past the first bullet point? I admit this may have been a bit soon to bring this back to AfD, but I made a judgement call. Redirection wasn't my original solution, but it seemed right after the fact. Either way, the article's recreation by someone with a personal relation to the subject, without being first put through AfC after a consensus was already reached to delete the article wasn't an appropriate course of action either. Rogerthat94 (talk) 04:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've read that SNG in its entirety, and paid close attention to the instructions that head the bulleted section. Have you?? In any case, please pay close attention here.
 * The bulleted section to which you refer specifically begins "A musician or ensemble... may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:". It does not say all. It does not say some.  It simply states  at least one .  In a nutshell, if any one "bullet point" is applicable, One need not consider others. If she missed on the first or third or last, then editors may check the others to see if one of them might be met. Meeting more than one is NOT required.
 * And even MUSICBIO understands that it is not the only applicable criteria when it specifically instructs "See also Notability (people) for notability guidelines for biography articles in general."
 * AND most cogently, the VERY first bullet is "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." As the sources available for the Jenna Rose article are multiple, non-trivial, published, secondary, and independent, MUSICBIO bullet one shows her as notable enough for Wikipedia. And note: if MUSICBIO bullet one is met, there is no requirement that others also be.
 * In her meeting bullet one, she does not also need to have an album, she does not also need a record certified gold or higher.she does not also need coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert, she does not' also need to have released two or more albums on a major label, she does not also need to be in an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, she does not also need to be a prominent representatives of a notable style, she does not also need have won or been nominated for a major music award, she does not' also need have won or placed in a major music competition, she does not also need have performed music for a work of media that is notable, ahe does not also need have been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network, and she does not also need have been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast. That is not how MUSICBIO is to be applied. It is not intended to be exclusionary.
 * And still... that one small corner of WP:N does not mean that editors may then choose to ignore other applicable criteria, or try to apply those that do not apply. WP:N is made up of many sections and subsections... and yes, some do seem to be at odds with others... or sometimes even with policy. In respecting the header of all guidelines that encourages editors use common sense, the SNGs have been built over time to outline those circumstances where a topic might fail GNG through not being the recipient of wide coverage, and yet still be worthy of notice.
 * The GNG defines cases where topic notability is usually quite apparent, and the SNGs define those topics where notability is less obvious but still worth consideration per common sense. If missing one SNG, she can still be found notable by meeting another.
 * The simplistic formula for notability could be written "meeting GNG = notability, but if not meeting GNG, then meeting SNG = notability". And conversely, "not meeting GNG OR SNG = non-notability".
 * Per policy, notability assertions must be verifiable in reliable sources... but the GNG is not the sole consideration, and as they deal with alternative determinations, the SNGs do not mandate SIGCOV. SNGs do not "trump" the GNG.  The GNG does not "trump" the SNGs. They are both parts of WP:N and are intended to work in concert with each and should not be seen as disharmony.
 * A topic can fail an SNG and meet the GNG to be notable. A topic can fail GNG and meet SNG to be notable. The guidelines are not a perfect system (which is why they are not policy), but they have been established over years of discussion and the success of Wikipedia shows they work reasonably well. Thanks for sharing WP:MUSIC, but it does not overrule the GNG... as it is set to assist editors in determinig situations where notable might be asserted and verifiable when the GNG is not met.
 * Telling me she does not measure up to inapplicable subsections of one SNG she otherwise does pass, does not negate her meeting the GNG, and the also applicable SNG WP:CREATIVE.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Billie Burke more than just Glinda the Good Witch

 * I thought I'd share with you some nice posters to Ms Burke's silent pictures.


 * Peggy (1916)
 * Gloria's Romance (1916)
 * The Mysterious Miss Terry (1917)
 * The Land of Promise (1917)
 * The Misleading Widow (1919)
 * Sadie Love (1919)
 * Wanted: A Husband (1919)
 * Away Goes Prudence (1920)
 * The Frisky Mrs. Johnson (1920)
 * The Education of Elizabeth (1921)


 * Koplimek (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Kay Sumner
Hey MQS, how are you doing? I hope life is swell out west. Listen, I was considering nominating this for deletion (and I was considering chopping more) but I figured that maybe there are things I don't see or know, so I thought maybe you can have a look at it. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Did some research, additional cleanup, conversion of bulleted stuff into prose, re-sectioning, and slight expansion. It seems her 1988 production Shadow Dancing won a Genie Award and received multiple nominations from Canadian Society of Cinematographers. And her production The Dog Whisperer has received 3 Primetime Emmy Award nominations in 3 different years. I'm not impressed with minutae that is found at the beginning of anyone's career, but the later stuff... that which has received decent recognition... gives one pause. The inexperience of the article's author was certainly reflected in the correctable formating and style. Yike.    Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * My thanks. :)  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 WikiProject Film coordinator election
Voting for WikiProject Film's October 2011 project coordinator election has started. We are aiming to select five coordinators to serve for the next year; please take a moment from editing to vote here by October 29! Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you so much for the Barnstar, Mike. I haven't gotten one since 2007. :)  Quasy Boy  03:25, 16 October 2011
 * It takes far more work to actually fix something than it does to complain about it needing to be fixed. Good job.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Yelena Chernykh
hello,

yes, I will help you to find sources from tomorrow onwards. Regards.-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 19:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Using "Елена Черных"+театра knocked out many false positives and is showing positive results. I was able to do some gleaning of information through use of Google Translator, but it is slow going.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What I found is that she also performed at the Волгоградский театр юного зрителя (Volgograd Theatre for Teenagers). WP:COMPOSER, point 2, says she is notable if she wrote works for a notable theatre. We need to proof if those theatres are notable. Regards.-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 12:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * You're quite welcome. As an actor myself, I can sympathize.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q.

anonymous (street meat)
Thanks for your entry, Michael. It's true what you said. I'm surprised at the editing reaction this entry engendered, but I'm also surprised that the film has received such positive attention worldwide. Short films don't normally get reviewed nor covered. That's one reason I was surprised at the Wikipedia page (since removed) for "Saturday Night Special," which depicted that particular short (passing itself off as a full length movie on the Wikipedia page) as a "masterpiece." But I know that short films don't get that kind of critical acclaim or press, unless someone famous is involved -- and even then. I believe that perhaps the film festival note received by "anonymous (street meat)" may be because of its subject matter -- bank and corporate abuse presented in a metaphorical manner. Incidentally, the film was also in Cyprus on Oct. 15, 2011, and I wrote to them requesting any Cyprian press coverage available -- the same with Korea and Russia. The problem, I believe, that one can't get here their local press coverage, if any exists, is that such coverage would be in the native tongue of the country and it may not be accessible through a Google search. It's also difficult to contact film festival representatives because they act in anonymity for obvious reasons.

This is a first film, a UCLA student film, made by a screenwriting MFA TFTDM candidate, not a "directing" student per se, for an experimental film class which required that a five-minute film be completed in eleven weeks from start to finish. This is NOT a thesis film, but a class assignment. The short film was screened at UCLA bridges Theater on December 8, (I believe) 2010. Special effects were added thereafter and it was completed on January 21, 2011. So, in reality, the film was "released" in 2011.

Nonetheless, the film and I will also be covered by the Huffington Post (or a very similar on-line publication), as I was interviewed by columnist Daniel Cubias a week ago. The article is scheduled to be published at the end of October or November 1st. It will be tied to the movement "Occupy" of which I play no part.

Thanx again and kind regards, Mig (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add that any recognition by a film festival of a film is not minor recognition. A screening is not minor recognition -- this is because film festivals see thousands of films before they decide on a handful of films that will become a part of their festival for their entire year -- they spent a lot of time, money and effort promoting the films selected. Being selected is in and of itself recognition. "anonymous (street meat)" represented the USA in Russia, Korea and Cyprus.

From the Wikipedia page " Film festivalFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_festival ''"A film festival is an organised, extended presentation of films in one or more movie theaters or screening venues, usually in a single locality. More and more often film festivals show part of their films to the public by adding outdoor movie screenings.[1] The films may be of recent date and, depending upon the focus of the individual festival, can include international releases as well as films produced by the organisers' domestic film industry. Sometimes there is a focus on a specific film-maker or genre (e.g., film noir) or subject matter (e.g., horror film festivals). A number of film festivals specialise in short films, each with its defined maximum length. Film festivals are typically annual events."''

The article also goes into how film festivals -- which vary in recognition and prestige -- charge an entry fee. "anonymous (street meat)" has been invited to most of these film festivals and the entry fee has been waived, so that does not apply. Mig (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi -- thanx for your response. I believe that "anonymous (street meat)," which has been selected by numerous festivals independently of any coverage, would be a good entry here. I have spent so much time on this and I have pointed out repeatedly that this is NOT the way that "Saturday Night Special" (which was finally deleted) was treated. It was treated selectively, despite my trying to call attention to it about a year ago and then again more recently. I used it as an example. There may be many others that I haven't seen. I believe that said page was incredibly laudatory and implausible. But I keep saying these things and what I say is misinterpreted time and time again. It gets tiresome. "Saturday Night Special" may have been deleted for lacking references, but that was not the real reason the page was problematic. It was problematic because it did not read like an encyclopedic entry. It read entirely like a publicity page. Since I don't have anyone else who would write a piece on this here, I thought it was fitting to do it. Not because of personal interest on my part and it is not laudatory in any way. This film will go on to other festivals and will get press coverage for its content. That's it. I thank you again for your comments and apprecite the thought which went into them -- kind regards -- Mig (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The page was deleted -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(Street_Meat)-- they came after it big big guns. Furthermore, they took down information on my page that is no longer verifyable on the web because it has long since been removed, but verifyable through other means. I wish to go on record that this experience was personal and has had a stifling effect. Thank you Mig (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Billy Rosewood.
This page was kept. Was wondering if I can be of any help to expanding the article. I was thinking it could also do with a picture of the actor portraying the character in the infobox maybe? (Ruth-2013 (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC))
 * I'll lok to see what we have for pix over at the Commons. As far as expansion, I added sections so we can expand with commentary about his character and the character's import and groth throughout the three current films.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for your comment on the Second Glance (film) deletion discussion, I really appreciate it! Invmog (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The article can benefit from some claenup and expansion of sources, certainly... but I looked atthe nominator's recent edit history, and his wishing deletion of so many articles that have a Christian-realated theme or Christian-medeia reviews is quite worrisome. As the articles themselves are quite neutral, a perception of any editor showing a religious bias is bad for Wikipedia.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Userfy -- :)
I'm shooting a film in a few days and getting everything ready -- from actors, to props, to locations, to everrrrything -- food being donated by Porto's (they should have their own Wikipedia page, Ummmhhhh, I'll go check). And when I finish the shooting process, between edits, I'll go to Clifton's and have mashed potatoes and gravy and a cream soda or a ginger ale. Take pictures. I love old LA. Thanx, Michael :::::)))))Mig (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hold your horses, and re-read the last paragraph of lede as now updated in the Clifton's article. As an actor myself, I remember times grabbing some decent grub there between scenes. Now you'll have to wait. Sorry.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Ray Bradbury Ate Here
Right now, I'm so tired -- fatigued really. I didn't know Ray Bradbury held sci-fi meetings at Clifton's and they were nice enough not to charge for his meals when he had no money to his name. I have met Ray Bradbury and he's such a swell guy. But I can wait. Waiting is everything. Porto's should have a Wikipedia page. They're an institution in Glendale and also in Burbank. I will try to take care of it when time permits. Great success story. They started from nothing. Maybe in a paralell future there will be a Wikipedia age about how Porto's donated food to my little movie because I had no budget to my name. Kind regards -- :)


 * My own Ray Bradburry story:  Met him once back in 1969 when he was on a speaking tour and hit Fullerton College. Brought my own teeny reel-to-reel and recorded his delightful session.  35 years later, I met him at a book-signing held at a Borders in Brea. I waited in line, and found that those 35 years had changed the vibrant speaker I first met into an frail-appearing grey-stubble-chinned old man who reminded me fondly of my own father. When I got to the head of the line and presented my recently purchased Bradbury volumes for an autograph, I spoke to him saying, "Mister Bradbury, its an honor to meet you again sir". To his raised eyebrow I continued, "My first opportunity was back in the late '60s when you spoke at Fullerton College."  He looked up, studying me from head to toe, and then as he signed the books he smiled and quipped, "Good to see you again.... you haven't changed one bit." My most happy Brabdbuty moment.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Hahahahahahah! That's Ray for ya -- he's got a great wit! Then, again. It's entirely possible he remembered you... Regards -- Mig (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help
Thanks for expanding Umbrage (film) article. ASHUIND  06:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome :). I hope by observing how the article has grown and been sourced over the last few hours, you can better understand how to build others. And again, starting one in a user workspace such as User:Ashliveslove/workspace/"article name here" gives you the luxury of time to make it shine. Feel free to stop by anytime to ask for advice or assistance for your articles. And a note of sourcing... always good to see if Wikipedia HAS an article about the source... such as it does for Fangoria and Quiet Earth and Dread Central and Eye for Eye. If a source does not have an article, it might just be because it's felt the source is unreliable per WP:RS. Not always... but usually.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Good job, I couldn't find anything beyond what you'd found! Diez segundos. reckon you can find anything on this?♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Won't be able to do much digging until I get home from a gig and can give it the time it deserves. That'll be in about 7 hours.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Imediate thought is we have a 1949 - post WWII Argentinian film, with a very notable Argentinina actress, by a notable Argentinian director. I think we need expect nor demand that a film released 52 years ago in Argentina will have coverage in English.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Love looking through the acceder Buenos Aires site and find old photographs from movies. Its a huge resource.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the barnstar on Diez segundos. I have to admit it seems too much for adding two sentences to the article. But it does help make the effort feel worthwhile - I'm starting to like this Wikiluv business :) Wish I could see it, not available thru the library or Netflix, like many others I'd like to see or see again :( Regards, Novickas (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the barnstar MQS! Much appreciated. Only just saw it!♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well earned. When AFD is being used to FORCE cleanup, its always good to show the nominator and other editors what a little diligence and actual editing can accomplish.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM October 2011 Newsletter
The October 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Really?! Did you read my nomination blurb...?  Lugnuts  (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Rather than shooting yourself in the foot, you could have left the coordinatorship any time, or chosen to not re-run. Your body of work toward improving the project however, spoke volumes. :)  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)