User talk:MichaelQSchmidt/Archive 008

Derek & Simon

Hi there, excellent work on this one. I'm still not completely sure it hits notability, but I doubt it'll be deleted by AfD anyway given the work you've put in on it, so I've clsoed the AfD as withdrawn. Black Kite 01:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2009 Newsletter

The August 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

A favor

Hello, Michael. I'm writing this in hoping that you would do me a favor for me since you helped me with proofreading the article of Yeonguijeong. Gyeongju, one of popular tourist cities in South Korea and the capital of an ancient kingdom is one of a few FA of Korean Project, but has faced in danger of delisting, so I've been working on expanding the article for about 2 months. So the closing time is near close (I hope not though), but as reviewers have pointed out the prose of the article is not good in the current status, and my grammatical errors are not fixed since I'm the only one working on the article, especially Gyeongju#Cultural properties, Gyeongju#Economy and Gyeongju#Healthcare and utilities. I've been struggling to find copy-editors although two people copy-edited a portion. So could you consider my asking for the favor? Thanks.--Caspian blue 22:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll look in and see what I might do. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah and I could've used your help on Jedi Temple and Jedi Academy. Where could he be? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • THIS is where I've been. If you don't give me a heads up, how can I know?? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Rudy can't fail

Hi MQS, long time no see! I've left the movie business behind and am now concentrating on other venues I wish to pursue. (It wasn't going anywhere anyway!). Hey, I was wondering if you could spare a minute for this edit--I have found an IMDB link to establish her provenance but would like something more solid, so that the tag can be removed. Care to help a brother out? Thanks in advance, and all the best to you, Drmies (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. But why was a fact tag even added? The actress' article and character's article more that cover her work for the show. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Look at the history: an IP acquired a name and wanted to make a point, I reckon. Did the article cover her provenance, though? I think that's what they were suggesting, that that wasn't verified or so. Hey, thanks again! I knew you'd come through. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thought you wanted to cover her being in The Cosby Show. However, THIS one covers her home town. Just added it instead of the other. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

What I need, I just don't have. ^Bongo_matic 23:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Need assistance with something? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ask Drmies . . . ^Bongo_matic 00:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Your Opinion Please Mr Schmidt

There's an AfD discussion at the moment here I thought you might be interested in. It's a short film from donkey's years ago - I looked in Halliwell's and a couple of other guides, but you always seem to have a lot more joy finding sources for obscure films! Also, how do you sort an AfD into one of the lists? Cheers :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD

What content would be merged? The title? There is -no- content on that page to merge. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay... you do not belive that there is anything worth merging. All that exists on the director's and writer's pages is the film's name. Including the film's historical production information, cast, background, etc., is worth considering in a merge of the stub... but that option was not discussed. Now having just read through the discussion at Wikipedia:An#Page_move_warring_at_Break.2C_Break.2C_Break, and while I do understand your wish to have this name solely for the Tennyson poem, why not use Break, Break, Break (Tennyson poem), rather than continue arguing for deletion of an article about a film from early cinema history? I note that more editors are coming forward with sources to verify the information in the artilce per point 2 of Wikipedia:NF#Other evidence of notability, so perhaps a merge does not even need to be considered. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

As has been proven by other editors, there are no sources. The google books hit by one individual was misleading and most of the links there didn't even mention the movie's title. There were about 17 hits for the movie's title without information, and a bunch for the song and the poem. That is very strong justification. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Harry A. Pollard already has the content there. As does Sydney Ayres and William Garwood. Only Louise Lester lacks a mention. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Content? No. Only the name... no other information. The article has more to offer than just a name. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the article? Seriously, it doesn't have any content. Please tell me how long the film ran, what the plot was, where was it produced, etc. I wonder if you have actually looked at the article after seeing your comment above. You do realize that the page contains only one sentence, right? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

My conclusion then is that the stub needs expansion as an article about a film from early cinema history. You note that some of the provided souce links only provide a name... which is a flaw with google books and their snippet views. Time perhaps for a visit to a comprehensive film library and archive I suppose. This search shows 22 book sources most of which do not have even snippet views online. But since the Library of Congress received received 58 prints on September 17, 1914 [1], information on plot and production will likely be available through the national archives. Time for more digging. Deletion diminshes Wikipedia. Expansion improves it. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Source 1. "Catalog of copyright entries‎" - not a source for content. 2. "Catalogue of copyright entries" Duplicate of number one. 3. "American film personnel and company credits, 1908-1920: filmographies" - merely lists names without information, so is not a source for content. 4. "The Braff silent short film working papers: over 25,000 films, 1903-1929" already discussed and has nothing but a title and is not a source for content. 5. "Photo-era magazine‎" has nothing to do with the movie. 6. "An index to short and feature film reviews in the Moving picture world" lists only the title and is not a source for content. 7. "The Yale book of quotations‎" is about the -poem- and not the movie. 8. "Sweethearts of the sage: biographies and filmographies of 258 actresses" merely lists the title and no content. etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Please let me know what you discover at a comprhensive library... as I already noted that google books does not offer much more than snipets, if anything at all. It really is not suitable for information on this film from early cinematic history. By the way, did your own search only go after the title? Did you research the film histories of thr involved parties? And how about record archives on microfilm somewhere that might contain photostats or reproductions of 1914 reviews of the film? I myself have a common sense presumption that such exist. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet hammering your fine editing?

Michael: You did a fine job on Gareth Penn a couple of months ago, but it seems a sock puppet has wormed its way into that entry and started a mass deletion of well-sourced info using high-handed language to justify. I say "sock puppet" because the user sounds suspiciously familiar (ManhattanSamurai) and is acting as a sPA on this. Don't understand why, after your work and mine. Would appreciate your having a look! 173.30.129.164 (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I left a note on the SPA IP's talk page. Feel free to revert and request discussion of such major changes to the article on its talk page. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I reverted three of the seven or eight edits and cleaned up a forth one per this person's concerns. As I pointed out on the user's page, his/her use of language like "unsourced puffery" and "removed self-promotion" seems to imply bad faith on the part of editors. I don't edit much here, which is why I asked for your assistance, which you rendered with a great deal of care.173.30.129.164 (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Radio Tales

I've a request on my talk p. from Shoessss to undelete & userify this (and presumably the episode articles also). I cannot figure out what happened, since they closed keep, phttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Time_Machine_(Radio)_et_al]. There are subsequent log entries that they were moved to your user space "per discussion after AfD", and then apparently deleted from there. but I haven't found the discussions yet. Could you reply on my p. after his request, at [2], to keep this together. Were they all found to be copyvio,or what? DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

List order

No problem. It's not something really important. Just one of my pet peeves. :) Garion96 (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day!

Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Inre this diff...

Your courtesy is greatly appreciated. And I am so sorry that I did not hold onto the userfied Radio Tales articles longer. All 63 being nominated at the same time was overwhelming. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Michael not a problem, you did a nice job bringing it up to speed. I believe if you look through my history, you will find that we are actually reading from the same book. Just different pages from time to time. Likewise, I am part of the ARS project. In fact, my approach to saving articles is very similar to yours. First look for sourcess - source the piece, rewrite if necessary - then debate like hell :-). Regarding the Radio Tales, no big deal, I'll just start from stract and see what I can do. In the mean time, take care. ShoesssS ^Talk 02:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad to be editing these pages with you. Keep up the good works. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ashlie Atkinson

I saved this article from speedy deletion by doing a slight expansion. Since you are interested in theatre articles, would you be interested in expanding Ashlie Atkinson? You are the expert in this field. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for your work on this article! Cunard (talk) 07:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help. I was unable to get to it until a short while back, as you have seen, but I am happy enough that it is safe from deletion. I am a bit considered that it was tagged only 1 minute after creation, as my understanding is that NWP's should at least try to see if a subject is worth improving... and a source or expand tag would have served quite nicely. Anyways... you made a very good catch in pulling the speedy tag. Keep up the good work and thanks for the opportunity to help. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I always keep an eye on CAT:CSD whenever I'm on Wikipedia. I used to tag articles for speedy deletion, but then I decided that saving new articles from speedy deletion would be more beneficial to the encyclopedia. Nice working with you! Cunard (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Gumrah (1993 film)

Can you help with some refs? I found a few trivial mentions stating it was a success and added to the article, but nothing yet to save it at AfD. I haven't seen the movie, but I know it was successful. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 03:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Fanne Foxe

Hi, Michael. I noticed the Fanne Foxe article has come up for deletion. I don't have time or interest enough to work on it, but there are many, many sources out there that could be used to improve the article. Do you think it might be appropriate for the Rescue Squadron? Dekkappai (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I did a quick couple searches and just assumed the nomination would get thrown out... I'm surprised it's getting so much support when it seems fairly obvious a substantial article could be written on the woman without a lot of effort. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup, definitely a WP:HEY situation. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey-- good work there so far! I hope I didn't imply I wanted you personally to do the work. It just looked like an obvious job for the Squadron, but I wasn't sure how to bring it to their attention. What gets me about the discussion is: who the hell says a person can't be "notable" for one event? I've never heard, in real life, such a "rule"... The answer is: a group of Wikipedia editors who got together used some time to make up a silly rule instead of spending that time wisely working on an article... These editor-made rules put editors in the position of authorities, a position we are, rightly, not granted in writing an article... so why should we suddenly become authorities when it comes to making up rules governing articles? Ah well, I've brought this point up at other discussions, to blank stares of incomprehension from everyone... I feel like a guy trying to start a discussion of evolution at Sunday school... :( Dekkappai (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The AfD *was* the merge discussion

What do you really expect to happen? Everyone comes forth, says the same thing they did before, people rush in urging the character must be notable due to innate ability, and then when it's closed as keep because the other side doesn't bother making compelling arguments again, we'll have arguments about what consensus applied.

Well that is more or less what's going to happen. And that's not considering the fact the subsection is all that's left after cleaning up the article.

Look, if the rescue squadron folks want to revive an article to fix it that's one thing. But so far it's been "revive so we can discuss" the same thing we...pretty much already discussed. That's not process, that's bureaucratic shuffling, no offense meant.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No arguments needed... and no need to question the intention or integrity of the AfD or its closer. With respects, I do not know how the closer's comments can be interpreted any way other than as what he wrote:

"The result was Keep. There is support for a merge, and some for a redirect, and discussions about this may continue on the article's talk page; but it's quite apparent from this discussion there is a strong consensus that Elaine Marley should be a bluelink on Wikipedia." (emphasis mine)

Please do not edit war with actions that violate the consensus and the admin's instructions from the AfD closure. Yes, the closer recognized that other opinions existed in the discussion, but made specific note that the consensus was a keep. Rather than edit war, you might write him yourself and ask if he meant something different. Happy editing, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for blowing a fuse like that, User:A Nobody seems to have a knack for getting under my skin. As it stands I proposed a middle ground on WT:VG, let's see if it works out...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You know I might be more amenable to middle grounds if you didn't have to throw jibes in when I am only one of three editors who reverted you in this instance. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

To avoid any confusion, up to the point I was typing that you were the only one reverting it back more than once. However this person's talk page isn't the place for this...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

HEY.... I don't want a fight in my yard. KFM, with respects, the closer specifically wrote that the strong concensus was a keep. He did not write that consensus supported a merge or redirect, only noted that such opinions were offered in the discussion and suggested wisely that the discussion continue at the article's talk page. SInce that is what was written, your merge and redirect would seem to run contrary to the AfD. So here we have a classic case of BRD. You were bold, you were reverted... several times. Time now to go to the article's talk page and talk. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Um...you're a bit late actually? User:S@bre suggested he was willing to work on the article, and we reached some agreements on bits that needed to be improved and the article deserved a chance. We were more or less done with my last line there regarding fighting over it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Um...can you cut it out with the rude comments? Joe Chill (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Kung Fu Man, could we maybe work on an agreement that you, TTN and A Nobody will all be satisfied with? An informal agreement about what is merged or redirected? Ikip (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments I didn't post

Everyone seems to agree that our deletion process is bitey to new users and broken. But any attempts to fiddle with it or fix it is met by a handful of vocal editors expressing disdain. They never suggest any alternatives, they simply bitch and moan about the suggestions. I realize full well that I will never satisfy this handful of editors, nor will anyone else here.

Michael has a great saying: "I'd rather fix the damn pipe than complain about having wet feet." a few editors here have had there feet underwater for so long, fervently arguing against any repairs to fix the pipe, that they forgot what their feet look like.Ikip (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Help within WP:NF

i don't know what to do, for an animated film to have 2 remakes, would that mean that they each have there own separate article just because they meet general notability guidelines? It seems strange to me, since the remakes would hold the same plot and same producer. The time length between the original and remake aren't so far apart, yet, they have 3 reviews to keep the general notability guidelines....so confused. it would make sense to keep them in one article, but for some reason alot of members would just want to leave it. is there a specific guideline about this? you will be grately appreciated if you could answer thisBread Ninja (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Tough call.... as it depends a lot on the film. Many major film franchises have a master article and then several properly sourced WP:SPINOUTs that are about the subsequent films. Star Wars comes to immediate mind as an example. If the Spinouts are short and sweet, and their content would not overburden the main article, then there is no real reason to have seperate articles. If the Spinouts would make the parent to cumbersome, then spinouts are worth considering. Please send me a link to the series in question and I can give a better and more specific opinion, as generalities only go so far. Best, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

the articles are Evangelion: Death and Rebirth which hold two parts, and there is End of Evangelion the remake of the second part, but it seems that the plot stays there. Also there is Revival of Evangelion, nothing much to that one, it's just a compilation of both.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay... I am out of my depth with this subject... as there is also a very large article at Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) with tiny section on re-releases. The ones that concern you might best serve by being condensed somewhat and brought over to the main... but if the Spinoff has enough individual notability and would overburden the main, then a seperate and related article would make sense. Sorry to sound like this is waffling... buit this is a question you might get better help with if asked at Talk:Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime).

I know, i'll see what i can do then.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ears buzzing?

You name came up today at RfA talk as someone who might make a good candidate for adminship. (See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#List_of_editors_who_should_be_considered_for_adminship) If you are interested in the job and/or would be interested in preparing for a run, let me know. I'd be honored to nominate you (if you feel you are ready) or coach you (if you feel you aren't quite ready). Of course if you aren't interested at all, that is fine too. Let me know, ThaddeusB (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I've never nominated anyone before.

Wow. I am honored that I am thought perhaps ready for such a grave responsibility. Let me think it over. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"Grave responsibility"? :) I take that as unintentional morbid humor. You'd make a great admin, no doubt about it. The process is a crapshoot though and can be kind of brutal. Good luck. ;) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought that you would be a great admin since last summer. Joe Chill (talk) 01:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll stay out of it, for your sake--my only kisses ever in that project have been kisses of death. Good luck! Drmies (talk) 05:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

As per your thoughtful email on the matter, I have created User:ThaddeusB/Admin coaching/MichaelQSchmidt. Nothing really to see there yet, but thought I'd give you a heads-up anyway. I'll start by reviewing your "current standing" in all the normal areas that come up during RfAs & then create exercises to help you with any areas that might be seen as weaknesses. Don't hesitate to say something if you don't like the way I'm approaching things, as this is a first for me too. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool with me. I know I sometimes tend to tilt at windmills... and occasioanlly I'll debate an issue too long... and yes, I once in a while get testy... but I think I have been a fairly reasonable and contributory editor... one willing to learn and further grow. So even were I to never offer myself up for adminship, your coaching will be quite valuable. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Check out User:ThaddeusB/Admin_coaching/MichaelQSchmidt#Assignment_1 at your convenience. Assignment 1 is on CSD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ramayana (film)

Imagine my surprise to find that you've gone over to the dark side and become a deletionist. This movie (titled Hanuman) is very notable [3]. The guideline that principal photography has to start before we can include a subject is hogwash. Notability is determined by substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. If a movie project is notable, it's notable even if it never gets made. Preventing us from covering and developing articles on movies as they progress in development is not constructive or helpful to our readers. Thankfully, I am here to straighten this all out and get us back on the right track. :) How are things? Beautiful weather up here. I hope it's good where you are as well. Enjoy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say I enjoy giving you a hard time. Thanks for your kind consideration of the issues I raised. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I enjoy the interplay, even though not everyone appreciates your sense of whimsey. If Ramayama is to survive, the existing article Hanuman (film) should be moved to Hanuman (animated film) and then Ramayama (film) moved to Hanuman (2010 film). Then the article will need multiple sources added ASAP, rather than just spoken of. This will better show its notability and the revised name will ease future searches. Yes? No? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I moved it. Adding a source or two isn't a bad idea, but I'm willing to leave it to those interested in the project. It sounds like a monstrosity of a movie to me. I thought the days of pale faces playing Indians was over? I've been watching some older stuff on Turner Classic Movies and I just watched Horton Hears a Who, which I found mildly entertaining. Have you seen anything good of late? Catch you later. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILM September Election Voting

The September 2009 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next six months; members can still nominate themselves if interested. Please vote here by September 28! This message has been sent as you are registered as an active member of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Tootsie Duvall

Hi Michael

Any chance you could cast your eye over this article? I de-prodded it a while ago but have been unable to come up with much - and you're the go-to guy for hard-to-find actor and film info …  pablo_hablo. 12:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay... I've begun cleanup and sourcing. She may just squeek past ENT because of her roles in television, but her theater background may yield some decent reviews. I'll expand it and source it more over the next couple days. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers - among other things I found this - no idea if it's even the same person, but I'd quite like to see "Hot WACS"!  pablo_hablo. 20:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

See you've made a start - cheque's in the post!  pablo_hablo. 10:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

RFA

If you have an RFA, please let me know. Joe Chill (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I am considering all the pros and cons. So keep your eye on Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/RfA_Report, as I do not believe it is proper that I notify editors if/when I do so. Do you think I should go for it? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I think that you shouldn't. It seems like almost everything can be considered canvassing. I'll put the page in my watchlist. Joe Chill (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If you mean go for RFA, I think that you should. Joe Chill (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes... that's what I meant. Thanks. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be great for the community if you did agree to serve us as an admin Mr Schmidt. Your name is up as a possible candidate on RFA talk so its not just me and Joe who think so. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be #3 on that sentiment. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You've (hopefully) got mail.  pablo_hablo. 09:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I've seen quite a few RfAs derailed recently because editors have been seen as "too inclusionist" or "too deletionist". Personally, I'd prefer more editors that didn't sit on the fence on these things. People panic that they'd suddenly start closing AfDs to their own preferences, but that's ridiculous, because we have WP:DRV and frankly any admin that starts doing that isn't going to be an admin very long anyway. I have recently had a conversation with another editor who is perceived to be on the "deletionist" side and suggested that he ran for admin, but might want to be nominated by someone who doesn't have that perception amongst others. Similarly... Black Kite 19:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hardy bucks

Hi. Have a look at this. The actual article is awful, so unclear that another editor tagged it db-nocontext. I rescued it from that, worked out that it was about an amateur Youtube film (and largely extracted from this to the point where as it stands it's probably copyvio) and PRODded it as non-notable. There is a certain amount of internet chat, but I don't reckon "Youtube celebrity - buzz on the internet" counts for much. However, now an IP has dePRODded, and I am having second thoughts - it seems they actually won an RTE competition, though I don't gather the series (which seems to be about 5 x 5-minute episodes) is actually going to be broadcast on air. What do you think - is winning an RTE competition enough for notability? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say they just squeek by. RTE seems to be RS as an Irish source... and the film won their first ever RTÉ Storyland on-line drama series. Not to waffle, but Project Web might have a better handle on web notability.... HOWEVER, the film has and is being seen off the web... being screened at film festivals... [4], [5]... and is getting a touch of press... Western People, RTE Entertainment, San Francisco Chronicle, IFTN, for instamce... and more at G-News. I think that with their win, and the growing press, they have met WP:GNG and WP:NF. And I am saying this without actually looked at the article to see its state. That's my next step. Hope this was helpful, Best MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Just stopped over there, added a message (similar to the above) on its talk page, and sectioned the article off in preperation for expansion and sourcing. In a few minutes I'll see if I can turn that sow's ear into a silk purse. Best, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Good, thanks. I added a bit more, and three references. That's a real raised-from-the-dead rescue! JohnCD (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Article Incubator

As one of our top, "article rescuers" I figured you'd be interested in the new project, WP:Article Incubator. For those rare times when you want to edit something, but don't see anything that piques your interest at AfD, drop on by and lend us a hand. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping me out. After what I have seen from Ikip, I'm surprised that he said all of that. Nothing hurts me more than being called a liar because I have never been a liar online and offline. I understand guidelines way more than policies. Joe Chill (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Rat-Trap

This may not be straight up your alley, but figured I'd ask you. The movie title is Elippathayam and is in Malayalam. It was screened outside India with English subtitles as "Elippathayam (Rat-Trap)". It was reviewed by the Post under the original title, and by the Times under the English title. Awards were under the original title. The page was recently moved from Elippathayam to Rat-Trap citing Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). But I'm not sure that's the right thing to do in this case given that the English name was used only in the subtitled version, and not the original which won awards etc. What do you think? cheers. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 21:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You provided the answer yourself. It was an English "subtitle" of a Malayam, not English name. The subtitles were there for non-Malayam audiences. Using the original and awarded name would be correct and proper... and heck, every foreign word or phrase can be translated into an English "equivalent"... but that is only an equivalent, and such translations are not always 100% spot on. In this case, the film has its notability under its original name, and due to non-uniqueness of the English translation, correct sourcing for notability would be much harder to find under anything other than the original Malayam name. Guideline allows that a name should be used where using the name in a search for sources will lead readers to best locations to ascertain notability for themselves... with yes, a preference given to English... but as guideline allows and expect the occasional and reasonable exception, "Rat Trap" is not a reasonable usage of the Malayam film title for allowing proper sourcing for that film. Naming conventions are fine... but they also indicate "...name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works). This makes it easy to find" ... which explanation contradicts itself in this case, as English usage would act directly opposite to the guideline reasons for its usage in the first place. You found English language sources showing awards and notability under "Elippathayam"... already an Englification of a Malayam word. IMHO, the original name with an acknwledgment of the rarely used (and non-notable) English equivalent would be best. Explain such on the article's talk page and move it back to where it has researchable and sourcable notability and awards. Hope this helps. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the initiative in getting this fixed, sorry for the delay, I completely forgot about this! cheers -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 07:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

the root problem at AfD

My friend, great to see you speaking up for reason and moderation on the RfC. Re the S Marshal idea, it might be hard to achieve concensus for substational changes to AfD, but maybe we could promate an essay emphasising the importance of good manners and of cooperating in harmony with those holding opposing views. Please edit the draft essay as much as you like if you think the idea has legs. AfD is not a war zone - FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC/Username

I believe the person who removed the RFC/Username request was in error. Our Username policy applies equally to signatures, it explicitly states this. The situation doesn't warrant immediate blocking so UAA would be inappropriate. Gigs (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Not being in Seresin's head, I think it was removed only because he figured an RFC was the wrong format and that it should simply have been a talkpage question since it did not require imediate attention. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

G7 Clearout

Have cleaned out your userpages - sorry they didn't work out in the end. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am moving many to text files off wiki. Not as easy to work with... but improved versions may yet come back. Keep an eye out.... I'll have a few more yet to go. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You could also copy the text to a free wiki provider--some of the templates might not work, but at least you can keep formatting etc. ^Bongo_matic 07:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Good sugestion. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd need to undelete the G7d files for that, and Michael would have to attribute the text correctly. Out of interest, Michael, why don't you keep them here or ask for help at WP:INCUBATE? Fritzpoll (talk) 07:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

And how long may they incubate? A few of the longer ones may not have decent sourcing for a few months yet. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's around 30 days at the moment, but that's very much a fluid deadline at present Fritzpoll (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Help

I need heep with an editor constantly assuming bad faith towards me. First is was saying that I was editing in bad faith and searching through my editing hsitory for stuff to twist around. Now that the discussion is over, he is saying that I'm a meatpuppet The issue is here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continued wikistalking/wikihounding and harassment from User:Miami33139. I thought this might be considered canvassing since you are uninvolved, but apparently not because Tothwolf notified uninvolved editors including Uncle G. Joe Chill (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it is getting proper attention. Keep the faith. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killer School Girls from Outer Space (2009 film)

Userfied as suggested. However, would you consider moving this article and perhaps some of the other stuff on your "plate" to WP:INCUBATE? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Appreciated. And I have been "cleaning my plate" (scroll down this diff to visit the NEW redlinks) and have moved some stuff of the longer term projects off-forum. I will work with the author to further improve the article and then be glad to send it to incubate. Thanks much. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2009 Newsletter

The September 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/63 Radio Tales

Your sandbox has been moved back into your user space at User talk:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/63 Radio Tales Skier Dude (talk) 05:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Why? And all that was moved back was the talk page. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The original was at User talk:MichelQSchmidt/sandbox/63 Radio Tales - n.b. the misspelling (missing a) - which transcludes into a different user space. There was no page User:MichelQSchmidt/sandbox/63 Radio Tales. Skier Dude (talk) 05:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahhhhhhh....... Thank you. I know now what to do with it. Best, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)