User talk:MichaelQSchmidt/Archive 004

Congrats

		The WikiProject Films Award
		In recognition of your awesome Movie-Star qualities and All-Star contributions, I ChildofMidnight (talk), hereby award MichaelQSchmidt the WikiProject Films Award for your valued contibutions to WikiProject Films. Great job! 05:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Try saving this one . . .

M,

This AfD should present quite the challenge for you and your inclusionist brethren. ;) X MarX the Spot (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Have not yet looked before responding, but I accept the challenge. And "inclutionist"? Yikes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy! ;) X MarX the Spot (talk) 06:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Am finding this guy has a world-wide 35-year reputation and notability for his damn bronze frogs. On it now. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Remember, independent reliable sources are required here to pass WP:BIO. Good luck! X MarX the Spot (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The multiple sources founs are from the galleries that chose to exhibit his works... and they ought to know. This will be a fight to stem artistic systemic bias. But I purposely avoided anything sourced back to the frogman himself and only offeered them as WP:V of his work being all over the place... in gallery after gallery. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

As usual you've excelled yourself, Schmidt MQ. X MarX the Spot (talk) 09:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

And now Bongo and I are debating over WP:CREATIVE and the proper interpretation of what consitutes "substantial part of a significant exhibition". First he asks which of the dozens of the venues are notable. And when I point out that venue notability is not required under CREATIVE since we are speaking about an artist and his work and not a location, he turns and demands a defining of what constitutes a significant exhibition. My head hurts. I'm going to bed. But thank you for the compliment. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Excelled? Naw. Just took a look is all. And I note that it still has not caused you to reconsider your opinion (chuckle)... so I suppose it was not "excell" enough. Or have you looked in lately? Taking some interesting turns and seems to be devolving into either reading and understanding or ignoring guideline. My head hurts again. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Just changed my !vote to Keep - I had a fair idea you could salvage the article. X MarX the Spot (talk) 09:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly appreciate that... but now its in the hands of others. I can understand squawks about these galleries "vending" his art, but that is specifically how they stay afloat... by supporting accomplished artists, provising a venue for the work to be shown, and allowing patrons an opportunity to invest in art. If his stuff was not notable, the would not be worth showing or selling. The nay votes are akin to arguing against inclusion of the Whopper because it is a "product" and is bought and sold commercially. What a day. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Cotterill

Couldn't agree with you more. It's bizarre how these things can evolve into such a mess. If Cotterill has a sense of humour, he'd probably find all this quite funny. And I'd like to apologize for jumping on you during the discussion. I hadn't read your response too carefully. I was too busy reminding you to assume good faith while failing myself to assume that you were assuming good faith. I really don't think I can add any more to that discussion. I don't envy the closing admin. on this one. I think the answer is clear, but that admin. is going to have someone a little bit PO'd. freshacconci talktalk 19:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem about the "jumping" as it was and still is a bit of a meelee. Your points were cogent and well-reasoned. The nom simply does not understand nor accept that any could disagree with his POV. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I contacted the closing admin. User talk:Chillum to ask him to review this. I also responded here. I have a problem with this particular decision, not on the close-as-delete, which I would have accepted had the justification been sound (i.e. the deletes were more convincing), but in the decision being based on the idea that the "keeps" didn't follow policy or understand policy. It seems the closing admin. just followed the Wikipedia talk:Notability message and the final comment on the AfD itself. I think we should wait until Chillum responds on his talk page. After that we should go to DRV. Now it's just an issue around principles. freshacconci talktalk 19:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Understood. And I will not even comment on the appearance of the nom's shoping to find an admin who agrees with him and dismissiveness of an admin who disagreed. On the closer's talk page I asked for userfication. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Tim Cotterill

Userfied at User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Tim Cotterill. Ty 23:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The best thing would be to do a thorough sound rewrite using reliable sources extensively as references and then put it back into article space. Ty 23:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I am in full agreement. Using the RS for sourcing, the Primaries only as externals, and the gallery cites only as WP:V of extensive exhibition, it can be a much better article. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Some refs:[1], [2], [3], [4] (scroll). Ty 23:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the assist. I have now begun a major re-organization of the article and its presentation. When I get a bit further, I will definitely ask for your input. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The ideal thing would be to get access to, and use, some of those pay to view newspaper sites... Ty 01:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the very point being addresed on the sandbox talk page. However, this does not mean I will cease searching library of news archives that ARE 100% avaiilable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't look now but the umbrage continues on the AfD talkpage. X MarX the Spot (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

saving books

Good try, but see my comment at some of today's afds about where to search. I'm not sure you realize how easy it is to find the actual reliable reviews nowadays. DGG (talk) 06:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

My "try was nor good enough, and no doubt the nom will stand her ground until the snow is up past her waist. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Starfucker (band)

Looking at that google search showed that there are indeed some references, I'll try to fix up the references to Starfucker as soon as you answer this question: Are myspace and facebook links blacklisted? The main info. on Starfucker are in those sites I believe.Oli ^OR Pyfan! 06:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at Pyfan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Oli ^OR Pyfan! 06:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Thanks

My pleasure, however in my opinion a longer block should not be implemented as not only do IPs rotate, there is also a possibilty that this IP may belong to school in which case constructive edits might, just might come from it (unlikely!), in all seriousness though, despite personal attacks, the IP should probably just keep recieving shorter blocks intill it gets rotated or the posseser of it becomes bored or forgets about vandalising, this is just my opinion, but I suspect most Admins will share it or something simalar. Basically, I appprove of shorter blocks for IPs, despite how annoying this can end up being. Anyway, thanks for your comments! Regards Spitfire^Tally-ho! 09:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Comanche Stallion

I have closed this AfD to redirect to Harry Carey, Jr. based on the discussion, which may be a little controversial as it was pretty much down to keep/delete votes. I think it probably the best outcome for the discussion, however. I am only uncertain about the redirect, and leave it in your hands to merge a summation of the material from the article history into this article, as you expressed a desire to do. My decision of the redirect target is not binding, so feel free (as anyone can) to change the target if necessary. Any questions, you know where my talkpage is :) Fritzpoll (talk) 12:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Radio Tales

Hi, Michael. Did you also intend to move The Yellow Wallpaper (radio) into your userspace? Kind regards,--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC) P.S. And The Furnished Room (radio) and Time Warp (radio)?

Sheesh.... you mean there's even more? Okay. Just looked at those three and they seem to have much better sourcing than the 63 in the mass Afd that that were sent and then voted as a "delete all". I had discussed a multi-month attempt to dig through the 63 and see if they can be developed into something worth later keeping, and it was those 63 I had permission to move. So, at this time I'd have to tentatively say no, as they were not included and were not discussed. Should it be considered? And if so, perhaps at a later time? With regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

They weren't at the AfD, so the community hasn't had a chance to comment. They will/should not be deleted in my interpretation. Sorry if I'm poking my nose in - did you notice my message above? Fritzpoll (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The Yellow Wallpaper (radio) was explicitly mentioned in para. 3 of the nomination at the deletion discussion so could be deleted with the others. The other two, which I found through [[Category:Radio Tales]], were not mentioned. I don't think we need to agonise too much over them. If you come up with a way of bringing all the tales into one larger articles, then these can be folded into it through the normal editorial process, I think. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

In looking, you are most correct... it was mentioned as an example. Why it was not added the mass list... I do not know. However, it and the other two seem to have an independent notability, and as you suggest... we need not agonize over them at the moment. I see that some great effort was made to add the 63 as a list inside the Radio Tales article... a bit bulky, but they are there. So I think we are in agreement. I have an ardous task ahead and I will check back as I near a completion and we can then discuss a "folding". Thank you much for the question and the input. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've nominated these three articles for deletion, since they were clearly just overlooked in the previous AfD. The deletion discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time Warp (radio). Deor (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Kriss Perras Running Waters /Deletion

I have moved this ongoing discussion to User talk:MichaelQSchmidt/Running Waters discussion as it is getting a bit unwieldy. Contributors are welcome to continue our discussions there. No slight is intended, and the link is not an archive.

unblock and clear log

I must have missed an autoblock when I unblocked you earlier. It's entirely my fault, and I apologize. — Gwalla | Talk 21:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Appreciated. Please understand my anxiety and confusions about the entire matter, as I have rarely had an AfD opinion handled as was done by the nom. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

In what manner?--Cerejota (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please Cerejota, the matter is closed. I would perfer not to carry any disagreements from the AfD to my talk page. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The Book of Time (novel series)

On March 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Book of Time (novel series), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 04:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at MacGyverMagic's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bulla 2, etc.

Thanks for your note, and thanks for bringing the other article to my/everyone's attention. I really had no idea the other article existed; I haven't examined it in detail, but I suspect it doesn't meet WP:NFF either. However, as you say, the information can easily be added to the article about the first film. I'll keep an eye on the AfD discussion and do what seems reasonable with all three once someone closes the AfD, unless someone beats me to it. If there's anything further that you think I should know/do, I'm at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at MacGyverMagic's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lucifer and the Biscuit Hammer

Hey Michael, you may remember me as Darth Panda (talk · contribs). I just realized you were editing the page I nominated for deletion, Lucifer and the Biscuit Hammer. I would like to warn you, however, that you linked to several sites that provide "scanlations," or illegal translations of the Japanese manga into English. I was going to revert your edit, but instead, I wanted to pop by here to warn you of this. Can you unlink those sites? Thanks. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 22:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. How can I tell if one is a scanalation or not? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Hard to do, really. There isn't an English licensor for the series, so any English translations are automatically a red flag. If you see the name "SnoopyCool", that's the name of the scanlation group.

If you want to talk about scanlation in general, pop me an email; it's complicated and a bit convoluted, so that may take a longer time to explain. I'd be happy to do so, however. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 00:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. But if the sources exist in Japanese, citing them and then providing a translation would then seem to be within guideline, as apparently finding an existing English translation is not allowed. Its an unfortunate anglocentricism of enWiki. Sad too, when there are so many dozens of non-speakers of English who reside on this globe. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And thanks. Your courtesy is most appreciated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you wish for me to add the sources so the page passes WP:V? I can do so if you wish. The problem is WP:BK, which I don't foresee Lucifer and the Biscuit Hammer passing any time in the near future. For an example of something I used Japanese sources for and passes WP:BK, see Saki (manga). It's scheduled for a DYK one of these days, and barely passes WP:BK due to the anime its spawned (hence passing #3 of BK). If Lucifer and the Biscuit Hammer gets an anime, I would certainly fight for inclusion, but at this time, it does not merit a keep. By the way, the reason I didn't add sources was the inevitability of its deletion (or so I think/thought). ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 00:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No need to add the sources, but thank you very much. Hearing an opinion from someone qualified to read Japanese, does much to mollify. Point here is that though I have respect for the nom, but articles that can be saved, should be saved. I even convinced her of this a couple weeks back at another of her deletion nominations... and she not only withdrew her nomination, but stayed on to edit and made it shine.... but of course, that was not about a Japanese comic book. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm hardly qualified to read Japanese, by the way. I just can read an itty bit, combined with some Chinese literacy and a translator (and many, many Japanese-literate friends), I can survive. In any event, thanks for the vote of confidence. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^{(t • c)} 01:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You're "itty bit" is far more than my none. And I can see by the way the wind is blowing, that there is no way the article will survive. It will be interesting to see some of these same editors trying defend their own favorite articles in a few months as the stranglehold of exclusion tightens its noose. Again, thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

South Park

As I was leaving the South Park merge discussion the other night, I found a marionette in the corrridor. Any idea who it might belong to???? :~)....I enjoy your edits and talk.--Buster7 (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have learned that use of multiple accounts by one user to edit an article is not condoned by policy nor guideline, as it indicates a false consensus in actions taken by one user as if he were actually several. This is explicitly not allowed. Even were the puppets declare themselves and not make arguments in discussions, it is not allowed... else eveyone would have dozens. The few acceptable reasons for such to be usable, were not met. Keep up the good faith. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The Motley Moose

Hey, I just wanted to thank you for your words of support on the AfD forum for The Motley Moose. I sincerely appreciate someone taking the time to look at the merits of the argument and the article, rather than just falling back on Wikipedia guidelines and offering no substantial arguments. I owe ya a coke. Thanks! Ks64q2 (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

A Wikibeer is fine, thank you. I will trust that a closing admin makes note that those "quoting guideline" are quoting them out of context, as the article has decent sources and is worth inclusion. Keep up the good fight, for not all wikipedians are exclutionists. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!

On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

HSPD. What do you make of this Florentina Mosora? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems worth defending, as the nomination feels of "I ain't heard of her so she can't be notable". And even if only to curb anglo-centric bias on Wikipedia, it should be brought to the attention of project WP:CSB. The nom errs in dismissing SPS as they are explicitly allowed as WP:V and cast listings of released films are also acceptable. Apart from that, and because I do not read or write French, I am quite willing to accept AGF in the many, many other sources provided by the author(s). As written, the article does have a little bit of fluff, but nothing that can't be handled with simple cleanup. Further, and despite the nom's dismissal, the subject does indeed seem to pass WP:BIO, and the subsectionWP:ACADEMIC. I see WP:ENTERTAINER being used as a red haerring, as the film career is simply a part of her early life that completes the pcture of her life as a whole. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter and I hope you're enjoying the sunshine... ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me take of my sunglasses, wipe the perspiration of my brow... take another long sip of iced tea.... and say thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandal we all well "know"

Hi there MIKE, VASCO here,

Again!!! PARARUBBAS has opened a new account, now the gentleman's called MNHT08 ("contributions" here http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mnht08). He continues to glue sentences (Rio Ave FC) and glue sentences and remove links just because (Orlando Sá, Hélio Sousa, Bassey William Andem). I don't want to be intrusive or anything, but how about a long-range block on this idiot (although i know others would still "suffer", but being for the common good...)? I have duly reported the situation.

Kind regards, VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Report him again amd make that block request. If a checkuser determines that this vandalism is coming from one IP and one IP only, it may qualify for a block. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Already have (see here http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations#SOCK_vandal_.28and_counting....29), but received absolutely no feedback. Well, i did: User:EdJohnston had a quick glance and was not satisfied at all with the outcome (check my talkpage for further details), could you please have a look at it and complete its faults. I have already messaged Ed back, but am kind of confused as to what his "main" request is.

The only thing i am not confused about is that this guy does not deserve (not Ed Mike, the guy with the "socks on") to be in Wikipedia one more minute. Even if i leave (i am not irreplaceable), he will still continue here, that's not fair.

Attentively, Vasco from Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If a patterend of continued behavior from one specific IP is documented, then a temp-block will again be initiated. And sorry, but you will simply have to be vigilent and report such continued disruptions each time they occur. And Ed's correct, you placed it on the wrong page. SPI Talk page is for requesting input. SPI main page is requesting action. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Michael, it's been done, tell me what you think of it (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas). Don't know what else can i do. Regards, Vasco - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I commented at the SPI page and encouraged a long-term solution, as the repeated vandalism by puppets is becoming very disruptive. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

FHS

Tagging articles soon after creation is no sin. Tagging a high school is likely to produce drama, however. Even so, there's not much to be done, and often for BLP's, copyvios, spam and hoaxes, the sooner the tag the better. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I do understand, but in this case, and specially with it being a just-started article on a high school, it shows a disregard for WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE. Discussions with the author might have prevented a premature tagging and drama at an AfD. I almost feel sometimes that all AfD's should be put through a review by uninterested parties before being sent to mainspace, or should be more quickly subject to an early closure if it is so easily shown that ATD or BEFORE were not properly considered. Different battle for a different day. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If my comment is unwelcome, my apologies. I clean a LOT of school articles. The only ways I have read folk credibly (PoV, eh?) claim to keep new articles from being flagged are: to finish them in a user-space sandbox before taking them live; and flagging it as Under Construction with {{construction}}. All the best, and sorry if that is unwanted... I followed the link here from the other talk page, as I wanted to see the answer. :) sinneed (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are welcome. And I am in complete agreement that a sandbox is the best place to construct a new article before letting it loose on the battlefield. My thought in this case, after having looked at available sources and remembering how High School articles are almost invariable kept, is simply that if the article were given a few more hours it might have met earlier concerns and avoided any need for an AfD, since it was definitely terrible at first but had potential. Maybe a suggestion to the author that he move it back to a userspace until ready might have sufficed? Or that he tag it as Under Construction? I do accept the good faith of the nom's . I myself tend to be sympathetic to how wiki can be confusing to newcomers, and this has actually caused me to consider joining the Welcome Wagon (or whatever it is called) and perhaps even offering mentorship, as we need all the willing editors we can get. Thank you very much for your thoughts. They were well received. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

Hi, Michael.— I just wanted to be clear that I did not suggest that the ARS automatically !vote to keep everything. I was quoting another user and the purpose of doing that was to disagree with them!—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

We crossed paths. As you were writing here, I had caught my typo there and fixed it. Sorry I hit submit before I hit review. Hopefully you will not feel impugned by my error, now fixed. Sorry. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Talkback

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at Raeky's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Casanovva

Cite this diff if you need it later: once you have a citation that indicates that filming has begun, coupled with the sources that indicate notability, you may return the article to article space and the article should not be deleted under WP:CSD#G4 since it will be substantially different to the deleted article. I may not be around to defend the move when you do this, so if you get any aggravation, cite this diff. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I had planned to make a note on the talk page something like:

"This article was deleted on March 18, with a consensus to wait for filming to begin befire returning it. Filming has now begun and with respects, I have returned the article... now sourced to show just that. Thank you"

However, I will most definitely refer back to this diff. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoops

Drat, that's the second time I've clicked rollback from my watchlist. I will be more careful in future, Apologies Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No harm, no foul. Actually quite happy to be watched over. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

child actor notability?

Hey MQS, how are you? Listen, I don't know what the rules are for child actors, but what do you think of this AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aidan Gould? I found a couple of mentions in German sources, and a few other mentions. Thanks for your time, Drmies (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Nice work, thanks. I took the liberty of standardizing the dates in those templates--I'm kind of compulsive that way. I'm somewhat surprised that that comedy is not yet in WP; it exists, right? Collectonian remarked in that AfD that reviews, basically, don't count, if I interpret her remarks correctly. That strikes me as odd, no? Anyway, thanks again for helping out. If you can't do it, it can't be done. Later! Drmies (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

My dating is American standard. That you wish european is perfectly fine. That she feels that reviews don't count is exactly the opposite of the take by WP:Film, as reviews show that an actor's work is of note. Specifically. Remember little Haley Joel Osment? Big oaks from little acorns grow. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, I'm dating the freaky American way, the 2009-03-18 way, which I find impossible, but there seems to be a WP consensus to do it that way in templates. And no, I don't remember that person--before my time (in the US)! Besides, I know very little about movies (besides Blazing Saddles, of course), which is why I always turn to you. But I agree with your assessment. I saw your edit tag while I was adding sources to the article--three French ones, three German ones. There were no Dutch hits. Anyway, that this movie was not (or barely) notable is clearly belied by the facts, and may betray some US-centrism, don't you think? Thanks for your support, as always, Drmies (talk) 05:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Pehaps you meant the publication dates of the articles? I just know the way I was taught... today is March 19, 2009.. Month/Day/Year. ANd I see that everybody checks and corrects my spelling. Can I help it that I type one finger at a time?? This sums up my concern about the correct way to perceive inclusion criteria at BIO: diff. Again I am really glad you brought this to my attention... as even now I am expanding and sourcing the film article. Best to you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For outstanding guidance provided to less experienced Wikipedians, and serving as an example for their future part of the project! You have my sincere thanks! Ks64q2 (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Mike, because of you, it certainly has not. Besides, you were right in your comments; I'll expound on that later, but suffice it to say, you're a true example of someone espousing the principles that Wikipedia was founded on- something much more rare than someone would generally imagine. Thank you! Ks64q2 (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the compliment, but there are editors who would disagree, as some feel Wiki should be more like Amrericana or Britanica... kinda tough acts to follow, as this IS the encyclopedia "anyone can edit". However, all I can recommend to remember that quote by Chief Dan George in the film The Outlaw Josey Wales... "Endeavour to persevere". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Cloudbuster: Keep or redirect and merge?

The 2nd Articles for deletion discussion for Cloudbuster closed as "keep," with the note that "any merge/redirect discussions should take place at the relevant talk pages". However, the article was immediately merged and redirected into Orgone energy. The editor who participated in the discussion and then performed the merge believes that the merge/redirect is supported by consensus. I am posting this notice to the talk page of each of the editors who participated in the discussion, including the nominator, to ensure that this is the case. -- Shunpiker (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. The merge was reverted, and a discussion relating to a proposed merge has been started on Talk:Orgone#Merging_Cloudbuster_into_Orgone. --Shunpiker (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Motley Moose

Hi Mike!!! Ks64q2 left a message on my talk page about this page The Motley Moose - the user is trying to rescue the page and wants feedback on his methods of attempting to rescue the page. I told Ks64q2 that you were the expert on the Rescue Squad, and your feedback would be far more valuable than mine, since I'm only just learning myself. I asked Ks64q2 to look here on your talk page for further discussion on The Motley Moose. Happy Editing! Love, Anna (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully, he has it saved in a userspace. When he writes, I can give him input. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Valerie Hoffman

I want to congratulate you for your good work rescuing Stupid Teenagers Must Die!‎. Perhaps you might have time to look into another stub article that is currently in discussions and flagged for rescue - Valerie Hoffman. This film producer appears to be notable based on the awards that her films have won (at lease as shown on IMDb.com). [6] [7] [8] [9]. Whether or not you want to become involved in this one, I still think you, and the others involved in the rescue, did excellent work on Stupid Teenagers Must Die! Untick (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Heads up. Her partner is Simone Sheffield, who has also been sent to AfD. Untick (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

for expansion & dky

Someone you might find interesting: Harry Harris (director). Bongomatic 05:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

At minimum

restore the dubious tag for the unsourced (and patently false) garbo claim, and by whom for the "best known" claim; there are no independent sources about this person at all.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Going to remove that list of older notrables entirely, as unsourcable and notinherited. If the facts become available from independent sources, they can be brought back. I agree this thing has WAAAAAAY too much fluff. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Starting new articles in user space by default

Sorry that I haven't been more proactive on this. Ikip has raised it on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page, so I've replied with my thoughts so far. Would be good if you could get involved too—I still want to go ahead with the idea but I'd like it to be in a good shape before it gets proposed publicly at the village pump. - Pointillist (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I am just glad that this is being seriously considered. Rapid tagging for speedy or for AfD is one way wiki discourages new editors. Making the initial efforts user-friendly will do wonders for bringing fresh blood and new ideas to wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm relieved that Ikip stirred things up, frankly, as I was probably in danger of staring too deeply into my navel about the details. But I do think we have to think things through properly or there will be yet another inconclusive discussion. Looks like copyvio in user space is the first major hurdle - I've replied on the talk page. - Pointillist (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The Dark Knight Returns(movie)

I have a feeling that this has been deleted several times, I just did a whole bunch of cleanup to get the references in order (they were using <references/> </references/> to tag them...doh!) Anyway I am not sure it has any substantial basis, but I figured that the Grand Poobah of movies (or at least the only movie guy I know) might have some interest in it. --kelapstick (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You're correct, it has been created and deleted a few times. As long as your sources are rock solid and exceed the requirements of the GNG for WP:NFF, it has a chance to survive. I suggest breaking the article down into sections for history of proposal, the proposal itself, and then a very heavily covered reception section. Be prepared for the AfD to delete as WP:CRYSTAL and suggestions to merge Showing maximum coverage of the proposal in RS will do much to allow it to stay... even if the film is never made... which will be the greatest hurdle. Cover your but under WP:NFF in as many ways as possible. And if you wish help, count on my cooperation. At the moment I am on location in the desert on a film shoot. My computer access is limited. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it has enough to survive, I didn't look at many of the sources (I picked it up at new page patrol, cleaned up the references so I could understand it), right now I think it is just poorly written, which isn't a reason for deletion. I may or may not take a look at it depending on how my day goes tomorrow, it should be here still by the time you get back from the desert...hope you enjoy your shoot!--kelapstick (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

In agreement, I'll try to take a look at it myself when I return home tonight. Loooooong day on a desert filmshoot. Limited internet. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Much obliged thanks for the assistance, hope you enjoyed your time in the desert!--kelapstick (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Still here. Argh. Three hours+ behind schedule in shooting my final scene... which will probably not get on film for 3 hours more... or longer, as my scene is dependent on a careful choreography of three other actors. Sigh. It is a field that demands great patience. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Aria (singer)

Are you going to continue working on this page? There still isn't reliable sources for virtually any of it. It's looking like an AfD candidate to me, personally. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I have more to do. Have had only limited internet the last couple days... on a borrowed mactop with poor connectivity... while working a desert film shoot. KInda irksome. The article has a lot of fluff still to be removed, and a matter of having the several hours of decent web service to do a nice search. Being away from civilisation can be a annoyance at times. Revisit it next week and maybe we'll both be surprised. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Will do. :P — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Alan Cabal

Hi there - I removed the speedy as I agreed the article was substantially different, but it was then deleted anyway by a separate admin. Having said that, given the problems with socks etc. on this article previously, it would probably be better to ask at WP:DRV before moving it into mainspace anyway. Black Kite 11:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the hangon was ignored and there is already a discussion at ANI. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have created an entry at DRV. Black Kite 12:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello - in response to you message on my talk page - I was willing to look at any new sources and judge them on their merits, which is why I asked about new sources on the article's talk page before it got deleted. I'll still look at any sources to see if they address the concerns from the latest AFD, and if I believe they do, I'll be happy to change my view. As I have already indicated, however, I don't see the Jewish Press article nor the book written by one of his fellow band-members as sufficient to make a difference.--Michig (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I always appreciate a reasoned and courteous response. Thank you very much. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, but I have now looked through the sources and I still don't see anything that could really be called significant coverage of Alan Cabal in independent reliable sources. Sorry. It's true that there are several sources which can verify certain facts about him, but that doesn't address the notability issue.--Michig (talk) 08:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Message to black kite

RE: User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox The unloved article old Can you move the entire article history into user space, so I can see the differences that everyone is talking about at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_30#Alan_Cabal? You can move it here, User:Ikip/Alan Cabal or simply replace the existing version. I would like to see what changes were made. Ikip (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The page has been restored temporarily at Alan Cabal. Ikip (talk) 11:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(From an account blocked sometime later... and removed from my page)

(Banned user's edits removed by Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)})

(account blocked as suspected of being of a banned user... but not until after this message... so I archive it for historical reasons)

Michael Q: Thanks for pressing on. You're doing the right thing, not only by this entry, but thousands of others. And no, I'm not a sock of Manhattan Chowder, et. al. or a meat puppet, or whatever (the list seems endless these days). I made a valid point, backed it up with several facts, and instead of dealing with the point, Bali and GG--who've apparently both been after this entry for a long time--decided to violate "WP:Block Conflicts of interest -- Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved." So I'm blocked -- using the "Like a duck" rule (is this now standard WP?) -- because I spoke up against an insidious practice that has become one of several fundamental and almost tragicomic inequities in this once free and open place: The attack of particular entries for reasons that, while they may be valid in some cases, are not consistently applied, and often seem more related to an editor's ego, personal issues and ability to rally powerful pseudonyms to his or her cause than the desire to objectively disseminate the truth. A sympathizer sent me another example: Tim Folger, asking eight months after its creation, why isn't it being rewritten, deleted, etc.? I don't know. I can't answer. The WP guides are so innumerable and so confusing anymore it's completely discouraging. I used to edit here and I really used to enjoy this place. I thought the Wales vision was as socially and encyclopedically ingenious as it was technologically disruptive. But I've lost my taste for it. "The Encyclopedia ANYONE can edit?" Unless, of course, you're a sock, a meat, a blocked, a banned, a spa, an urban samurai, etc. etc. ad infinitum. Who is this slogan kidding? Wikipedia is an incredible tool, but it is slowly and inexorably being corrupted, by the very forces it set out to eradicate. If that's the voice of a disruptive sock speaking, then so be it. I'd like to think I deserve the "Emperor, You're Naked" Barnstar, but this is not an environment given to self-examination and that's precisely what is slowly killing it.Jarmancooper2 (talk) 05:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You would be better served by going to the JarmanCooper userpage and requesting a checkuser review to confirm that you are not a sock of Manhattan Samurai. However, now that you have created a second sock to speak up at the DRV, you have greatly reduced any possibility of sympathy, even if proven you are not MS. It is obvious that you know these pages and what they contain. Follow proper procedures to clear your name and try to avoid bumping heads with other editors. Good luck. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Not gonna happen. Checkuser's been rejected per the socks being flatly obvious. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Manhattan Samurai. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 19:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Everytime I see WP:DUCK quoted I strongly cringe, not only because of the violent history of the term (Duck test was used by the United States ambassador to Guatemala right before the CIA violently overthrew the democractically elected government, putting installing a military ditactorship and plunging the country into chaos and long-lasting political turbulence), but since there is no hard evidence, a lot of innocent people are surely wrongly accused. Ikip (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

you have probably already kicked yourself for not doing this, and if you have, my apologies. But before moving an article from user space to main space, I would ask a half dozen editors what they thought first. Hard lesson learned huh? :( Ikip (talk) 11:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see: User_talk:Colonel_Warden#Article_Rescue_Squadron_Merge_subpage

Preliminary suggestion to have a Article Rescue Squadron subpage which includes merges. Ikip (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

i am really sorry to hear about Alan Cabal. There is always another day. Hope to hear your comments on this subpage proposal. Ikip (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

They article will continuing growing in a workspace and I will keep in mind that 1) Concensus can chage, 2) the editors who wished delete at that last AfD DRV might one day have a different opinion, 3) The Wikipedia Foundation may itself come forward to remind editors that the project is no where near completion, 4) and that they may also remind editors that growth is the goal, not "perfection". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I am going to create a template, which can be given to all editors in a failed tagged ARS deletion, and give it to you first, and dedicate it to you. :) You deserve it for your efforts. Ikip (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the recognition. There are many, many others who deserve it more for their continued effosrts to keep wikipedia from becoming a one-page redirect that reads "See Encyclopedia Britanica". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bacon mania

Hey MQS, care to weigh in on this matter? Are you a bacon lover at all? Drmies (talk) 04:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Bill Oberst Jr.

Why are some entries to the filmography referenced and others not? That's really the only problem I can see. It's an interesting person covered in such a wide variety of media he easily meets WP:GNG. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well... I have this shadow on wikipedia watching my every edit who would look at a filmology and might remove something if unsourced. I can either source them all or none. What is the best way to go? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you." Anyway, the project would be a better place if—for whatever reason—people wrote more articles like this one. Bongomatic 10:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty good, MQS, and I'll chime in with MGM (on both points). I've made a few copy edits (and one or two stylistic ones--your "shadow" might object to an unsourced "whimsically"), tweaked titles in the references, corrected a hyperlink here and there, and italicized a couple of titles. Good work! Drmies (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I was worried about the "whimsically" as well. And that you for catching the typos that Franamx missed. Usually he's quite good at such, and never hesitates to "school" me on my refs (chuckle). I appreciate your other tweaks and am grateful. I think its time to set it loose. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(Unsolicited suggestion) I thought that the "graduate of the University of South Carolina" should be moved from the lead sentence to the biography section. He isn't known for where he went to school, he is know for his Lewis Grizzard portrayals and (at least in my opinion) that should be the first sentance. The biography section could be expanded (and probably will once it is moved).--kelapstick (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Superb suggestion. I am actually in process of moving it to biography and adding birthplace. Thank you for speaking up. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hi. Michael. First, thanks for taking an interest in the TOMS Shoes article. You made plenty of good edits. However, you need to be careful with the references you add. Especially in the case of a dispute like this where the main allegations by the opposers is that it is self-promotion and that the sources themselves are only promoting spam. I could have foreseen the reaction from the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TOMS SHOES (2nd nomination) nominator after you added this and this as references. These aren't legitimate reliable sources because they are self-published and serve only to promote the organization. (And, worse yet, they only feed the complaints by the opposers to the article). I just noticed you added this ref -- this is also an illegimate source because it is simply a press release. (Notice that it is written by Allison Dominguez of TOMS Shoes, and the url address mentions it's a press release). I'll remove it. Also, the addition of this obscure source isn't needed. There are already so many great refs like Time, CNN, Forbes, Fortune, etc. that it isn't necessary to add lightweight ones. I'll replace it with the Time magazine ref which has the same info. I say go with the big guns when you got 'em. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, and thanks for the barnstar. That was very cool. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The section on charities is about the charity... which I felt needed to be made stronger. No doubt that it is an aentirely different one than when it returned. Good job to all of us... including the nominator. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitely, the charity stuff should be made stronger. I would like to see actual data about the company (sales figures, staff numbers etc.), more emphasis on social entrepreneurship (since that is the crux of the notability)-- and the shoes are distributed by the charity Friends of TOMS -- you know it, I know it, everybody knows it -- unfortunately, I have yet to find an independent RS that specifically states it. But it will turn up, eventually. In the meantime, you are right, the article is much improved and there shouldn't be any push for deletion again. Thanks again for your input. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well.... even guideline allows SPS for non-contentious facts if not being used to source notability. And since notability has already been well established in multiple RS, a limited use of SPS for the non-notable factoids should be okay per guideline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. In the case of non-controversial statements, the occasional SPS is no problem -- and there's not an encyclopedia anywhere which requires that every sentence has an in-line citation. Some things can simply be reasoned. But sometimes around WP... ah, well... I've been doing editing over at L. Ron Hubbard, I don't know how I ended up over there, but that it a shit storm of referencing battles. It reminds me of one of the funnier statements I've seen here. I can't remember which user page I saw this on but it read,

My general impression of Wikipedia: The human hand has five fingers . — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Hot Rod Girls Save the World .jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Hot Rod Girls Save the World .jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Photo

I'm not sure on the photo copyright notice. I passed it on to User talk:Ncmvocalist who I think deals with photos. Have a great weekend. I hope my being utterly unhelpful won't deter you from visiting me in future. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I was just going to add {{Non-free poster}} but it looks like you got there first? After all that work! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey. I have got to learn my away around that section sometime... just figured it out after I asked the question. If I fix an article about a film, being able to include the film poster should be a requirement. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, illustrations and pictures are essential. I've missed working with you as our paths haven't crossed in some time. And this despite my spending altogether too much time on here of late. :) It seems I've caused a bit of a fuss. How are things going for you offline? Maybe drop me a note if there's blog or something I can keep up to date. And make sure to take care of yourself. Thanks for being you. And thank you kindly for the barnstar. You are an inspiration to us all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Nora Samosir

From User talk:Jennavecia#Nora Samosir

Oh my... Michael, you really surprise me with this choice of editing on Nora Samosir, she's quite a talented individual in the local stage/acting scene of Singapore. Maybe I could give you a hand? Provided I'm not too busy with my company's big planes (it's the Airbus 380 if you wanna know), okay? -- Dave1185 (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Dave. I suppose when I see something nominated for deletion, I dig just a bit harder. This time, I struck gold, as I simply could not even begin to think someone with her history would have been written about somewheres. A perceived problem with the article is it listing EVERYTHING she ever did, and for whom, and where... and that is simply not required. Perhaps you might advise on the list which ones seem of particular note (I have already sourced several). I would like to then trim it to a partial list that shows some but not all. Do you know if she has an oficial website? And can you find RS that confirm her television and film? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Move

I have moved User MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Nora Samosir theater and television to User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Nora Samosir theater and television. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved from userpage to talk page

Dear Michael, I am enlisting your help. I would appreciate your assistance. I am E. Joyce Moore, a writer and a member of the Chicago Film Producers Alliance. I have a new role as public relations for the organization and as a part of that, wanted to pursue the inclusion of our organization in Wikipedia. While some of the material in the article is similar to the original, it is definitely not the same and addresses your initial concern and I quote: The result was delete without bias as the article does not establish notability as per WP:GROUP. Kralizec! (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC) I have corrected the article accordingly and welcome you to advise me of any other concerns you may have. Would you please provide your objective opinion.

Kind regards, E. Joyce Moore--Guvnur (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

CFPA

I've moved the article to User:Guvnur/sandbox/Chicago Film Producers Alliance rather than simply deleting it. After reading all of the drama tied up with this article in the last few months, I can only say good luck, we're all counting on you. - Dravecky (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Dravecky beat me to the punch! Sorry I was not able to take care of your request sooner. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do for you. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Misc

On Talk:Nora Samosir#Removal of unencyclopedic lists, I wrote:

Simmer down, people. The {{inuse}} template had been added eleven hours before my edit. While I now see that my edit was shortly after one of MQS's, when I opened the article (before I clicked "edit"), there had been no changes to the article in about five hours—beyond the "use-by" date of {{inuse}}. Bongomatic 12:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You replied:

Aplogy accepted. Unlike some editors that do their improvements one by one by one by one by one, hitting save after each of dozens and dozens of minor edits, I am one who begins his edits, and hits "preview" over and over to assure visual quality, content and article flow to catch errors before finally hitting "save"... only because I remember the admonishment that mainspace is not the place for experimentation. With the number of aditional sources that appeared within seconds of the revert, you might understand that though underatandably difficult for a non-English subject, my searches were somewhat successful. This is my method to improve the project. Thank you for yourself being on top of my edits. It is reassuring to know I am being closely watched. No harm. No foul. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not actually watch your edits. The page came to my attention from this talk page, which I do watch. I browsed to the article and saw from its history that notwithstanding the {{inuse}} template, it had not been edited for approximately five hours—note that the template itself suggests that the it should be removed "if [the] page hasn't been edited in several hours."

I don't appreciate the sarcasm, especially when as you acknowledged both in your note and in your subsequent edits that my edits were appropriate. Bongomatic 23:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

How you interpret other's words is up to you. No "sarcasm" was intended. I trust you do not ortherwise have any issues with my perhaps more methodical method of previewing repeatedly before hitting save? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

None whatsoever. There was no apology offered, nor, as explained, was one warranted, so "apology accepted" is difficult to interpret as other than sarcastic. Bongomatic 00:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, we agree more than we disagree, though we occasionally bump opinions. I thought your explanation of not realizing until after your deleton was made, that I was actively editing (though slowly) was an apology (of sorts). My own misinterpretation, I suppose. And my noticing that me edits are being watched, should be taken as a compliment... as I appreciate editors looking in and offering advise or comment. Again, no harm, no foul? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It is each editor's choice as to where to spend time on the project, and very few make this choice by looking at the encyclopedia from the top, determining from some putatively objective perspective where the most work is needed, and digging in there and only there. So, while you and I might have different views as to what articles merit attention (in addition to having a subject matter preference, you seem to have a soft spot for the week and needy; I tend to go for topics that are indisputably notable per the—imperfect to say the least—notability guidelines). Despite that difference in where to focus, I hope it has become clear over time that I find your approach to editing articles generally to be exemplary. Perhaps a better catchphrase than the one I ventured on a previous comment is Andy Grove's: Only the paranoid survive. Bongomatic 02:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Nicely stated. And yes... I do probably have a soft spot for the weak and needy... after all, they need the greatest nurturing, whether article or editor. And on a different subject... I came accross a new article about a Doctor, expert in Wilson's Disease, that you had started from an obit and tagged it for additional sources. There are many available other than his death notice and he has been in several books. I'd hate for wiki to lose that one and it is well worth expansion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional sources would be useful, but I have never seen an article supported by a full-length New York Times obituary (even without other sources) deleted for notability concerns (nominated, though, as in the case of Nicholas Hughes). Bongomatic 03:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)