Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:47, 2 April 2009

Archive 001, Archive 002, Archive 003, Archive 004

Ongoing Running Waters discussion

On a film shoot March 25-27 and will have limited Wiki access

So if you post a message and I do not get back to you right away, do not feel that you are being ignored or snubbed. When I get back home the evning of March 27th, I'll be doing a lot of catching up. However, I will check in before then as I am able. Schmidt, 23:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Self-published and questionable sources about themselves

• WP:SELFPUB

An important lesson from Misplaced Pages... and I quote:

Self-published and questionable sources may only be used as sources about themselves, and only if:

1. the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject being discussed;
2. it is not contentious;
3. it is not unduly self-serving;
4. it does not involve claims about third parties;
5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
7. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

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

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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 18:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply re: Misplaced Pages: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, 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 Misplaced Pages 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, 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, 23:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Some refs:, , , (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, 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, 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, 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 Pyfan! 06:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Oli 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 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, 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 ], 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, 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 Misplaced Pages: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.

WP:FILMS Coordinator nominations

The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process has recently begun! We are aiming to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on March 14! Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

unblock and clear log

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): User maintains that no offense or incivility was intended. Unblocked per discussion on talkpage: Request handled by: — Gwalla | Talk 21:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

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, 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, 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)

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)

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 22:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure. How can I tell if one is a scanalation or not? Schmidt, 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 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, 00:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And thanks. Your courtesy is most appreciated. Schmidt, 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 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, 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 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, 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, 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 Misplaced Pages 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, 04:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!

On behalf of the Misplaced Pages:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Misplaced Pages:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A Nobody 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 Misplaced Pages, 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, 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, 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.wikipedia.org/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, 17:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Already have (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/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 Misplaced Pages 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, 20:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Michael, it's been done, tell me what you think of it (http://en.wikipedia.org/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, 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, 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, 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 /_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, 01:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

—S Marshall /_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

— raeky  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, 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 21:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No harm, no foul. Actually quite happy to be watched over. Schmidt, 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, Misplaced Pages: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, 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, 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 Misplaced Pages 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, 02:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Coordinator Election

The WikiProject Films coordinator voting process has recently begun! We are aiming to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are still interested in running, please sign up here. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by March 28. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:10, 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, 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). . 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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  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, 17:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Will do. :P — raeky  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, 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, 21:41, 30 March 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

WikiProject Films March 2009 Newsletter

The March 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) 00:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)