User talk:MichaelQSchmidt/Archive 017

Through May 2011

Take a look when you get a moment

Hello Michael, I found some new links on Tait. Take a look at my talk page when you get a chance. Thank you

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

Note

I started Samuel Benedict (film producer) after blue linking Nick Benedict an actor who appeared in the recent Memories of Murder (1990 film) AFD article you know. However I cannot find a single source to support it aside from imdb. Can you help? Dr. Blofeld 16:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If you can't I will delete it. Please respond. Dr. Blofeld 21:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I will do some digging. Pity his name is shared by notable chemists and clerics. I'll report back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Film cleanup

Hi Michael - I've added a section on the co-ordinators page here. Input welcome. Lugnuts (talk) 08:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Michael, you may be interested in this link that identifies newly-created articles about films: User:AlexNewArtBot/FilmsSearchResult. One of the tasks we'll need to do is to assess each new film article in the proper class (most likely Stub- or Start-class for the most part). Some editors who created new articles may be new editors to reach out to and welcome into the fold. I'm still considering the best approach for this, such as having a more casual-sounding welcome template than {{WPFILMS Invite}}. If you have any ideas, let me know. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This may also be useful where article creation tends to be sloppy. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

When I return home from work, I will be quite willing to begin dropping these new users some friendly notes... thanking them on their contributions and advising strongly on the importance of references in reliable sources so as to have their articles meet WP:NF or WP:BLP... and I think it would be prudent to also include (where appplcable) links to WP:TOOSOON#Films or WP:TOOSOON#Actors, a "Find sources" created for their title, and with perhaps links to some of the other various other DIY welcoming pages... plus an invitation for them to review my Newcomer's guide. Friendly enough? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup! :) I was thinking about your newcomer's guide especially. I was just trying to figure how much information to give them. I don't want to bombard them, and I have no idea what first impressions are like for them. Mine was way too long ago. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to say, thanks for this and this! Mike Allen 00:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Evil Things

Hi. I'm bringing your attention to the article for Evil Things, which is currently a bit of a mess, especially regarding in-line referencing and external links. As a contributor to many articles, was wondering if you could help clean it up? FilmFan2011 (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

On it now. Have begun cleanup and sourcing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I feel I should also bring your attention to a number of sub-par film articles including Dark Nature, Deadwood (film), Jack Says and Jack Said, with the latter making no distinction whatsoever between the film and the graphic novel, which I feel needs a seperate article.

I'll look in after more work on Evil Things. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

I also noticed that Imogen Toner is now in two movie articles on wiki. One I started - Dark Nature, and also The Inheritance (2007 film). I am toying with the idea of writing an article on her. Do you advise this, and would she qualify? FilmFan2011 (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Imogen Toner's film career is fairly short,[1] so she'll appear a bit weak on meeting WP:ENT... UNLESS you show a more sourcable notability through her theater work, citing positive theater reviews with sourced analysis in a reception section,[2][3][4][5][6][7] and then simply include in the overall article that she has also done films. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking for a teacher...

Hello friend. Im trying to fix some articles about the history of the Spanish presence in Manhattan and the former district known as Little Spain. But my articles are a mess as you wrote on the deleteion discussion of Artur Balder. I will try to do my best, but some rewriting and fixing of code will be more than wellcome, just in case you could read them. Thanks anyway!! --Lolox76 (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll look into both and see what I can do. Patience. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

film project

See here for main topic. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Silent films

Michael, some silent film entries who have great posters/or lobby cards you might want to take a look at or work on. Once again links in E.Links section. Hope you enjoy these as much as I do:

• A Girl of Yesterday(1915) Done!
• Raffles the Amateur Cracksman(1917) Done!
• Raffles(1925) Done!
• If I Were King(1920) Done!
• The Enchanted Cottage(1924) Done!
• Three Women(1924) Done!
• Madame X(1920) Done!
• Footlights(1921) Done!
• The Pagan(1929) Done!
• The Goose Woman(1925) Done!
• While the City Sleeps(1928) Done!
• Human Wreckage(1923) Done!
• The Bells(1926) Done!
• A Kiss for Cinderella(1926) Done!
• The Eternal City(1923) Done!
• Aloma of the South Seas(1926) Done!
• Declassee(1925) Done!

• Quincy Adams Sawyer(1922) Done!
• The Mystic(1925) Done!
• Wildflower(1914) Done!
• The Pretty Sister of Jose(1915) Done!
• Hearts in Exile(1929) Done!
• Under the Red Robe(1923) Done!
• The Ghost Breaker(1922) Done!
• The Charm School(1921) Done!
• Rent Free(1922) Done!
• Kick In(1923) Done!
• Adam's Rib(1923 film) Done!
• Triumph(1924) Done!
• The Coast of Folly(1925) Done!
• Stage Struck(1925) Done!
• The Young Rajah(1922) Done!
• The Affairs of Anatol(1921) Done!

Koplimek (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice one

with Frontier boys. Care to cast an eye over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meesam Zaidi? I think there might be notability there (and the speech referenced makes interesting reading as I see it - different from the rabble-rousing I expected. I can't access the videos (wouldn't understand them anyway) - but there must be something somewhere. It just can't stand as it is. Thanks if you can. Peridon (talk) 12:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Will look in later today. Best. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Guideline

Just read your little treatise. Brilliant. Should be linked to the New Article Wizard with a tick box for 'I have read'. I have been cheeky and corrected a typo - proofreading being a habit I find hard to suppress. (I get extremely irritated on other sites where I can't find an 'edit' button.) (I've been known to correct things in articles that were 75% certain to be deleted - just in case.) Peridon (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Just got home from work. Long day. Nothing "cheeky" about checking my spelling, as I make my fair share of typos. I figure the essay is some 97% finished. I just hope when It goes to mainspace that editors respect the nutshell advisory to honor my intentional use of the KISS principle... as it is the obfuscation of so many guidelines that alienates and/or confuses newbs. I intend for it to hit the highights and give a decent hand up. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Since you're also an actor...

An actress whose article got deleted is asking me for help. If the deleting admin userfies or incubates this will you be willing to work on it? So far the 2 interested parties both have a conflict of interest. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Would be glad to help out. As soon as I see the link User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/Bree Michael Warner turn blue, I'll have a look and see what I might do... and I'll also advise User:RMPhillips to look in and watch my progress. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see what can be done and report back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Bree Michael Warner page

Hey Michael!

I saw that Ron Ritzman sent you a note above about the page for Bree Michael Warner. Thank you soooooo much for jumping on board and helping out! I tried to keep the page clean and concise but I'm still learning the language of wikipedia and I'm being told that there's a conflict of interest since I worked with this Actress. Let me know how I can be of any assistance. thank you again, it was a wonderful surprise!RMPhillips (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll go through the one now userfied. What is importatnt is to remember to not include extraneous or trivial bits of information, to avoid superlatives in descriptions, and to keep the article neutral in tone and well-sourced. I'll check back with you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Escape from Planet Earth

I just saw this headline today. It may be a worthwhile article about a project in development, as we do not have the article Escape from Planet Earth. Here's a headline a couple of years old, too. Might be a good example of a project article with some legal fun looming ahead. What do you think? I had a long day, so I'm not going to create anything for now. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Just heading out to a gig. Will check further in some 6 hours. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Coordinator notification

Hello, MichaelQSchmidt. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Coordinators#Taking the long view.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Full Cycle A World Odyssey

Michael, I am requesting your assistance with my latest article about Full Cycle: A World Odyssey, the Endless Summer on mountain bikes. Unfortunately, I did not name it correctly. User:Pattymooney/Enter your new article name here How can we change the name? And what do you think we should change it to? The full title, or simply World Odyssey? Also, do you want to place it at your User site, as you were kind enough to do with The Great Mountain Biking Video? Hope all is well on your end of the world. Just back from a 10-hour "run 'n gun" video production and I think I'm going to collapse in front of the TV now! TigerCherry 02:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Just got home. At the top of an article's page is the "move" tab... so I used it to "move" the draft to User:Pattymooney/Full Cycle: A World Odyssey per the title listing at Rotten Tomatoes.[8][9] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Michael, that was just driving me crazy! ha ha TigerCherry 19:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pattymooney (talk • contribs)

I have polished it up and now believe it is ready for public consumption. What say you? There may be a couple of redundant references.... How do I fix that? TigerCherry 23:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pattymooney (talk • contribs)

Hello Michael, I don't want to violate any COI in regards to this article. I would appreciate if you would look it over and make any necessary edits, then decide if you think it is appropriate for main space. Patty Mooney (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll be happy to look in. I'll keep you posted. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Michael, How are you doing? It's been several months, so have you had a chance to take a look? Please let me know how to get it posted. Thanks! Patty Mooney (talk) 02:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Future films

Reply archived now, User_talk:Chzz/Archive_30#Input_please. - sorry; my talk page is busy.  Chzz  ►  00:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Busy is good. Hope you have time to comment in the discussion I have opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Future films#Proposed ammendment to section on Process#Notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Golden oldies

Awesome. i'll look tomorrow. Magic (upcoming film)is up for AFD. It would seem notable with Robert Davi but I can find very little on it to actually prove it was even released...♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find. At the minimum, and as its development DOES have coverage, the short article can be redirected temporarily to the Davi article. No need to delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Keltz

Greetings MQS. I write regarding the above actor. An article was created about him yesterday afternoon. The article was one sentence long and devoid of sourcing. Somebody immediately speedy-nom'd it as an A7. I Googled him and there appears to be very substantial coverage of this actor now (and I added two reliable sources to support that to the article). Regardless, after I declined the Speedy and added some sourcing, the article was re-speedy-nom'd as a G4 (recreation of article that was deleted) and subsequently deleted. Regardless, I write to inquire about your opinion on this, seeing as in early 2010 you agreed that a previous article about this actor should be deleted. Try a Google search on him and see if you agree with me that he now deserves an article because of the decent amount of coverage that now exists (as opposed to what little coverage likely existed in early 2010) (I suspect this was a very lazy G4 deletion). Thoughts? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

User:RHaworth may have been a bit too quick, and it may have simply been a procedural error in which missed the denied speedy or improvements. Write him, just as you wrote me. Explain that while the article was deleted back in February 2010 for then lacking sourcable notability, the deletion consensus seemed to be that it be done without prejudice, and that the individual might be suitable topic after time had passd and the actor received more coverage. Share with him your new sources, and point out that the passage of 14 months since the original deletion has indeed brought the coverage that was initially lacking. Ask for him to reverse himself, and he probably will. In the meantime, continue building a decent and well sourced stub in a userspace and be ready to overwrite the returned article.. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

We disagree about a few things when it comes to notability, MQS, but you are a very wise individual. Cheers. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the note you left on my talk page about this draft, I'm sorry but it will be Monday at the earliest before I have time to even look at it so you may wish to ask other editors in the meantime. The Wikipedia:Requests for feedback page might be useful in this regard, but I don't know much about how it works or how active it is. Thryduulf (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. I just thought it prudent to get input from those who had previous had an opinion about its speedy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that looks like a Wikipedia article. If it had been put together and referenced in that form in the first place nobody would have even considered any type of deletion, let alone a speedy or prod. Seems clearly ready to go live and let improvements flow naturally from people who wish to improve it. Awesome work, as always. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a bit more expansion? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd just as soon leave that up to you. I think it's a fine article as-is -- certainly one that I doubt would be questioned as a valid inclusion. And, frankly, I think if you have something that is valid for inclusion it should be included, whether it could be expanded before posting it or not. Put with more frankness, I think I let myself get a bit riled over this because as far as I'm concerned one particularly nifty thing about Wikipedia has always been that you can, in theory, post a 1-2 sentence article about a notable topic and then let people who actually give a damn about said topic improve the article. I have created only one article on Wikipedia, and it was (at the time) an article about a probably non-notable subject and one which was formatted horribly (it actually still is, come to think of it), but it's now a pretty not-bad article. I didn't create the Jonathan Keltz article and have no idea who Jonathan Keltz is; my thinking behind trying to prevent its deletion was that I was confident that there are likely a number of people out there who would be interested in improving it. So...erm...that was a lot of words, all to the effect of: I think you should just post it :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well... I have been a bit busy of late doing what I can to change various film redlinks for director Lewis Milestone to blue... and seeing how bitey certain editors are toward short articles, I have done what I could to begin them as "starts" and not "stubs". This in mind, I'll probably do just a little bit more before turning Keltz loose... but only a little. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

My Favorite Rabbit Inclusionist

Just read your talk page (first time in a while), about rabid inclusionism, I more likened you to a rabbit inclusionist...but that's just me. Question for you...Is Fox 2000 the same as 20th Century Fox? See the note at the end of the good doctor and my's latest project. Good night, and be well. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Michael, Perhaps I should wikilink the redirect, so that if it gets spun off into a new article it is linked to the correct location. Cheers, --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

A very good idea. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You might find this interesting

New tool, courtesy of SnottyWong, it's a work-in-progress and currently butt-ugly, but interesting nevertheless. pablo 08:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

HOLY CRAP. His tool shows me to be a deletionist ! ! ! My own records goes back over a year and shows even more delete votes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Ha! I can't argue that butt-ugly is the right term to use to describe it. Been trying to recruit Jack to help out with that, since I'm terrible at making things look nice, but he's been ignoring me. Anyway, here's a somewhat easier link to use: http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/afdstats.html MQS, if you look at your last 250 AfD's, it shows your voting habits are rather centrist, and quite accurate. It's not often that an AfD closes differently from the way you voted. Most of your votes are in the "green" area. Compare this, for example, to someone like Dream Focus, and you'll begin to see why this tool is useful. —SW— ^prattle 04:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a way to gather stats on a user, sure. But tells us what we already pretty much know. By comparison to Dream Focus' 96% keep,[10] we have Bali Ultimate (no offense to him), whose stats seem to mirror Dream's but in the opposite direction with a 96% deletes.[11] So we have a neccessary yin and yang and both are required for a balanced universe. But statistics do little to actually determine either the positive or negative effects of any particular user's edits. A better tool I suppose is one that tells us about a user's contributions in building the encyclopdia. I have 44 articles created, Dream has 38 and you have 31 compared to Bali's 9 But even such contribution tools fail to show my 49 articles created (as 5 of the 49 were co-created), my 360 articles pulled back from the brink of deletion through a litle effort, my 58 DYKs, my 38 barnstars, my 7 articles returned from incubation to serve the project, or the essays I've completed to guide others,. But still, it is nice to be seen as both centrist and accurate, even by someone who often disagees with me. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Why mention me again? We had this discussion before. It shows that most of the things I say "Keep" end, end up as being kept? Your tool also shows plenty of times where you tried to delete something that ends up being kept. [12] Why not add in an automatic counter to keep track of things, if you are trying to keep score for some reason. By only getting the last 250 though, instead of a total view from the start, you results just change over time. Dream Focus 05:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Sweat it not. Statistics are only tools, and with respect to Snotty Wong for his work, tools can build and tools can tear down... all depending on who is wielding them. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The tool is purposely limited to 250 pages to prevent it from using too many server resources. Remember, each time you search it is actually downloading the text of all 250 of those AfD's and then searching through them. It has to download the text from the wiki servers because the toolserver servers don't store article text. I could change the limit to be higher than 250, but I think that would be irresponsible at this time. Note that I have recently added a feature which allows you to start at an earlier date, so if you really wanted to, you could make multiple queries to go further back in time. —SW— ^talk 14:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Summary with %age red / green (out of red+green) and/or red / green / yellow out of all might be interesting. ^Bongo_matic 15:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. —SW— ^soliloquize 14:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Think it might also be interesting to have a similar tool which analyzes admins' AfD closing statistics, but that's a larger project for another day. —SW— ^squeal 15:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)