User talk:MikeAllen/August 2011-October 2011

August 2011

The Story of Bonnie and Clyde

Hello Mike. Why do you think the article "does not meet Wikipedia's content criteria"? The article is referenced and the content is verifiable by reliable sources.[1] We have even a category for this kind of films, see Category:Upcoming films. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, WP:FILM has a guideline for upcoming films that have not started filming yet at WP:NFF. The film is sourced (I found a source saying filming would start back in March but that did not happen obviously. Then some sources were saying Duff would not be in the film, etc), but it actually fails the notability guideline since there really is not a film at this point. Right now the project is in pre-production stages. Who knows if the film will even happen at all. That's why WP:NFF is in place. When cameras roll, then there is a high chance the film will be released and that's when a film gets an article. The exceptions are high profile projects/blockbusters like The Dark Knight Rises, The Hobbit (articles started out as a "(film project)", like the current Man of Steel (film project)). I hope that explains it. If you have more questions you can ask at WT:FILM. —Mike Allen 22:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Further, the Upcoming Films category is for films awaiting release or is in the process of filming. Note that the article (along with its history of contributions) was moved to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/The Story of Bonnie and Clyde for the time being. —Mike Allen 22:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I trust your competence in this area. Thanks for the explanation. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM July 2011 Newsletter

The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film 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. We are also seeking new members to assist in writing the newsletter, if interested please leave a note on the Outreach department's talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Pirates

Since you helped with the Peer review of Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, could you take a look at the article now? I've put up to a GA nomination (which I need to pass before the 20th), and need some input. Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 16:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi I've never done a GA review, but I'm very aware of the criteria (I've gotten 5 up to GA recently; 4 being film articles). I'll be more than happy to make this my first. —Mike Allen 00:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

PS. I can't believe it's been a year since I reviewed the article. Time flies.. —Mike Allen 00:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on it, and so far it is on hold. I've seeing some problems, but so far they can be fixed by the retention date. —Mike Allen 00:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Started addressing the GA comments, see if anything can be added. (I'll address things like punctuation and refs later...) igordebraga ≠ 18:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That's the only thing left to do. —Mike Allen 02:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Punctuation fixing is done. See if it's good enough now. igordebraga ≠ 23:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Hey I know you decided you jumped the gun on that particular instance (and I concur) but I wanted to let you know in case you run into a potential sock that you can report via twinkle, which makes it all nice and easy and posts the required notification on the user's page. If you use twinkle, when you're on the user's page, look for the ARV link in the Twinkle drop down list. The pop-up you get from that has another drop down at the top for report type. From there you pick SPI. Am I making any sense? I take screenies and send you an email if not. Millahnna (talk) 07:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

No I do use Twinkle, but I rarely report anyone so I didn't know that ARV included a way to report SPI. Ah I love automatic tools. Thanks. :) —Mike Allen 07:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Silk Purse Award

		Silk Purse Award
		I am both pleased and honored to present you with the Silk Purse Award in appreciation for your improvements to the The Naked Monster article, helping to change what was seen as a sow's ear into a silk purse. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC))

inre User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines

You are cordially invited to User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines as I feel its going live is imminent and I value additional eyes and input. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you've covered a lot of important grounds in the essay. I like it. Good work. :) —Mike Allen 03:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Smurfs

I just sat through that wretched movie, and yes, Narrator Smurf is shown on screen. Czolgolz (talk) 03:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't know why the production notes say 3 Smurfs were created for the film..

There are 102 Smurfs in the village (100 male Smurfs, one Papa, and one Smurfette). For this

film, the Smurfs introduce three never-before-named

Smurfs: Crazy, Gutsy and Panicky - Source

—Mike Allen 03:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that Panicky didn't actually appear in the movie. I kind of hate myself for even discussing this. http://smurfs.wikia.com/wiki/Panicky_Smurf and http://smurfs.wikia.com/wiki/Narrator_Smurf Czolgolz (talk) 14:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks for that. —Mike Allen 00:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

All such assistance much apppreciated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Roseanne Barr

As you probably know this is up for Good Article review. I left a note at the nominators page, but he does not appear very active at the moment. Since you seem to be a major editor on this article and it is not far from passing, I was hoping you might be able to respond. Link Talk:Roseanne Barr/GA1 AIRcorn (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

See you have already noticed that I have passed this. Thanks for taking over. AIRcorn (talk) 11:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. :) —Mike Allen 12:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Film article question

MichaelQSchmidt classed a film article that I've been working on as C class while also recommending that I ask another WikiProject Film coordinator to compare it to B class criteria. The article is S&Man. It took a bit of time to find a coordinator that wasn't retired, semi retired, or just stopped editing in 2010. Joe Chill (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. However, is The Texas Chainsaw Massacre supposed to be the remake (that is linked) or the original film? —Mike Allen 00:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I meant it to be the original film. I will fix that. Joe Chill (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw that you resized the image. How would I go about doing that myself? Joe Chill (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Download Paint.net and load an image in the program. At the top click Image > Resize. Put in 300 as Width (make sure Maintain aspect ratio is checked) and click save. —Mike Allen 01:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. That will be very useful. Joe Chill (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Box office

I believe there is a major problem with box-office sections. There are so many things one can write and there are no guidelines. Therefore some other editors keep deleting data while others ask me if I can expand other box-office sections. I think it's time to specify what is needed in a box office section and what not. I just don't know where to go. Should I start a discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film? Thank you in advance.

Spinc5 (talk) 09:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I would start it at WT:MOSFILM and let editors know at WT:FILM. Good idea. —Mike Allen 09:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

My thanks

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		I am honored to award you this Barnstar for your work in catching my typos and your valued assistance in bringing Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers to life for the community. It is hoped that newcomers will benefit from WP:NewbieGuide for years to come. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Footloose

Now I know I'm getting old. I can't frigging read that road sign in the trailer (I'm only 35, wtf). Nice catch...thanks for stepping in there homie. The back and forth was giving me whiplash. :D Millahnna (talk) 02:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's a screenshot from the trailer.  :) —Mike Allen 02:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh. Clear as a bell. Does it go by super fast in the trailer or am I just getting distracted by ... oh look a shiny! Millahnna (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I think like 2-3 secs. —Mike Allen 04:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll blame that then. And a tiny monitor. And the shinies. :D Millahnna (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Rise refs discussion

Thanks (sincerely) for putting this up for debate. Despite some time here, I don't know my way around arguing points of contention as much as I probably should. It's a bit trial and error, which is perhaps not the most elegant way of learning, but I hereby concede to more experienced minds. Thanks for the civil demonstration, and I apologize for any awkward toe-stepping. –TashTish (talk) 05:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem that's why I put it up for deletion to get a consensus on it's fate. Some of the information is probably usable in the main article, but within prose and with commentary. Not a list of each reference. And I'm honest this is something that would probably be great for the film's Wikia page like it's presented now. —Mike Allen 06:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

Research

Hi, Mike. I put together an advisory page based on my experience researching film. Check it out here and let me know what you think! Erik (talk | contribs) 17:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure editors will find these tips very useful. I know I will. :) I would think by now that someone would write about Saw in a book.. but all I get is someone who has copied all the Saw Wikipedia articles and created a book about it that sells for $20! That's nice to know... —Mike Allen 23:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder! We should be excluding that "author" from results. How about this? Do you want access to that article? I also found this and this with chapters about Saw by searching horror saw in WorldCat then choosing "Performing arts" and choosing the most recent years. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah thanks for the tips. How would I get access to that book, all of the libraries listed were not local. :( —Mike Allen 02:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You're comment is needed

Hey Mike, can you comment at Talk:The Bad Girls Club (season 7)#Proposal of Bad Girls Club cast section biography? Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Box office info

I cannot remember if you like to keep discussion on one talk page, so I'll put this here for now. Personally, I think if you want to include records the franchise broke, that's cool. But, I wouldn't talk about opening weekends unless they broke a record, where it placed in a weekend next to another film, or anything that isn't truly notable to the franchise as a whole. Each of the film's has its own page and you don't want to look like you're just duplicating information. I also wouldn't talk about worldwide grossings because you already have a table that lists the worldwide gross. So, unless the worldwide gross is significant itself then let the table talk about it. Additionally, if you're just comparing Saw film to Saw film then the table does that for you as well. Other than that, accomplishments would be just fine in that section. Most of the other franchises didn't have a lot of accomplishments early on. Friday the 13th and Halloween broke some records with their remakes, but most of the other films just won their opening weekend and then died off quickly. I don't find it pertinent to talk about the success of one film in those franchises if the others didn't do anything, especially since I think that both of those franchises that broke records (exception to the original Halloween which broke the record for independent films) have since lost those records.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Sk8erock

Are you having problems with this user as well? — Status {^talk_contribs  02:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

A few months ago he kept uploading a non free image that the copyright owner requested the WMF to take down (DMCA take down notice). I see he still disregards Wikipedia's rules and tries to brush it away by blanking his page. —Mike Allen 02:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

WP:FILM September 2011 Newsletter

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

Hello, can you please indicate whether or not you'll be standing for re-election in the coordinator election for WikiProject Film? You can do so here. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Glad to know you'll be returning! Don't forget to create a section for yourself. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 17:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Sanctum

Mike, you reverted my standardising in the references in the Sanctum article. I only changed the reference dates to the abbreviated format, not the article dates. Could you explain to me the meaning of the guidance given in the "In References" sub-section of DATES in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers.Lexysexy (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you show me what article that dates are presented in that format for references? Dates should be the same int he article, which means the references too. WP:MONTH says "Abbreviations such as Feb. in the United States or Feb in most other countries are used only where space is extremely limited, such as in tables and infoboxes". —Mike Allen 23:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Mike, you haven't answered my question.Lexysexy (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I see that section now but I've never seen references in that format before. It's usually not a good idea to come in and change a working format to something different. Personally, I wouldn't abbreviate anywhere other than in tables/infobox. —Mike Allen 00:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology, such as it is. I actually read the style manual before I changed the date format in the Sanctum references (in connection with an article I am composing at the moment), and it was that which triggered me to do so. There's not much point in referring people to a guide that you choose not to follow!Lexysexy (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I have not studied every style guideline like it's some type of homework. You also changed a date format in the article and thus my original comment still stands. But are you are more than welcomed to change whatever you like in the article to your liking. Happy editing! —Mike Allen 07:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I did too (in one place)! Woe is me (smacks forehead with open palm). That's show biz for you.Lexysexy (talk) 09:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks MikeAllen for helping to promote Saw (film) to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 02:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! It's an article that gets ~2k views every day, so I'm proud I could provide more information to the article. :) —Mike Allen 03:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No probs, just remember to give someone a pat on the back, preferable a barnstar, if they do a good deed. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 10:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)]]

Resident Evil: Retribution

Having looked over the lead again, there is a wikilink directly to the film franchise page in the first paragraph, and many other long-running film series articles (Superman, Star Trek, Friday the 13th, etc.) also do not enumerate the entire series of preceding films in every article. MSJapan (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I see it now, it's little vague. I'll get around to changing the RE articles. —Mike Allen 21:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Marilyn

Hey! I was wondering if you could help me with My Week with Marilyn? It's the first film article I've worked on from scratch, so I'm a little unsure of a few things. Could you help me work out who the studios are for the infobox? Also, can a reception section be started for a film that hasn't been released yet? I was reading a Vogue article the other day and the writer has seen the film and offered his opinion. - JuneGloom Talk 23:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey June! Not a problem. I've removed the US release date in the infobox since only the first release and the "home county" release should be included. For the production companies, the poster reveals BBC Films, LipSync Productions and The Weinstein Company. Trademark Films is also credited as producing, see their website which also confirms the above. IMDb list Entertainment Film Distributors as the distributor in the UK. I think Weinstein Company handles the US distribution, see Box Office Mojo. Yeah, all of this can get confusing. :P You may add reviews before the film is released. Also I added cinematographer Ben Smithard per this and editor Adam Recht per his site. Very well done article! :) —Mike Allen 00:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I was thoroughly confused by all the production companies/studios/distributors, thank you so much for sorting them out. :) I knew who the cinematographer was, but completely forgot about adding him to the infobox! He gave a great interview to British Cinematographer magazine, which I've started to use in the article. I need to finish adding the rest of the info to the filming section soon. I have another quick question about the cast in the infobox. It's simply, who should be listed there? Do I go by the poster or is there another system? - JuneGloom Talk 12:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I would go by the poster, yes. —Mike Allen 23:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The reviews are starting to come out and I'm already overwhelmed. I have no idea where to start. - JuneGloom Talk 21:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Start with the "Top Critics" first. See here. :) —Mike Allen 22:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This article has made me realise I cannot sum up and paraphrase film reviews to save my life. - JuneGloom Talk 19:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah me too! That and writing plot is what I dread when working on film articles. Some film reviews are better than others though, since some critics are kind enough to actually REVIEW the film instead of either writing a synopsis of the film and saying like "It was worth seeing". Whenever it's time to nominate for a good article, just let me know and I'll be glad to review it for you. —Mike Allen 03:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Argh, the plot! I forgot I'll have to write that too. I had a nightmare of a time writing out a plot for a book I haven't read yet yesterday. If the article ever gets to GAN, I'd be most grateful if you'd review it. Thank you. :) - JuneGloom Talk 10:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Bad Girls Club

Hey Mike,

I was wondering if you have found any critical reception that I could add for the Bad Girls Club article? I only had found those already listed in that section, I was hoping you have a bunch more that I could expand. Thanks, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 01:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The only review I had found was the Variety one that I gave to you a while back. I see you did a better job than me in finding reviews, the critical reception part looks great. I also like the new cast table, so much polished than the skittle table. :) Well, never mind I just found a New York Times review and CinemaBlend review.

Here are some more Variety reports about ratings:

• Oxygen renews 'Bad Girls Club'
• 'Bad Girls Club' packs for Miami
• 'Bad Girls' find new home —Mike Allen 02:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :) I'm glad you liked the new format, I'm still trying to get the article to GA status (not giving up). It just went through a review, but with help from WP:GOCE the prose will be fixed. I'll add these reviews as well. Thanks again, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 02:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Scream 4

I've seen movie-censorship.com being used as a source on MANY pages on Wikipedia. Or are you going to go change all of those, too? What is the problem that it can't be used here? Do you have some obsession with this page being kept ill-informed? Wikipedia should be used to inform people. There are screencaps and line by line lists of the changes, there is no reason for any of that to be forged. Alexisfan07 12 October 2011

What about the content above movie-censorship that is only supported by Scream-Trilogy. I'm only one person, or I would go and through and delete movie-censorship because it's usually only used to list indiscriminate "differences" from the theatrical version from the DVD. —Mike Allen 22:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Normally I would agree that the changes were minimal but the changes here were pretty extensive. The movie-censorship site only takes into account newly added lines and even demarcates that there are a lot of re-dubbed lines but doesn't bother talking about those. If this were a minor release (say the unrated cut of the first film) I could see why mentioning it seemed irrelevant but the "PPV cut" is literally every release outside of the region 1/A (U.S., Canada, Mexico). I don't mean to bother you with it, it just seems like relevant information. Alexisfan07 12 October 2011

Wikipedia goes by what is in reliable sources report, not necessarily what "we" would think should go in. If reliable sources talk about the PPV cut, then it is considered notable enough to be in Wikipedia. If fansites talk about it, it's not notable. That's how Wikipedia works. I know it's hard to tell sometimes when you look at other underdeveloped articles, but Wikipedia is huge website with very little editors (compared to the number of articles). It's hard to keep every article in check with policies and guidelines. —Mike Allen 06:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The Expendables II

You might want to slide on your editing golves and head over to The Expendables II. It's getting quite out of hand with IP contributions with a hell of alot of unsourced claims, while other sources are from things like Youtube. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 22:09 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey you can probably request WP:RPP to help combat the unwanted edits. —Mike Allen 01:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I couldn't remember if I said thanks for reviewing Horrible Bosses so thank you (again perhaps) Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. I was going to review Fast Five, but I seen on the talk page that it was still going through a peer review so I backed off. If you are interested in the American Pie films, the American Reunion trailer was released, here. —Mike Allen 01:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I wonder what the hell happened here? —Mike Allen 01:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been reading since I started on the article that people were confused how they would be able to complete the CGI effects in time. I guess those concerns were right. The complete lack of marketing on top makes me think it just turned out to be a bad film. Releasing it potentially in early 2012 didn't work well for Scream 4 and still not even a poster. Just doesn't seem to be getting any support from TWC. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh man that American Pie trailer. Always fun to see Alyson Hannigan barely dressed. The third one wasn't particularly good though so I don't have any high hopes for the new one. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen American Wedding in so long I can't remember most of it. I may see this one in theaters, it's from the same writers as Harold and Kumar, so I have some faith. About Piranha I am just curious what Marcus and Patrick thought up. Oh and lol at this. Good old anonymous editing. —Mike Allen 00:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 WikiProject Film coordinator election

Voting for WikiProject Film's October 2011 project coordinator election has started. We are aiming to select five coordinators to serve for the next year; please take a moment from editing to vote here by October 29! Erik (talk | contribs) 12:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Toast

	Some toast for you!
	Thanks for making Wikipedia a better place to be with your contributions. Sorry all I can offer is dry toast - next time I'll provide a spread. ;) Pinkstrawberry02™ talk 01:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't forge to sign my guestbook please! Thank you.

Footloose 2011 film

Hello. You reverted out, without discussion, an edit I made to the Footloose (2011 film) article which spaced out the reviews. They seemed to have been visually confusing aggregated as it was and now is again. Hence, the intended change. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Reverts don't really require a discussion since what I did was explained in the edit summary. I don't see how it is confusing, all GA and FAs write prose that way. I think it's unappealing to put each review in one paragraph. I try and add no more than two reviews for a paragraph, the blue links help guide readers through the prose. —Mike Allen 01:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Well, what one sees might be subjective. That's your style with reviews, as you've explained. Most reverts, out of courtesy, except for blatant content-damaging, usually require some kind of parlance between senior editors. No one person owns an article despite projects. Anyway, thanks, and we'll leave it as it is for now. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I never said I owned any pages on Wikipedia and if my actions show otherwise--I'm sorry. If you would have reverted back I would have started a discussion on the talk page, but I didn't feel the need to after one revert with an edit summary. —Mike Allen 01:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Very good. All's well. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 03:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Act of Valor

I have created the film page for the movie with real Navy SEALS. You're more than welcome to take a glance over. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:06 20 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Hope that helps! —Mike Allen 08:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It sure does. Cheers. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 11:50 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

File:PNHP poster.jpg	For your help achiving Good Article status for Roseanne Barr
	Please accept this Physicians for a National Health Program poster in kind thanks for your help with the Roseanne Barr article. I had left Wikipedia and without your improvements, nobody would have been around to address the reviewer's concerns. Dualus (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

hello. i love ur work and u look cute lol. from me (Allira Allen) please send me something Allira.allen (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

An assessment

As I am the article's 22X expander, I am asking if you could check Umbrage (film) to confirm that it meets requirements for promotion to "B" class. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it satisfies the B-Class criteria, specifically number 2 since there is no production section. A C-class would be more appropriate for now, I think. —Mike Allen 05:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll look into the various interviews of the director to see what he shares... and maybe even find something more reliable for the budget. It was a blast to bring in from the cold. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The Copyeditor's Barnstar

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Thanks much for coming over to Umbrage (film) and improving on my expansion, thus proving the adage "Many hands make light work. Good job! Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Any suggestions for a suitable DYK?  :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

Thanks. To be honest I've never done a DYK before. Do you just come up with an interesting "trivia-like" question/answer.

BTW, here is a "reliable source" Custom Google Search to help in your expanding adventures. It's a tad helpful than regular google search. :) (I tried doing some searches using the custom search engine for Umbrage but didn't get any results :-S ) —Mike Allen 08:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

RE: BLP signs

Wikipedia:Signatures of living persons is still being discussed to know when and why the signatures should be used. In general, any image (including signatures) should be added if it is relevant to the article (Oprah's sign is relevant because she uses it in her show). Personally I don't believe that BLP signatures should be used as they can be falsified by other people. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if they have their own WP:G7, but you can use their AFD Commons:Deletion policy. The signature can be asked for deletion but I don't know if it will be deleted. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello MikeAllen/August 2011-October 2011! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Office Hours

Hey MikeAllen/August 2011-October 2011! I'm just dropping you a message because you've commented on (or expressed an interest in) the Article Feedback Tool in the past. If you don't have any interest in it any more, ignore the rest of this message :).

If you do still have an interest or an opinion, good or bad, we're holding an office hours session tomorrow at 19:00 GMT/UTC in #wikimedia-office to discuss completely changing the system. In attendance will be myself, Howie Fung and Fabrice Florin. All perspectives, opinions and comments are welcome :).

I appreciate that not everyone can make it to that session - it's in work hours for most of North and South America, for example - so if you're interested in having another session at a more America-friendly time of day, leave me a message on my talkpage. I hope to see you there :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Box-office guidelines discussion

This is a neutral notice that you were involved in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 35#Overly detailed box office sections for Disney films, and may wish to participate in a discussion about changes to WP:FILM box-office guidelines, at WT:MOSFILM#Box office revision.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The Smurfs.

You can't erase a cartoon review in the smurfs movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.32.52 (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I did, and I will do it again. —Mike Allen 02:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Stats

"Henrik hasn't edited since March", you told. OK. But do you know why Wikipedia administrators don't try to solve the problem ? Thanks a lot for your attention. Best regards. IP, 31 October 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.14.91.177 (talk) 08:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

From what I gather, the stats are not official and the Wikimedia Foundation does not operate it. It's a beta service and only Henrik is in control of it. It goes out every month or so, but it always comes back online. I think the best way to contact Henrik when it's down is by email. —Mike Allen 09:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)