Hello, Netwriter, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! The Wookieepedian23:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tony - I got in touch with the admin who signed off on the deletion of the Redshirt Filmette Series article about your further options, specifically if it is open to Userfication whilst you work on changing conditions to make it acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This was the reply ...
Hi Kirok,
As long as an article isn't deleted because of a Copyvio or attack page, its contents can be made avaliable and userfied on request.
I would suggest going through the process to get it moved to your User space as a subpage and then addressing the conditions that people have noted against it ...
"Google search brings less than ten returns ... A single film thats existence is unconfirmed" - Get your film higher visibility on the Internet
"Appears to be vanity page ... Advert" - Tone down superlatives and focus on its objective qualities
"Non-notable" - Itemise points that make it notable
Note that the article you have written would make an interesting article on your own webspace.
Like Spock said, "There are always alternatives" (Galileo Seven)--Kirok05:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Netwriter, please stop trying to muscle your own projects into the Wikipedia. You offer no corroboration to your "true facts", only your opinion and your version of history, which does not jibe with other published statements. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means it only publishes material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources. In all honesty, based on your history here and elsewhere, you are not a very reliable source, and based on the edits of others, that would seem to be the consensus opinion.
This page in a nutshell: Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Also, do not remove this section again. While users generally are permitted to remove and archive talkpage comments at their discretion, that does not apply to warnings, which users are discouraged from removing, especially where the intention of the removal is to mislead other editors - which appears to be your intent. Do not do this again. MikeWazowski02:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can't you keep this civil, chum? 'Intent'? Tell you what about 'intent', I will overlook your unhelpful 'intent' comment here along with you many similar unhelpful comments posted on my other Wiki entries, eh. I have other more pressing matters that keeps me from staying chained to my PC and from spending all my time on Wiki arguements like this. I wouldn't call this 'Intelligent Design'. Netwriter00:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For someone who's trying to make a misguided point about other people not playing by the rules (rules you've continually misinterpreted, by the way), you certainly don't seem to want those same rules to apply to you, it seems. Do not delete these warnings, Genovese. MikeWazowski03:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Points that need repeating here:
After examining the large amount of HF crewmembers/fans posts recently, We've learned about Hidden Frontier trolls:
(1) They bring up off topic arguments to dilute the discussions;
(2) They make childish personal "ad hominem" attacks about people;
(3) They pick and choose the arguments they want to respond to. [K: I hate to be the one to point this out, but you still haven't responded to any of my queries, whereas I have made the effort to respond to yours when they are something I have any part in. If there is something you believe I haven't responded to adequately please point it out and I'll try to elicidate.--Kirok of L'Stok23:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)][reply]
When you have nothing factual to contribute, trolls proceed to use the faulty actions mentioned above. Some trolls even resort to turn posts into childish jeers. LOL. Name calling is never a way to make your point to prudent people. Please, NO "ad hominem" arguments; just attacking a person's character instead of addressing their points is just a dodge of the facts. Those mindless schoolyard jeers are much like the ever popular 'I know you are, but what am I?'. Take a good look at what persons has posted those here? Not I. Netwriter17:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Fanfilmfan17:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Genovese, let's see just how willing to pay by the rules you are. I'm going to leave your POV tag on the Trek fan productions article for now, because an honest and objective review will show that I and other editors have approached the article objectively. We've applied certain criteria for inclusion fairly and across the board, with no personal biases involved, as I don't think any of the main people you're implying have been impartial (myself, Kirok, TheRealFennShysa, and going further back, Carlosp come to mind) even knew who you were until you started to make a stink about things.
However, you're gonna have to play by the rules yourself, if you expect people to even believe you're not grinding an axe here. Your continued deletion of warnings and or comments that cast a negative light here on your talk page doesn't reflect well on you, or your motivations. Delete these again, and I take away the neutrality tag. Simple as that.
Play by the rules, and you'll... well, you won't get what you want, as an honest review of the page's history won't back you up - but maybe we might consider your edits to be in good faith.
PLease supply evidence that your are a WIKI administrator ? Otherwise, your commands or threats mean little to me here. Netwriter20:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the purpose of putting a real name next to my screen nick when you know that I don't want this done in a public forum? Unless you can show otherwise, I can only assume that you have done so against my express wishes which shows a serious breach of faith on your part. Originally posted 00:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC) and deleted without answer by Netwriter 04:57, 10 June 2006.
Posting someones name when you have expressly been asked NOT to is actionable under Wikipedia policy. Show reason why I should not take action. You can delete these things as many times as you like, but since this can be traced through your history page it will only show that you MUST have read my questions and have chosen to ignore them and hide what I have to say from casual readers. This shows that you are choosing not to discuss things whilst I, on the other hand, am. I am giving you plenty of opportunities to do the right thing ... or at least explain your actions. Perhaps you can show cause, who knows?--Kirok of L'Stok13:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you are angry at someone be angry at them ... not me. Lumping me in with any imagined clique you have drummed up is pure discrimination. What will it be next, my nationality, my religion? I demand to be treated as an individual.
I am writing under my real name now a days anyway and for the record you got it wrong. Why do you insist on painting me as a member of an imaginary clique when there is no evidence of it? Either show evidence of an instance where I have acted as part of a group action against you or any objective reader will have to assume that you have no evidence to back up your claims.--Kirok of L'Stok23:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kirok, there's no reasoning with him. We are evil, he is righteous - at least, as far as he is concerned. He's convinced the world is against him, and nothing we can say or do is going to change that. Based on his recent activities, though, it's obvious that he's only trying to disrupt things and cause trouble now, and doesn't really care about the truth. However, if he's identifying you by name on his user page and you've expressly told him you do not want that, he's in violation of Wikipedia guidelines, and you're more than within your rights to go and remove that. If he replaces it, you'll have just cause to file a grievance against him. MikeWazowski02:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Tempting, but since he got it wrong anyway its more amusing to leave it there as evidence to the forces of the evil that they will never learn the true identity of that scourge of the aether, the dreaded Kirok of L'Stok! Mwahahaha! (I nearly ran out of cliches then)(~!^)--Kirok of L'Stok06:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for coming to my page. Since many, including yourself and your fan film cronies [K: My cronies? I can honestly tell you I have had no contact with anyone from wikipedia outside wiki other than you] have done your best to take this from a non-personal Wiki listing the RedShirt Filmette Series issue into a constant snarky list of personal attacks [K: Give me an exact link to anything you believe to be a personal attack by me] Give by constantly using my real name [K: When have I used your real name since you registered on Wiki?] with those many nasty epithetical OFF TOPIC comments posted here [K: Point to one that *I* have made] and on the fan film discussion/talk pages, I find your above protestations here to be disingenuous with your 'good faith' public thoughts. Trying to hide your true identity? IMHO: I guess anonymous Wiki handles are so helpful to devious people [K: How am I devious? How have i tried to mislead you?] to further their false views [K: Point to one] & unethical actions [K: VERY Strong words there! I insist you point to any case where I have acted unethically ... so that I can apologise if I am at fault, just as I'm sure you would if I were to point out any unethical steps you might have taken] with the concert of others.Netwriter19:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My cronies? I can honestly tell you I have had no contact with anyone from wikipedia outside wiki other than you. Either show evidence of an instance where I have acted as part of a group action against you or this diatribe will be proven as false
Give me an exact link to anything you believe to be a personal attack by me.
When have I used your real name since you registered on Wiki?
Point to one [OFF TOPIC comment] that *I* have made
Point to one [false view that I have promulgated]
I insist you point to any case where I have acted unethically ... so that I can apologise if I am at fault, just as I'm sure you would if I were to point out any unethical steps you might have taken. VERY Strong words used by you! --Kirok of L'Stok13:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, no offense, please take this matters off my home talk page. As I have said, I make my thoughts and views clear on the topic entry talk page elsewhere and that should be enough discussion space for anything more. Take it there and don't leave it here! Netwriter01:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, it's called a discussion page. How pray tell can you have a discussion if you won't allow people to address you? It's possible you might have a point with your User page but this is not that. I've asked you questions on the Fan Film discussion pages that you have avoided as well. You insist others answer your claims but refuse to answer any yourself. Is this your idea of discourse? Plato is now spinning in his grave!--Kirok of L'Stok13:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since you seem determined to keep deleting these requests, presumably in an attempt to hide them, we'll try again. Neither I nor my friends want any contact with you. You do not have permission to list either our names or internet handles on your talk page. Please do not repost them again. Nick Cook22:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Netwriter, the repeated inclusion of the names of users who do not want their names posted here is, at best, uncivil. Refrain from posting those names on your user page. JDoorjamTalk23:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JDoorjam, are you an Adm here? Please introduce yourself if you are, thank you. I am un-familiar with your status. My listing of other producers of competing fan film/videos that are also Wikipedia members here was to make my home site a easy Internet hub for interested Wikipedia fan film lovers to find other producer's Wiki sites easily. I was meaning to be nice. It seems others here have had a different combative view. That's a shame. Netwriter21:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to give you the opportunity to rewrite your user page before I delete it part and parcel. As it currently exists, your page violates WP:USER#What can I not have on my user page? bullet points 1, 2 and 6, at least. Despite your assertion that the page outlines some of your "Wiki work", it appears to be no more than an effort to use Wikilinks to embellish a list of your off-site activities. "It's a mistake to think of it as a homepage," states the policy. "Wikipedia is not a free host, webspace provider, or social networking site. Instead, think of it as a way of organizing the work that you are doing on the articles in Wikipedia, and also a way of helping other editors to understand with whom they're working." Please write me with any questions. RadioKirk (u|t|c)03:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Playing Devils Advocate (relax, it's just a saying, it doesn't mean I think you are a devil) I'd like to ask that the section on The Redshirt Filmette options be allowed to stand. The idea was that he could use his personal space to Wikify the article to bring it up to a standard such that it would be acceptable for inclusion. I'm on record as voting for its inclusion in Wikipedia even if it is just a mention of its name in a list of films of historical significance on the main subject page. I've pointed out to him suggestions as to how he could improve his chances of inclusion and I'd like to see those stand. Despite his protestations, there is NO conspiracy to keep him out of Wikipedia - IMHO he needs to realise that HE needs to improve his material to reach Wikipedia standards, Wikipedia should not have to lower its standards to include his material.--Kirok of L'Stok08:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's a saying; were you advocating for the devil while calling me the devil, you'd be agreeing with me (grin). Seriously, though, he can create a test article such as User:Netwriter/Redshirt Filmette Series (with a note on top that it's a test article so it's not deleted in the interim); the user page as it stands is a straight-up advert. RadioKirk (u|t|c)13:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kirok, they're talking about removing the content from his user page, not the talk page. Assuming Netwriter doesn't go blanking this talk page again like he's done in the past, I doubt they would blank this page. However, I personally don't see how there's any way an article on the Redshirt Filmette series could ever be brought up to Wikipedia standards. Netwriter has never offered any verifiable sources to back up his claims, only his own boastings of being a professional who whose opinion should be respected. He's certainly done absolutely nothing in the intervening months to try and provide any external sources to back up his claims of awards, significance, and/or whatnot. The absolute lack of citations or mentions of his film anywhere other than his own page or material written by him speaks volumes about the lack of historical significance of his film. That the film apparently exists I won't argue, as it does seem to - but it's of no significance whatsoever to the development of fanfilms, Trek or otherwise. It's just there, one more fanfilm of the many that have been done in all genres. MikeWazowski14:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite possible that any article thereon may not survive WP:N and WP:RS but, like everyone else at Wikipedia, he is afforded the chance. I'll be moving the data presently. RadioKirk (u|t|c)16:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Netwriter, I hope you've had an opportunity to read up on Wikipedia policy (including why the threshold for inclusion must by definition be much higher than, say, a fan site) and that you will continue to make positive contributions to the encyclopedia. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c)19:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Verified sites for proof.
Fair Use explained by Stanford University
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-a.html#1
"If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work--for instance, writing a book review -- fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes. Some examples of commentary and criticism include:
quoting a few lines from a Bob Dylan song in a music review
summarizing and quoting from a medical article on prostate cancer in a news report
copying a few paragraphs from a news article for use by a teacher or student in a lesson, or
copying a portion of a Sports Illustrated magazine article for use in a related court case.
The underlying rationale of this rule is that the public benefits from your review, which is enhanced by including some of the copyrighted material.
Copyright & Fair Use by Stanford University
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html
"Fair use is a copyright principle based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted (text) materials for purposes of 'commentary and criticism'. For example, if you wish to criticize a novelist, you should have the freedom to quote portions of the novelist's work without asking permission."
These articles 'Fair Use' content and site text is being re-used under the 'Fair Use' clause of copyright re-uses, that is for Internet 'commentary'. Therefore, NO article's copyright infringement is occurring. If readers believe that is happening, they should educate or reacquaint themselves with the informative Fair Use matters above and google 'Fair Use' for more information. Fair Use is being done here. This article's content is posted here for discussion, commentary and for educating readers. A previous informative and verified article about "Wikipedia's Flaws" was wrongly deleted once already by a apparantly misinformed Wikipedia member. The misinformed editor made misguided copyright statements in his comment section after deleting my previous factual and verified entry. That editor clearly did not know of copyright "Fair Use" re-use allowances. It should be mentioned that another removal of this additional material from a personal members TALK page will look like Wikipedia page vandalism and is against Wikipedia rules. Any removal/vandalsim of this content demonstrates a clear fear of the vandalizer for these prudent copyright 'Fair Use' facts from being available to the Wiki members/public to read & judge for themselves. Netwriter17:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In actuality, it was you, once again, Tony, who fails to understand what he's talking about. Fair use provides for the use of excerpts and quotations of other material for discussion, commentary, and education. You, however, did not do that - you lifted entire articles and posted them here verbatim, which is clearly NOT a fair use, and a violation of Wikipedia's rules about re-use of copyrighted material. The very first line right above the comment entry section when editing is Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Since what you posted was in no way a fair use, but a blatant infringement, I was completely justified in deleting it, and my edit summary was accurate, however much you wish that was not true, as evidenced by your predjudicial comments above. I suggest you re-read the first paragraph of what you posted again, try to comprhend the difference, and learn from the continued error of your ways. MikeWazowski02:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... has been recreated as User:Netwriter/Template. Please notify my once you've extracted the necessary work to create a Wiki-centric user page per WP:UP so that I may delete this temporary page. Thanks. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c)17:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(This article's excepts and quotation content text is being re-used under the 'Fair Use' clause of copyright re-uses, that is for Internet 'commentary'. Therefore, NO article's copyright infringement is occurring. If readers believe that is happening, they should educate or reacquaint themselves with the informative Fair Use matters above. Fair Use is being done here. Article's content is posted here for discussion, commentary and for educating readers to the Wikipedia problem issues. The title, publisher, date of publication, and author's 'by-line' are listed. This article was unauthorized vandalised once already by a misguided Wikipedia member for clearly not knowing of "Fair Use" allowances. It can be mentioned that removal of this material from a a personal members TALK homepage put up by the same member is Wikipedia page vandalism and is against Wikipedia rules. That vandalsim demonstrates a clear fear of the vandalizer of these prudent facts from being available to the members/public to read & judge for themselves on the Wikipedia's system problems. Removal of these supported facts by Wikipedia vandalizing members shows their unfair biase, and further proves the case against Wikipedias system's flaws and it's lack of factual credibility.)
Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. Copyright violations are unacceptable and persistent violators will be blocked. Your original contributions are welcome. MikeWazowski05:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ALSO- Similar excerpt content quoted from of an Internet articles demonstrating Wikipedia's flawed system. This article's author is apparantly disgusted & disillusioned Wikipedia co-originator, Larry Sanger. Mr. Sanger explains the major problems with Wikipedia.
Website LINK: - http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25
Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. Copyright violations are unacceptable and persistent violators will be blocked. Your original contributions are welcome. MikeWazowski05:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ALSO- excerpts of this "Wikipedia -Bad News for Knowledge?" article - Some parts of Wikipedia are very good. Others are not. Are the bad parts acceptable for something claiming to be an online Encyclopedia? -BY Andrew Rowley.
Website LINK: - http://www.picnam.com/andrew/Wikipedia.html
Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. Copyright violations are unacceptable and persistent violators will be blocked. Your original contributions are welcome. MikeWazowski05:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article excerpts and quoted text content is being used under the 'Fair Use' clause of copyright uses, 'commentary'. This article was vandalised once already by a misguided Wikipedia member. (Learn about copyright 'Fair Use', listed above.) Therefore, no article's copyright infringement is occurring and no infringement should be implied. Article's content is posted here for discussion, commentary and for educating readers to the issues. Wikipedia members that have and might take down this Fair Use Internet material could be guilty of vandalism, and those gross deleting of this content only reinforces the proof that Wikipedia is just as flawed as these ex-Wikipedians/authors have shown in their articles. These articles and links posted by Netwriter00:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you still have problems understanding the difference between quoting a paragraph or two, as opposed to reproducing nearly entire articles here, Netwriter. I have left the links to the articles you reposted, which will serve the same purpose, should anyone wish to read them. Removing copyright violations is not vandalism. Please familiarize yourself with the actual provisions of fair use, and do not repost massive tracts of copyrighted text again without permission, or it will be deleted again, in accordance with actual Wikipedia guidelines. MikeWazowski05:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, you and I BOTH know that my 'Wiki Flaws' entry was of excerpts and quotations and not the whole website article. Anyone reviewing my initial Wiki entry by reading the HISTORY of that page, will clearly see that large content sections was <snipped> out because I typed that in the entry to demonstrate that excerpts were only used. I also wrote QUOTE and UNQUOTE to demonstrate quoting of the site. I was using 'Fair Use' there. Your editing actions with this article dramatically proves the article's validity about it's many concerns and observations about Wikipedia's system flaws. Netwriter21:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony, you and I both know that your recent "wiki flaws" post was nothing more than you trying to game the system and try portray yourself as the victim of this process, when that's not the case. All you did was snip only a paragraph or two from each "quotation", and then repost essentially the entire text. "Exceprts" means only a small bit quoted, not only a small bit removed. MikeWazowski19:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Mike', I posted excerpts of articles written by several different knowledgable authors for verification. I did not write those articles. I found the information enlighting and isn't that what Wikipedia is around for? You negative & combative review of my inner motivations is just that, only ONLY yours! It shows more about you than me. Your personal take on the meanings of the word "Exceprts" (more correctly "excerpts") is purely nit-picking. I only used a small bit of the whole website article. [1] I wish to write and contribute entries. If I have to contact you for minute details like how many sentences denote a legal 'excerpt' according to you, every time I want to author something in Wikipedia, it gets alittle ridiculous. Some persons enjoy that much control, but it just looks like silliness. Netwriter22:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except in this case, you weren't writing an entry, you were responding on a talk page, which is a wholly diffrent beast. You were also violating community standards on reporting copyrighted material, which is unarguable. As to the "small bit" comment, in the case of the WCityMike article, you only cut 10 paragraphs or so out of roughly 30. Excerpts means repeating maybe a paragraph or two, not more than 60% of something. In your reposting, one of your "snips" also resulted in you misattributing one of your "quotes" in that section, making it appear that something posted by another author and quoted by WCityMike was something that WCityMike himself posted. In regards to the Sanger "quote", you reposted the whole damn article. 100% - not an excerpt under any definition or "personal take". But the main difference here is this talk page is not an article - posting a link to the actual articles would have served the same purpose, and not gotten you a warning, AND would have made the conversation a lot easier to read. MikeWazowski14:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problems here are numerous - you've also managed to completely disregard RadioKirk's advice from earlier this year on what you needed to do to correct your userpage after he deleted it. The Star Wars stuff, in addition to being almost completely inaccurate, was not written by you on Wikipedia pages, as you claim.
Troops - shot in 1997, not 2000. No call to control Luke, call was actually about his running away. 501st didn't exist at the time.
Senator Morse for Emperor - incorrect title; should be Dantana Morse for Senator
Christmas Tauntauns - never shown on Exposure - also incorrect award listed
Darth Vader's Psychic JEDI Network - incorrect title, should be Darth Vader's Psychic Hotline - also never screened on Exposure
(Jedi)Sparring Program - incorrect title, should be Sparring Program - not a comedy, and never screened on Exposure
And that's just for starters... these were easy to verify and correct - if you can't be bothered to fact check these, how inaccurate are the rest of your entries? MikeWazowski06:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, the SW fan films attributed to be screened on the Scifi Channel's "Exposure" show were aired there. I have a copy of the very 'Exposure' show. That cable show's website featured them specifically. Please supply your verifiable proof for your other claims about Troops, Hardware Wars, Senator Morse, Christmas Tauntauns, Darth Vader Psychic Jedi Network, (Jedi) Sparring Program. I'm interested.Netwriter21:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then you're posting original research, as there's nothing we can look at to verify your claim. I also notice you're falling into your old pattern of demanding to have your posts taken at face value, and demanding proof of others to disprove what you claim, when in fact, you should be the one to justifying your edits yourself.
However, even though it's a moot point, since your userpage has been removed again as a violation of community standards, I'll refute everything you just questioned.
Troops - shot in 1997, not 2000. No call to control Luke, call was actually about his running away. 501st didn't exist at the time. - easily proven. Information on the film can be found in the film itself and at this page. The 501st Legion, while also created in 1997, was later in the year, after Rubio had already premiered Troops at ComicCon. The 501st was also founded by guys on the East Coast who had to connection to Rubio. In Chris Gore's original 1997 interview with Rubio (reposted here at Film Threat), you'll see there is no mention of the 501st.
Hardware Wars - shot on film, not VHS. - easily verifiable simply by looking at the film - it was obviously shot on film, as evidenced by the film grain, visible film splices, the many scenes with scratched-in lasers or other film artifacts. Also, this interview in particular mentions the film prints.
Senator Morse for Emperor - incorrect title; should be Dantana Morse for Senator - my bad, the title should actually be Dantana Morse for Galactic Senator - you were still wrong, though.
As to your claims that some of these films aired on Exposure, a simple Google search turns up no references to this ever happening, outside the claim you make. However, Christmas Tauntauns and Sparring Program did air on the SciFi Channel special on the first Official Star Wars Fan Film Awards, and both Dantana Morse and Darth Vader's Psychic Hotline had excerpts shown on that program as well. You probably confused the special with Exposure, but they're not the same program.
You'll also notice that the provided links for Sparring Program and Darth Vader's Psychic Hotline confirm that those are the actual titles, and not the incorrect ones that you posted. MikeWazowski19:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Mike', the fan video information I found on was here:
If that's the case, and the information you "found" was on those pages, how is it that you got so many things wrong, including some of the titles? We weren't discussing The Pepsi Generation before, so that's a moot point. However, the IMDB pages for Hardware Wars, Troops, and Darth Vader's Psychic Hotline contain none of the incorrect material you posted. But this is all still beside the point - you had no involvement with any of these films, not with the majority of the films you started posting about on the latest version (now deleted) of your userpage. This was not the place to be writing about them. MikeWazowski14:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the problem from before still exists, if not moreso; virtually every entry links to something off-site and, again, appears to be made to promote videos that have nothing to do with Wikipedia. Almost the only Wikilinks are to long-existing pages that are linked only within the explanations of the off-site projects. What is the purpose of this page if not non-Wiki promotion? RadioKirk (u|t|c)14:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am really trying to work within accepted norms here. When I first came to Wikipedia, I contributed to Wikipedia many times when not a member. Many people do this as newbies. Some of those contributions are mentioned. The listings I have put there are supported by website links so as to be verifiable. Past Wiki editors complained that my listings had no verifiablity. In the past, wiki editors have deleted mass areas of my listings because the text was not supported by any verifiable link proof. That has changed by me. Past Wiki editors of my entires said I was only listing my own projects, so as to be seen as using my User page as my personal promotional website. Currently, I am listing a majority of of other person's projects. That has changed by me. When I do contribute some Wiki entries that are seen to be useful enough to be built onto, some Wiki editors do not give me any credit for those. Before making my user page, I took a look an several usr pages for examples. I have found many other user pages that seems to have gotten by without any problems the very editors who have spent so much time to examine all my entries, talk comments, and anything I contribute on Wikipedia. This could be seen as alittle excessive. I am sorry, I am really begining to see conflicting Wiki rule enforcement here on these matters. Instead of all this criticism, I would be open for nice change with specific suggestions on how to improve my contributions/pages in a more friendly tone. I am really trying to work within accepted norms here.Netwriter21:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing two different issues, unfortunately; the verifiability standards of encyclopedia articles have little if any relevance to users' pages. The standard there is WP:USERPAGE which, among other things, makes it clear that a user's page is designed to be used as an indication of what a user does here, on Wikipedia, not what s/he does off-site (self-promotion of off-site activities is not entirely prohibited, but it's supposed to be kept to the barest minimum within the confines of a Wiki-centric page). Yours, frankly, appears to use Wikilinks only to validate what you do off-site by demonstrating that the subjects are sufficiently relevant for encyclopedia articles. Worse even than self-promotion, this gives the impression of using the encyclopedia for self-gain of some sort, and that can't stand. RadioKirk (u|t|c)23:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User page deleted and moved back to the template page; I frankly don't see how any of this can be restored, but you're welcome to try again. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c)05:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RadioKirk, I am sorry for my apparent failure. I would like to try again. thank you for your patience. I will be looking at other Wikipedia users pages and make the appropriate changes. I am learning. Please allow me to try again. thanks. Netwriter05:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Looking at other users' pages is generally a good idea (of course, not all of them comply, and they're deleted/fixed when spotted), and I'll presume you've read WP:USERPAGE. If you have any questions, feel free to write me or any other administrator. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c)15:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article User:Netwriter/Redshirt Filmette Series, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at [[Talk:User:Netwriter/Redshirt Filmette Series|its talk page]]. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Calton | Talk01:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As detailed on this IMDB message board post, let's see if Anthony Genoevse wants to play ball - I can prove I'm not John Whiting, aka Thalek... burden of proof is in your court now, Cuddles - care to play with the big boys? 64.24.16.111 (talk) 07:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why Bother?
Given that he's incapable of believing any proof that others provide unless it also agrees with him, why bother? You will know and acknowledge the truth. The readers will have access to the truth and can make up their own minds. But he will never acknowledge the truth no matter how many times it is proven. In fact, that is the only thing that he's proven in the last eight years or so of making various claims: even when he's presented with the facts, he refuses to acknowledge them. Almost none of his other claims have ever been verified as fact. (signed) John A. Whiting, a.k.a. Thalek 71.189.155.127 (talk) 08:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki staff please BANN these two IP's for troll posting here.
64.24.16.111 07:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
71.189.155.127 08:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Now now, Tony, that's not how this game is played - neither of those posts were trolls, they were simply trying to engage you in a conversation. You wanna get someone banned, at least be man enough to leave their words up for evidence - although you have a historical problem in accepting evidence, don't you? If you're going to ignore them and throw around baseless allegations, who's the real troll here? My money's not on them in that regard... MikeWazowski (talk) 07:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MikeW or whom-ever-you-are, you're such a treasure to this wikipedia thing. Keeping up on this matter? You are the best proof of my past and present comments to others about Wikipedia's worth. Your posts just rock and are so beneficial to me. You surely must live in your own personal Hell. I'll pray for you, my friend. Netwriter (talk) 07:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stella Nova until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rorshacma (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
