User talk:ASM123456

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. eaolson 02:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you provide any support for these movies existing? I'm trying to assume good faith, but I'm starting to rethink that. eaolson 03:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Please Stop Adding Films Not Verified By IMDB
Films on wiki must be verified by IMDB as in production, preferably finished with production. So, could you please stop adding movies onto List of Disney Channel movies that have not been verified. User:Lord Hawk 00:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. In particular:
 * ''Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election, and 2012 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. A schedule of future events may also be appropriate. Similarly, individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, preassigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item. Lists of tropical cyclone names is encyclopedic; "Tropical Storm Alex (2010)" is not, even though it is virtually certain that a storm of that name will occur in the North Atlantic and will turn counterclockwise. Similarly, articles about words formed on a predictable numeric system (such as "septenquinquagintillion") are not encyclopedic unless they are defined on good authority, or genuinely in use. Certain scientific extrapolations, such as chemical elements documented by IUPAC, prior to isolation in the laboratory, are usually considered encyclopedic. Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not. For a wiki that does allow discussion of "future history", visit Wikicities Future.

It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or analysis because of Wikipedia's prohibition on original research. Forward-looking articles about unreleased products (e.g. movies, games, etc.) require special care to make sure that they are not advertising.''

Seeing how you created the page, Halloweentown 5: She's the Witch, and keep adding it to the List of Disney Channel movies as fact is original research and it must be verified by credited resources, such as IMDB.com; I won't remove it this time because I am becoming tired of continuosly doing so, but could you please verify it? User:Lord Hawk 15:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Again. Please desist from vandalizing List of Disney Channel movies by adding movies that are purely speculation and have no basis in reality at the moment. Must be proven by IMDB as in production, preferably finished with production. Thank you. User:Lord Hawk 23:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)