User talk:Cman7792

Hello
Hello. I have posted this message on your page for the following reason: you have repeatedly added excess content on the upcoming Live action dragon Ball Z movie. This does not belong in the dragon ball Z article. If you want this added, feel free to create a page on it. Thank you DBZROCKS   Its over 9000!!!  22:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Good job
Good job making the Dragon Ball Z Live Action Movie article. Jecowa 22:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there's been a misunderstanding here. There were two film articles existing at the same time; see the page histories for Dragon Ball Z (film) and Dragon Ball Z Live Action Movie. Per Naming conventions (films), Dragon Ball Z (film) is the right way to title the article. I did not merge your article, though -- Jecowa did that, see here. My comment that you see at Talk:Dragon Ball Z (film) is a request to merge information about a possible film to Dragon Ball per notability guidelines for films. The reason for this is that in the film industry, projects can come to a complete halt right before production. It's best to keep development information about a film in the source material's article until filming begins (if it does), and then a stand-alone article for the film can be created. Lastly, if you want to leave a comment, please go to User talk:Erik. You accidentally left a comment on User:Erik, which is not a place for discussion. So please feel free to respond to me with any questions or thoughts! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The article you made still exists. You can access it here. Jecowa 22:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Can I suggest waiting until the AfD process finishes before taking action on the film article? Time needs to be given so more recommendations can be made as to the article's fate. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

About the DBZ live movie
Please stay calm, if you read what have been written in the discussion pages, you'll see that most of what you try about the supposed DB movie isn't suitable for WP, so don't be too quick in your edits.

There is a deletion process going on, it don't think interfering before any consensus is reached is the right thing to do. You should just wait and see how it turns out. Besides, you should try to read guidelines about merging a bit more before starting to actually edit the articles, I'm sorry but right now you're just messing the articles up. Folken de Fanel 20:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge
I've placed information about the project's history at Dragon Ball Z. Don't worry about the outcome of the AfD process -- it doesn't matter if it's deleted or merged. The content is available at the above link, fully cited. However, if the opposing editor from the AfD process removes that paragraph, that would be a new discussion into itself. So let's back off the AfD page for now, let things play out. We already have the information in the place where it's supposed to be. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. To do this, go to my talk page, scroll down to the Dragon Ball Z section, click edit on the right side of the section heading, and enter your new comment below the others. To leave a signature, type four tildes (~) after your comment. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, can I suggest ceasing discussion at the AfD page? The discussion is no longer civil.  Let's back off and let the process go through.  Like I've mentioned, the information is where it's supposed to be now. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been in a conflict with Folken regarding the inclusion of the project history on Dragon Ball Z. Since he is not willing to have the information there at this point, I'm going to let the AfD process play out.  If it reaches a consensus to merge, we can restore the information at Dragon Ball Z. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean. He just moved the film section down further in the article.  Take another look.  Can I make a suggestion, though?  I'd like to ask for you to remove the film section from Dragon Ball Z until the AfD process is complete.  We'll have the information in the page history, so it's not lost forever.  I think it would be a sign of good faith toward Folken to wait until the process was finished before merging the information from Dragon Ball Z (film) to Dragon Ball Z.  Will you be willing to do that as a temporary measure? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for doing so. We've all gotten pretty uptight about this, so hopefully this can help relieve the tension.  We'll see how the AfD process goes through. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about Folken being blocked. His block log doesn't show anything recent. I did report him for a 3RR violation earlier last night, but that did not go through. By the way, would you mind leaving new comments on my user talk page at User talk:Erik? You keep placing them near the top of the page, and I keep having to move them down to the DBZ section. Also, you can leave a signature by typing four tildes (~), which will show your user name and the time/date that you left the comment. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You might be looking at the 3RR warning that I left him. However, like his block log shows, he's not blocked.  He's either sleeping or living life right now. :-P  By the way, you got the hang of it in leaving comments on talk pages.  Let me know if you need help with anything else on Wikipedia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, regarding your new comment at the AfD, I think he's well aware of our stances about coverage for the project. He's just not convinced that the preceding information qualifies as verifiable.  That's sort of why I haven't sought out any further discussion -- our horns are kind of locked right now.  Also, I'd like to ask you to remove your comment from User talk:BrenDJ -- from his comments, he's shown that he's not interested in discussion about the article or its AfD.  You just need to let him go do his own thing.  He's aware of the clean rewrite, and if he doesn't want to revise his recommendation, so be it.  Just need to let people go sometimes, you know?  On a new subject, though, I was wondering what articles you are hoping to develop on Wikipedia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2007
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 23:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Admin board and claims of personal attacks
Well, it's you who're personnally attacking me, by spreading lies, claiming that I would be "harassing" (?) you, saying "awful" (?) things, while I have never personally attacked you. Where do you see any "attack" ? Unless if you can't stand people having a different opinion than yours, taking it "personally" when they are sceptic about a supposed movie in which you want to believe, I don't see any problem. Anyway, if you're trying to get me blocked just to take your revenge because I'm "daring" to be realistic about this so-called DB movie, then you should know that it could very well backfire on you, and making up false claims of harassments and insults just like you did on the admin board can only make your situation worse.

Oh, and while we're talking about edit war and 3RR violations, why didn't you tell on the admin board that you had disrupted an AfD by trying to relocate the disputed content in another article while completely ignoring the AfD process and the people who took part to it ? That was very disrespectful from you. Why don't you tell either that you took part yourself to an edit war by reinsterting 3 times content that was previously deleted, without any attempt at discussing it (and while you were warned several times not to do it until the AfD was finished).

Do you want me to add all that to your report on the admin board ?

If you don't want all this to get out of hand and to backfire on you, you should just calm down and stop acting too quickly, getting carried over by your feelings. You should just remove your report: I never told anything rude to you, I have nothing against you, I haven't even said a thing to you in 3 days. People are going to think you're unnecessarily agressive, not mentioning that you're making up false claims against me, and seeing how another user previously complained about your behavior, well...I'm afraid you won't get exacly what you're hoping for.

We've no need to fight, the AfD is going on, and a merge is certainly going to be the result (isn't it what you want ?)...This is my attempt at discussion before things start to get out of hand for you...Why would you take such risks for nothing ? Really I've nothing against you...Folken de Fanel 12:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's time to just let it go Cman. Yes, he broke the 3RR but that was then and the statute of limitations on 3RR is pretty quick. It's time to just move on and hope that no more problems arise from anyone.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I hate to step in again, but Cman, don't get in a dispute with Folken. This is primarily a content dispute, and he is just in disagreement with you and me that Variety is considered a reliable source just because the studio did not confirm it.  Unfortunately, along his line of thinking, a third-party published source could report on a scandal during production, and the studio would deny it, and that would be OK, it seems.  The AfD looks like it'll wind up being merged, so... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your edits to The Hobbit
First, concerning the removal of sections, you say that the sections are unnecessary, yet you don't say why they are unnecessary in your edit summary. Perhaps the "Translations" section really isn't necessary and should be removed (as a similar section was removed from The Lord of the Rings some time ago), but a reason still should have been given for the deletion (e.g. "Removing translations section, it's unnecessary and adds nothing to the article"). However, I think that the "Difference and inconsistencies" section (though it could be written better, or even incorporated into the "Joining The Hobbit to The Lord of the Rings") should be included because it shows the difficulty in joining a book originally intended as a children's book to the epic The Lord of the Rings.

Concerning the shortening of the synopsis, the plot summary should be shortened, but it shouldn't be one and a half paragraphs. Your new version reads more like a publisher's blurb than an encyclopaedic synopsis. According to Wikiproject Novels, a plot synopsis should be short and shouldn't cover every single event in the book, but should cover the important parts (e.g. finding the ring, the confrontation with Smaug, the Battle of the Five Armies).

For these reasons, I am again restoring the "Difference and inconsistencies" section and the previous plot synopsis, though I will re-remove the "Translations" section. Psyche825 (T/C) 21:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to WP:GAC
Thank you for your recent edits to WP:GAC; I have since reverted them. If you feel that The Hobbit meets the Good Article criteria, then please nominate the article following the concise instructions detailed on the GAC page. Before you do that, however, I'd suggest you review WP:WIAGA to ensure the nominated article meets those criteria. Thanks. Carre 16:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Hobbit
Hi, Cman7792, I heard the news! However, it's not yet time to make the article for the project. Read the notability guidelines for future films, which says that articles need to be created when shooting begins. According to this, production is not slated to begin until 2009. A lot can happen in a year, so the project could easily be postponed or even canceled. Also, since it's not set for production until then, there won't be much information until shooting begins. Hopefully, this film will shoot in 2009, and when it does, we can create the article. In the meantime, we can store development information like we've done for Spider-Man 4 or Jurassic Park IV. Hope you've been well! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I redirected it to a place that already has coverage about the two films. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you've been adding your signature to some of your article contributions. This is a simple mistake to make and is easy to correct. For future reference, the need to associate edits with users is taken care of by an article's edit history. Therefore, you should use your signature only when contributing to talk pages, the Village Pump, or other such discussion pages. For a better understanding of what distinguishes articles from these type of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thanks for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! Beeblbrox (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Curtis Kelly
A tag has been placed on Curtis Kelly requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Rob Banzai (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Deleted Curtis Kelly again -- please see WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Curtis kelly
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Cunard (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Dragonball
Hey, I redirected it to Dragonball (film), which has existed for a while. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 08:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Typo redirect Dragonball film
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Dragonball film, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Dragonball film is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Dragonball film, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Another Earth 2010


The article Another Earth 2010 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Article doesn't seem to comply with WP:NF and seems like WP:CRYSTAL

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Duncan (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 00:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Another Earth 2010
I have nominated Another Earth 2010, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Another Earth 2010. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —Duncan (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 03:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: The Hobbit (2011 film)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This is particularly important when adding or changing any facts or figures and helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Another Earth 2010
A tag has been placed on Another Earth 2010 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Another Earth 2010


The article Another Earth 2010 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * no evidence of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. &mdash; RHaworth 07:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)