Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:14, 6 June 2006

Star Trek Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Star TrekWikipedia:WikiProject Star TrekTemplate:WikiProject Star TrekStar Trek ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives
January 2006 – April 2006

I am asking for impartial review of this 'fan film' entry information by the Wiki staff. Please do not remove this 'notice of POV' review banner a second time, it looks like you are trying to hide requests to staff. I am asking for the Wiki staff to look into not only the entry's verbage but also the Wiki staff should take a look at what has happened and is stated on it's 'talk page'. Netwriter 20:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the template again, Anthony, as you should have read the guidelines more carefully. They specifically state:

The POV check template is not for disputes. It is intended for:

• Articles which you have edited to be neutral, but may have overlooked something
• Articles which you suspect are not neutral, but are unsure how to proceed

In order to ensure the POV check template cannot be used to brand articles as non-neutral without a justification, it may be removed by anyone if they feel that the issue has been resolved. Please do not edit war over the use of this template. Instead, if you disagree with its removal, place the full neutrality dispute template on the page, explain your reasons on the talk page, and follow the regular NPOV dispute resolution process.

I'm not trying to hide anything. There seems to be a clear consensus among other editors that this article seems to be in good shape. I am, however, not convinced that you are a neutral party in this, and your edits seem to be based more around disruption than anything else. TheRealFennShysa 22:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I will again (3rd time) ask that for Wiki Staff to examine and correct the clear biase of this fan film entry. It accepts some fan film projects but bans other valid fan film projects from this entry. Rather than restating my views in why this entry is clearly biased with this slanted entry, you can find my extensive reasons in my BOLD TYPED comments at Discussion Page Archive #1 LINK: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Star_Trek%2C_fan_made_productions/Archive_1

Read especially my comments dated; Netwriter 01:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)and Netwriter 19:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC) I suggest that this entry be examined for NOT having a neutral POV. These fan film producers and their fan members here (who are Wiki listed repetively here with their many deletions, comments, and entries.) seem to want to hide or not allow any scrutiny from official Wiki Staff on this matters by constantly removing these requests for Misplaced Pages staff oversight. I conclude that these slanted fan film entries are just 'Articles which you suspect are not neutral, but are unsure how to proceed'. One wonders why 'the clique' opposing this Wiki staff examination would do just that? Netwriter 01:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It could possibly be because you have demonstrated time and time again that you are not interested in neutrality, Netwriter - you are more interested in palming off your biased views and vendettas as fact. Once again, you try and disguise your motivations by accusing others of nefarious schemes and plots to discredit you, O Wonderful Sage! If we were really trying to hide things, we'd be removing all your posts from the talk pages, which has never been done. However, I *am* removing the tag, as I strongly disagree with its placement. MikeWazowski 04:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

4th time asking...This entry needs to be independantly reviewed by the Wiki Staff here. It should not be interefered with by others. Netwriter 22:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I say let them look at it. We have nothing to worry about. In fact, all it will do is have the Wiki staff added to Tony's fictional clique when the rule against him. JusticeCEO 00:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

All of this negative energy is a total waste of time. Your fan film has been denied listing so, instead of fighting the system, why not try working with the system? What are the reasons given for exclusion?

1. "Google search brings less than ten returns ... A single film thats existence is unconfirmed" - Get your film higher visibility on the Internet and make it downloadable - It'll start appearing on Blogs and commentaries then.
2. "Appears to be vanity page ... Advert" - Tone down superlatives and focus on its objective qualities, even better get legitimate supporter to make the endorsments instead
3. "Non-notable" - Itemise the points that you believe make it notable. Focus on publicising your fan film is a positive manner

Netwriter if you put the same effort into producing and promoting your fan film it would be a shoe-in!--Kirok of L'Stok 13:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks..How do you know I am not promoting my videos, too? You'd be surprised, but then you haven't got all the updated facts. Asking for and getting a fair impartial POV review from the Adms here is hardly 'negative', it's only fair and open to any member asking. Some here can't seem to allow that simple request stand. It sure looks like only a sellected few members are allowed. Looks like cronyism, cliqueism, elitism? And they use the rules against others when it suits them. That clearly shows those cliquish folks who have an agenda against any of my Wiki contributions here. Careful, your biased slanted negative agenda against me is showing to all by the continual blatant entry deletions over the past months. Netwriter 03:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

We both know that I personally have given you an opportunity to promote your video (which still stands) that you have not taken up. If there is any change to the visibility or popularity of your project then this is the forum to post that info. THAT is what will change your situation, not whinging about the system. Am I supposed to be a member of this clique? Because I really want to know - I write with neither fear nor favour. If you cannot change a system then you must ask your conscience, can I work in such a system or not? If the answer is no, you withdraw and you have the right to voice your opinion of it in other venues. If the answer is yes, you work within the system to change it by evolution rather than revolution - I have chosen the latter. As regards the POV check I agree with Gene, let it stand: Sadly, it will fail and N will blame the system. --Kirok of L'Stok 00:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It's apparently always "The World is Against Me, So Sayeth Anthony Genovese" isn't it? Well, that argument doesn't hold water here, as I and others have applied certain criteria for inclusion on this page, honestly and fairly. You're not the only one who's been left out or removed, but you're the only one raising a major stink about how unfair, cliquish, biased, elitist, slanted, and negative we and our cronies all are. You want a review by other Wikipedians - might I remind you that your films already had one? Your Redshirt series didn't survive an AfD vote by random editors with no axe to grind, no biases, just based on simple examination of the facts compared to other entries. So as I said on your talk page, I'll let the neutrality tag hang for a while - but you've consistently gone in and removed items from your own talk page that cast your actions and motivations in a negative light. Delete them again, and we'll know exactly how much you care about honesty and integrity. You wanna make your case? Do it on the merits (not that there are any) of your argument, and don't try to hide evidence of past actions. I think it's bloody hilarious that you find deletions here so objectionable, but find it personally acceptable for you to to the same thing to try to make yourself look better. That's amusing... MikeWazowski 16:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait one second here. I HAVE to be reading this wrong, "Keep Irespective of google hits, it does hold a place in the development of Trek fan films.--Kirok 13:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)" Could it be that the ONLY editor voting to keep the Reshirt article alive was Kirok? Boy, this clique that we're supposedly a part of must be disfunctional if we're supporting the work of the guy we're trying to bring down.  ;-) JusticeCEO 00:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Conviction by association Gene? (o_Ô)--Kirok of L'Stok 01:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, since Ed (JusticeCO) and I are supposed to be the same person, and Ed's in the clique, I just thought that meant I was as well. :-D JusticeCEO 14:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

In a move that will come as a surprise to no one, Anthony has decided not to play along like an adult, and has again blanked items on his talk page that portray him in a bad light. Since apparently no one else has a problem with the so-called neutrality problems with the article, I'll be removing the tag again. I believe we can now safely assume Anthony's edits are in bad faith. MikeWazowski 03:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Not surprising at all. When he had two Live Journals to badmouth Intrepid, U.S.S. Angeles, and Hidden Frontier, he did not permit comments to be entered. This was apparently to avoid any contradiction. Tony frequently complains about censorship, while practicing it himself with an iron hand.JohnWhiting 22:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Please supply evidence that your are a WIKI administrator ? Otherwise, your commands and assumptions mean little to me here. Netwriter 19:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That's okay, Tony, your commands and assumptions don't mean anything to him, either. It's a different experience dealing with people who can legally fight back. You say the Red Shirt "series" is "award-winning", I believe. Who gave the award(s)? Is there a link we can follow to verify this? Where has the film been shown? Are there links so that we can verify this? Is the film available at all for download? Where? It's been stated repeatedly that this is a series. In at least five years, I've only heard of one episode. How many episodes are currently in the series? Are there any links so we can verify this? There appear to be no mentions of your series except on your website, or in posts you yourself have made. Didn't any of the conventions you took it to even mention it? JohnWhiting 22:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Rather than repeating my negative but still true observations of how this Wiki Star Trek fan films entry and this corresponding Talk Page is blantantly biased towards a small fan film Clique by excluding other established fan films projects (including pre-Internet ones) from being listed here, I will just point out that this personal animousity here continues to this date despite my attempts at be factual and also based on sharing my knowledge & my knowlegde of producing several fan films in several genres/formats and personally being involved in the fan film fandom since the 1981 with all the while personally exibiting and promoting 50+ hours of many donated fan films to the public. The Clique members posting here have activly increased their unhelpful hostility and have continually displayed their negative, rude, and hostile personal comments here. Certain malicious crewmembers of other fan film project posting here want to make this an 'ad hominen' or silly personal attack. You can readily see which members here are sadly resorting to that flawed page attacks. Any prudent reader here will recognise that their flawed fan film entries merely reflect their random unfounded personal conclusions on the vague outcome of some fan film Internet rumor issues and inuendo mentioned elsewhere. The Clique include their friends film projects even the ones unfinished, all the while keeping the entries of other finished fan film OUT of this listing by invocating very selective Wiki rules that suit their corrupt censuring elitist entry deleting actions. The Clique's constantly deletes, attacks, and personally impunes most non-Clique fan film projects entries attempting to be listed here but then the Clique hypocriticly on other hand only allows 'their' or their pal's fan film entries/statements to be posted in here while not using the Cliques same energies/prerequisites to examine those friend's fan film flawed entries based on the Wiki listing rules. This makes this entry a biased exclusionary, flawed, selective, slanted, and censured entry. This effectively makes this fan film entry a small flawed ineffective, unuseful and grossly gossipy entry of no worthiness to Misplaced Pages's stated mission statement, or their Wiki readers, or people dropping by here trying to get valid updated comprehensive Star Trek fan film information. Maybe this Clique thinks they are doing something of merit while it clearly looks like they get the benfit of simple ego inflating/supporting by being listed here. This complete entry is a SHAM of 'the slightly informed Wiki fan film editors self-editing a flawed fan film entry for the unknowledgeable's misinformation'. To be really informed, you might go ESLEWHERE for your fan film information . The Wiki STAFF should interceed and I have asked them too. It seems that they are too busy, but that could change. No doubt the Clique members will post about these comments very soon so as to know who they are. Netwriter 18:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What's to say? Until you answer the many questions asked of you we don't have any new information to go on--Kirok of L'Stok 23:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I asked a series of questions, that if supplied with verifiable answers, might well have helped your cause, Tony. I personally would have liked to learn more about the amateur production I worked on all those years ago, as I've never had the opportunity to view the fruits of my labors. Instead of reasonable answers to reasonable questions, we were treated to a speech. Said speech was filled with ad hominem attacks and poisoning the well commentary ("any prudent reader here", implying that if a reader sees things differently, they cannot be prudent). That I bear you animosity is no secret: five-plus years of your unfounded attacks will do that for a person. Even so, your cause would have been aided by calmly and verifiably answering the questions I posed. What you cannot seem to accept is that you cannot simultaneously meet your goal of writing propaganda AND getting it published on the Misplaced Pages. You either have to give up the propaganda and write a genuinely unbiased article with verifiable facts in it, or you have to give up the dream of having it published in Misplaced Pages. If you cannot or will not meet the minimum standards Misplaced Pages requires of your article(s), you will not get published. That's what these people have been telling you all along. The Misplaced Pages is not about freedom of speech, or emotions, or beliefs. It is about cold, hard, verfiable facts, presented in an unslanted and unbiased manner. I'm sure you remember your geometry classes, where you not only had to get the right answer, you had to prove that the steps you took were right. Your geometry teacher wouldn't accept "My six anonymous friends said" or "Everybody KNOWS that it's true" or "Most prudent people can see that", so why do you think an encyclopedia, even one created by volunteers, is going to accept such sloppy thinking? Again, if you cannot write an unbiased article with verifiable facts (and the links to prove it), it will not get published. You simply aren't going to get the opportunity to use this platform for disseminating your particular views. Not unless you can document them from reliable sources and provide the links so that anyone can check. And while it's possibly true that many people here are against you, it's definitely true that they were neutral towards you until they got to know you better. Including me. You have only one person to blame, Mr. Genovese, for all the hostility shown you: Tony Genovese.

It's up to you, Tony. Want to stop being universally hated? Stop being universally hateful to everyone who disagrees with you. Want to publish an article here? Start writing articles not agitprop. You don't even have to adopt it as a lifestyle: you can always try it as an experiment, see if it gets you the results you want. Or not. Maybe you enjoy having every man's hand raised against you: what you lack in friendships, you feel you can make up in Martyr Points. Suit yourself. I rather enjoy being a passive witness here, watching you alienate people and getting your rear end kicked for it is pure entertainment for me. Watching you try to shift the blame everywhere but where it belongs is pretty funny, too. You have the power to choose how people treat you. If you like the way you're treated now, don't change a thing. You're obviously doing just what you need to do to get the treatment you want. John Whiting 66.3.112.5 01:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Long-winded rant and personal abuse directed at another user posted by 24.50.72.84 existed here, but has been removed, as a violation of Misplaced Pages's official policy. It can be read here in the edit history, for those so inclined.

Well, except for the announcement that the sock puppet is going to file a false police report against me if I don't unfailingly and meekly follow its orders, that was a waste of time. Social Security elected not to file charges against my accuser when a falsiefied report of fraud was filed against me. I wonder if the police will be equally forgiving once they find out the charges are equally false? JohnWhiting 11:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That was the foulest piece of Flame I have ever read in my life and it besmirched the writer, its target and the person it was supoosed to be defending. I think everything has been said that could possibly be said on this subject. --Kirok of L'Stok 16:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

batlHa' vangIu'taHvIS quv chavbe'lu' - "One does not achieve honour while acting dishonourably"--Kirok of L'Stok 08:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Star Track

I've slotted Star Track into "Produced Fan Films" - with 16 produced episodes they are an established series - in alphabetical order. This would seem to me to be the most equitable format unless we are grading them in some way? The only other fair system might be by age - first come first served?--Kirok of L'Stok 11:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Authority

I didn't realise that Misplaced Pages was mirrored as an authority on subjects in second party websites. Help.com has this page mirrored on their website. Ah! Fame if not fortune!--Kirok of L'Stok 00:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Contributors would do well to remember that Misplaced Pages is extensively used by children as a school homework resource. --Kirok of L'Stok 10:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek: Horizons

This group, which opened their new website in October last year, released their first teaser on May 3rd. A Next Generation fan film, the first part of their pilot episode scenario, 'War cast long shadows' was only approved in February, just before their second test shoot, opening up the way for them to prepare a storyboard. Available now from the download section of their website or from Google Video it shows considerable expertise with their "greenscreen" technique which is excellent. As with many fan film sites, they have put a considerable amount of work into their bilingual (English and Polish) website. They also have an English section in their forum, however the registration process was only possible with the use of a Polish-English translation engine. Dobre Szczęście!

Within the context of this article and the accepted protocols they are not at a pre-production stage, along with Lexington, they are close but not quite there!--Kirok of L'Stok 10:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion

I have just found out from my Watchlist that there appears to be some sort of concerted action against Star Trek Fan Films. On further investigation I have found some strange things going on that I would like a Misplaced Pages admin or at least someone versed in the ways of Misplaced Pages to check out. If I am correct, it casts grave doubts about the action that is being taken. Since this matter concerns so many articles I am posting it on my talk page.--Kirok of L'Stok 11:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Unassessed Star Trek articles
• Unknown-importance Star Trek articles
• WikiProject Star Trek articles