User talk:Possecomitatus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You've been contributing since February and you never recieved any welcome messages or otherwise!? Thank you so much for your conributions, and I welcome you (though months late). --Friendly Porpoise^{Join the pod!} 23:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Let me know if you ever need assistance. --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 23:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superman Sequel

This article has been deleted many times because it fits Wikipedia's policy of "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". There has not been enough confirmed events to warrant a page, especially for a film that will not be released until 2009. Everything confirmed is in the Superman Returns article. Bignole

Also, the film is not in pre-production, it is still in the "talk" phase, where they talk about what they'd like to do with the franchise. A script has not even been started. Bignole

First, it's called a policy that is enforced. Secondly, the "Batman Begins" sequel is called "The Dark Knight (film)", take a look. There title isn't set in stone, it's a working title that can change when the actually write a script, which they haven't done yet. The only person confirmed for the sequel is Bryan Singer, as Routh has done some assuming on his return by saying that he's going back to the gym. No one has actually confirmed he will return since Warner Brothers has an option on his contract to find someone else if they so please. No one else in the cast has been confirmed either. So, the only thing confirmed is that they want to make it, they don't know when, but they do; and that Singer will direct it. It seems they confirmed a lot of this for previous Superman films, and they never got made (they even had posters made). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not some fan's website. Try this link Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Bignole 21:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If you continue to remove a deletion tag without actually following the rules to challenge it, you will be reported to an Admin. Your link to the policy is above. Thank you. Bignole 21:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Check the deletion log, it is in violation of policy, and I've already informed the Admin that originally protected the other pages. There has been nothing added for this film since those other pages were protected. Bignole 21:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd be careful for personal attacks as well, they'll get you into a lot of trouble. BTW, you have reverted the page 3 times, once more and you will be in violation of the 3 revert rule. Bignole

Well, considering the page has been deleted every time someone creates it, and I haven't always been the one to delete, I think that says that someone disagrees with you and the others. Since Admins have to delete pages, it seems that the authority figure on this website disagrees with you. Do I personally care what people are rumoring (i.e. Singer trilogy, or Batman trilogy), no, because that is what it is. Wiki's policy about "crystal ball" supercedes this "we'll do it, but if we're wrong we'll delete it" attitude of yours and the others. This is an encyclopedia, not some scientific experiment where you can change your hypothesis when you wish. As for the reverts, I have only reverted 2 times, you have done it 3. My initial edit does not count as a revert, If you revert once more you will have violated that policy, and it will be grounds for a 24 hour block. Bignole 21:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I placed the tag for you. Bignole 21:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The best wisdom at the time, based on facts. It is not a fact that the movie will come out in 2009, that is what they are hoping for. A fact would be saying "The Sun revolves around the Earth", because back then it was a fact, no if's and's or but's about it. That "fact" was revised years later. It is not a fact that this film will be released in 2009, or filming will begin in 2007. The only fact is that Warner Brothers wants a sequel, and that they have contracted Singer to do it. The title of the film isn't even a fact. Everything that has been confirmed as fact is already on the Superman Returns page, and this is why this page has continuously been deleted. Because there are not enough facts that have been confirmed to actually constitute its own page. When actual production begins, then we will start getting enough information to support a page. They haven't even started "pre-production", they are still "talks" phase. Bignole 21:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to concur with Bignole above. He and the admins have indicated that creating this film article violates Wikipedia's crystal ball policy. The sequel information is already mentioned on Superman Returns, and sequel information for Spider-Man 3 is mentioned on that article as well. Nobody's out to get you; it's just standard not to jump the gun about this sort of thing. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 21:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

In regard to Bond 22, please read the article: "Pre-production work on Bond 22 was already under way before filming of Casino Royale began in January 2006, according to an announcement by Michael G. Wilson during a news conference in London on October 14, 2005." This has transcended the "talks" phase that the Superman Returns sequel is undergoing. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 21:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Bignole asked my help in responding to the creation of the article, not to back him up in this argument. I'm partaking of my own free will. IMDb, if you were familiar with it, is not at all a reliable source when it comes to upcoming films. It is similar to Wikipedia in which users can add content, but the problem is that at IMDb, the content is not verifiable. At best, Superman: The Man of Steel is a rumored title. Please review Wikipedia's policies, especially regarding crystal balling and notability. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 22:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I point you to this important bit of information, for the Bond 22 article, and I quote:
"Pre-production work on Bond 22 was already under way before filming of Casino Royale began in January 2006, according to an announcement by Michael G. Wilson during a news conference in London on October 14, 2005. In a November 17, 2006 interview with the BBC it was confirmed that Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, who had previously written the screenplays for The World Is Not Enough, Die Another Day, and Casino Royale, would also be working on Bond 22."
This is why the Superman sequel is not the same as the Bond sequel. Bignole 22:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The Producers have been had started preliminaries on Bond 22 before then started production of Casino Royalte. If you feel that you were unjustily treated, and that Bond 22 violates the same rules as Superman's sequel, then please, be bold and tag the page. Also, I don't believe my initial comments were that "rude" or "impolite". I simply told you what was what. There weren't some exclamation marks littered all around or something. I'm not sure what you are referring to by your comments to Erik, but you were the one that started with the personal attacks and incivility. And that isn't a "whole" in my logic, that's just your choice. I don't assume that you don't like Bond, and that is why you are bringing it up, I assume that you brought up Bond because you feel that it's a page that supports your decision to create Superman's sequel. Bignole 22:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That isn't rude. The page has been deleted more than 6 times already, probably closer to 10 times, under several different names. The speedy deletion tag was appropriate. I do recall actually notifying you of why the page was previously deleted and why this one went up for deletion. I didn't have to do that. I could have been a true "ass" and ignored you completely and waited for an Admin to delete it. Your "stick up your ass" comment was a personal attack, because you didn't like what I was saying. It's hardly a "stick up your ass" attitude when you are doing nothing more than what has already been done several times within the last 2 weeks. Also, "I" didn't delete anything, check the deletion log, an Admin deleted it. You say I didn't give you a chance to "counter it fairly", but I do believe that the deletion tag provided you with the information necessary to create a "counter" for deleting the page. You decided to delete the tag instead. I, on your behalf, placed the "hangon" tag on the page for you (I guess that was that "stick up [my] ass" that made me help you). Bignole 22:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

IMDb is not reliable when it comes to new movies that havne't come out yet. They will post anything that people provide for them. I don't have to worry about it, because others agree that IMDb isn't reliable in those matters. Secondly, you just "reverted", so again, you'll reach that limit before I will. Again, as for the deletion, I'm not the only one who has deleted it, and I believe the Admins that protected the pages now must agree that it violates policy. If you don't appreciate other people's decisions, and the rules that they base them on, then I'm sorry. Have a nice a day, and I wish you the best. Bignole 15:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you should really pay attention to what I did. I did not revert you, I modify your wording. If you don't like what I did, then the reversions on you, not me. I'm sorry, but it's general consensus that IMDb is not reliable when it comes to future films; the most reliable source is the "horse's mouth", or in this case the people from the studio. Please abide by the rules of Wikipedia. If you do not agree with them, that does not give you the right to ignore them. Bignole 15:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

First, you don't know me, so please do not presume to say what I do and don't know. You can work for Warner Brothers for all I care, but if you cite IMDb as your source, and not a specific person that said it, then it is not considered reliable by Wikipedia standards, not for future films, I'm sorry. I've read the interview where someone said they are thinking of calling it "The Man of Steel", that is what you need to cite. IMDb is not a reliable source because they don't actually provide you with where they get their information. For all we know they can make it up. When SuperHeroHype is cited, it is because they have interviews with the exact dialogue. Citing IMDb is like citing a forum site, it's unreliable because you cannot verify where they got their information from. Please see Wikipedia: Verifiability. This is a policy on Wikipedia, and as you probably know policy is not "guideline" it's a requisite. Bignole 16:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless they can't agree on something, then I don't doubt there will be a sequel. But, we cannot just create articles for subjects that cannot readily support them. This is why we have mergers with other articles of similar nature. Not only is there a size limit, but there is usually a size requirement. Adding "fluff" to articles doesn't help support the page. I originally supported keeping the article as "Untitled Superman Sequel", but right now in its history there isn't enough info to support even that. I presume that once it actually starts doing pre-production work, and it has a script, or at least a script is started, and information begins to start flowing through the news media, that it will have to move to its own article. Bignole 16:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internet Movie Database

Considering that Bignole and others have had to address the creation of this article a few times before, you'll have to excuse any tone you encountered and didn't appreciate. There's a working title reference on Superman Returns already (although the problem is, where did the working title come from before that?), and please re-read what I said about IMDb. "IMDb, if you were familiar with it, is not at all a reliable source when it comes to upcoming films." Aunt May has been listed as Carnage for the upcoming Spider-Man film, and I've personally encountered Ed Norton added to the cast of 24 Season 5 in an upcoming episode. When the movie is out, though, IMDb is just fine. I use its information a lot for already-released films, but before that, the information is questionable. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 22:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Good luck in the business. You're certainly welcome to help with all the other film articles; you'll have to excuse us about the Superman Returns sequel. Hope to see you contribute elsewhere, though. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 22:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Another note

I believe there is a "neutrality" tag you can put up. Looks like this tag, it's the best one I can think of off the top of my head. Bignole 16:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.

You're welcome. I glanced at the article, I don't know if it's more of a racist article or an original research article. It may be lacking citations, because some instances it appears to try and "explain" what that book was insinuating, but instead comes across as try to proclaim facts. Bignole 16:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)