Talk:Star Trek, fan made productions/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Notice

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/wiki/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 Wikipedia 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. [We cannot act on information we do not have. If there is any change to the situation re: your fan film the responsibility is yours to post it, not ours to be constantly watching for it.--Kirok of L'Stok 05:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)] 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. If you cannot or will not meet the minimum standards Wikipedia requires of your article(s), you will not get published. That's what these people have been telling you all along. The Wikipedia 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. [shrug] 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia was mirrored as an authority on subjects in second party websites. Help.com has this page mirrored on their website, as does eBay. Ah! Fame if not fortune!--Kirok of L'Stok 00:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Contributors would do well to remember that Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia admin or at least someone versed in the ways of Wikipedia 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)

I get the impression that there is not conversation desired on this topic. Despite the earlier claim, I don't see this as canvassing. I also wonder whether outside conversation from third parties would be helpful and welcome -- by EITHER side of the dispute. --Mhking 15:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it may be time for mediation. Nick Cook 15:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I would welcome anyone who can supply answers to my questions since I am told that i am in danger of being banned.--Kirok of L'Stok 15:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I doubt you're in any immediate danger of banning, since as far as I can see you're not guilty of the offfense he's accusing you of. His warning is completely unwarranted in my opinion, and should be reviewed by someone higher up. I'd suggest calling in the Mediation Cabal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal Nick Cook 15:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Now this article is up for deletion, which would be a catch 22 for those saying the individual articles should be merged into this one. This is a highly concerted effort against all mentions of Trek Fan Films on wiki and that has me worried. JusticeCEO 16:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not just Trek films now, either. This Milkandwookiees is going after any fanfilm now. Seems we have a case of WP:POINT going on here. TheRealFennShysa 16:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


I'm not pleased with this whole sale AfD of fan films but I just glanced at the Star Wars Fan Films. Why not them? Or has this tidewave of AfD's only directed at Star Trek Fan Films? PirateGent 17:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Listing Unfinished Fan Videos

This wikipedia entry is hilarious. Most of the fan projects listed haven't actually been completed, some aren't even past the initial phases. I dunno, to me that's like entering a recipe card to a cooking contest, but apparently the "we have big plans" type of promotion is a big part of the Star Trek fan film community. Netwriter 01:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Working within the guidelines that have been agreed on by the majority of contributors, your fan film is deemed to be less notable than others that are still in production. I've stated my dissenting view on the idea of notability however if one wants to continue to contribute to this article then one must follow Wikipedia guidelines and (perhaps more importantly) respect the view of the majority of your peers. Perhaps if you were to point to a fan film listed here that you believe to be less notable than your own we could discuss it? Be specific - generalities suggest opinion and quite frankly unless you can back this up, I fail to see how you have a cause for your contention. --Kirok of L'Stok 13:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Why is this still being argued about? It sounds like sour grapes to me. But what do I know? I'm just a fanboy lurking on wiki. PirateGent 16:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I point you to the following description, "Fan Films In Production - Fan film groups which are either filming or have completed filming and are in post production prior to release - does not include trailer or teaser-only projects." Obviously the list here is for those that are in the process of filming, but have not completed their first episode yet. All of those listed have made significant progress towards release, anywhere from building physical sets to being completely in post production. You will note that idea-only groups are not listed at all, since they don't have anything tangable for inclusion. I would like you to please point out any entries that "aren't even past the initial phases" so that we might research them and see if your claim is true. JusticeCEO 11:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfinshed fan films that are so 'popular' to be listed here is an oxymoron. There is nothing substantial completed to be of any real judge. Everything else is just Internet hype and 'recipe cards' of empty Internet promotion of the 'we have BIG plans' variety- USS Intrepid and more. Just more hypocritical selective enforcement of Wiki Internet 'popularity' listing criteria. The hypocricy of folks here is humorous but pathetic. The Wiki rules are selectively used for a small group's selfish promotional arrogant agenda by allowing some to be listed and others not. Thay is why you have some 'favored' fan films listed here and others kept out by spouting Wiki rules claims. What happened to including everyone? Oh, can't have that now, can we? That way something might really be informative here instead of a collection of commercial spam about fan films. The sick patients are running this hospital/entry. Just more silly pandering to each others fragile egos. Netwriter 19:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfinished films don't get entries here at all, unless they are created by people of sufficient fame as to be notable in their own right. By definition fan-films don't qualify for that. DJ Clayworth 19:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually a number of "unfinished" films are listed here, my own included. The current agreement on this page is that films in production are acceptable for listing, however unlike some individuals here, no one involved in Intrepid has any objection to those entries being removed if the concensus of the Wikipedia staff is that they do not belong. Nick Cook 20:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I am not a fan film maker merely a commentator on them and I take great issue to unilateral actions that are against the wishes of the majority of other users. The material goes back in until it has been discussed by a majority decision.--Kirok of L'Stok 21:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

First off, I'll thank you, NetWriter, to keep a civil tongue in your head sir, otherwise I will have to assume that you are more concerned with making personal attacks rather than trying to improve this article.

Secondly I would like User DJ Clayworth to explain his actions before he makes wholesale deletions from the article.

I see nothing in your above post to warrant immediate deletion, if you can make a case for it then by all means, if the concensus decision is for them to go then go they will.

"Unfinished films don't get entries here at all, unless they are created by people of sufficient fame as to be notable in their own right. By definition fan-films don't qualify for that." That sounds like a ruling - is it policy? Can you cite where this categorically stated that unfinished films don't get entries? You're suggesting that the only possible worth of a film before its completion is if it is made by someone famous, let's look at the notability of some of the listings you have deleted ...

Star Trek: Das Vermächtnis Nine years in the making. Starring a nationally known fan actor, featured in Trekkies 2, their critically acclaimed TOS set is now for sale on eBay.

Star Trek Excalibur Large scale sets that rival those used by New Voyages in an advanced stage of construction.

Star Trek: Intrepid Three (or is it four now, Nick?) years in the making with more downloadable material available on line than most completed productions. latest mention in the mainstream media is in the Independant (UK) yesterday. (see above)

Starship Farragut Featured in an June 18, 2006 New York Times article that has been reprinted in mainstream print media around the world. See above.

Borg War The first feature-length animated Star Trek fan film, notable amongst fan films in that it is defined as new game materials for purposes of copyright, nominated for two Machies and shown at the Conflux III film festival.

DJ Clayworth, You might - and that is a slim "might" - have a case for deletion of individual listings. I've heard that ST: Andromeda has gone into hiatus and ST: Dark Armada have only started filming. But wholesale deletion of a category is against the agreed parameters of the contributors to this article. Have you something to contribute, sir? Have you studied the films mentioned? Are the listings in breach of any Wikipedia policies?

I would suggest that the litmus test for their notability might be to consider "would they be remembered or recorded if they stopped production and did not finish their film?" I contend that they are already cultural memes in and of themselves. I'm asking for reasoned debate before deletion here.--Kirok of L'Stok 22:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I base my actions on the general consensus elsewhere in Wikipedia. Unfinished works get mentions only if they are already notable because of the fact of their being in production. So Superman Returns gets and article; my student project doesn't. I think fan-made videos would need extra justification to be considered notable anyway, but unfinished ones? And when did "" become a plus for notability? However I'm not going to push the point. Carry on editing. DJ Clayworth 13:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
"I think fan-made videos would need extra justification to be considered notable anyway" DJ - may I call you, DJ? - The whole concept of notability is flawed - and Wikipedia states it is NOT a policy. Notability is not an absolute value. Its not like a metre rule or a pound weight that can defined down to atomic terms. It is a relative value - you are saying that an artifact has notablity compared to something else. What are you comparing fan films to? Professional productions like "Superman Returns"? Whilst it is true that fan films try to emulate professional values and strive for cinematic artistic quality (with varying degrees of success to be sure) this is not why they are produced. Are you comparing them to other fan films? Obviously you aren't but other editors here do and there is a certain amount of justification to this. However the problem with this is that it is an internal reference - you are comparing fan films to themselves - and it makes it hard to compare it - "justify it" as you say - in the wider field of human knowledge which is what Wikipedia is meant to be doing.
I think it is important to remember that this article is about "fan made productions". The emphasis is on the fact that it is a fan phenomenon, NOT an entertainment phenomenon. Have a proper look through the article and you'll see that we talk about Audio dramas and fan fiction as well. The question you need to ask to justify the existence of this article on Wikipedia is "Are fan productions notable within the frame of reference of the human condition?" The answer is that they are not a survival prerequisite, but they are an *inevitable* part of fandom, which is itself an expression of the passion we feel for our interests. It might not be as important a topic as say, historical facts, philosophical concepts or scientific theorems but it is far more "notable" than some of the other minutiae and trivis that litters Wikipedia.
If you must use notability as a "yardstick" let the criteria be its notability as a fan phenomena rather than its place in the pecking order of cinematic excellence! Whether something in post production should be mentioned should be because of the real and identifiable media and events that they are generating.
By the way, since I only mentioned one fan production that had been going for nine years - Das Vermachtnis - your comment "we've been working on it for nine years without producing anything" shows such an utter lack of knowledge of this fan film as to be stunning. Please, please study the subject you are editting before making such unsupportable comments. Three professional quality stages, enough German mainstream media coverage to fill a book and appearances on TV, film and stage! "without producing anything" ... I would dearly love to see you support that statement! --Kirok of L'Stok 04:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Examples of Trek Fan Film Notability

Trek fan film efforts are discussed in a new article in The New York Times: "'Star Trek' Fans, Deprived of a Show, Recreate the Franchise on Digital Video"

This would be an appropriate article source to use for citation (as there is none in the article currently), in light of the recent concerns over notability/significance.--LeflymanTalk 05:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou, Leflyman, you beat me to it! I've changed your title so that if anyone comes across any other examples of notability they can add them here so that we will have a centralised log. I would like to add that the New York Times article was mirrored (quite badly I might add) by the UK's Independant newspaper (online edition) 19 June 2006--Kirok of L'Stok 15:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The NY Times article has gained widespread coverage since it ws picked up by UPI and news.com such as the San Diego Tribune, Seattle Times, International Herald Tribune, Houston Chronicle, Los Angeles Daily News, The Beaumont Enterprise. Overseas, besides the Independant: Belfast Telegraph, UK; PR Inside (Pressemitteilung), Austria; Dose.ca, Canada--Kirok of L'Stok 18:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This article from The Guardian November 24, 2000 is a bit long in the tooth now but still shows the longevity of the international mainstream media interest.--Kirok of L'Stok 15:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I just watched "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" on MSNBC and their final (number one countdown story according to them) was about the Star Trek fan films out there and Hidden Frontier, New Voyages and Farragut were all mentioned in the brief story. PirateGent 15:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
And now Official Trek is getting into the act. There's an article on StarTrek.com about the fan productions. StarTrek.com Article. JusticeCEO 22:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Darker Projects

I checked with Eric Busby of Darker projects and "The Section 31 Files" is scheduled to come back from hiatus with a third season, so that last edit was correct.--Kirok of L'Stok 11:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The Darker Projects site is down right now.
The Darker Projects site is NOT down at all. I suspect that you are the person who has been banned on the Darker Projects Yahoo group as brynsee. If you have anything to contribute about Darker projects perhaps you should discuss it here first so that it can be verified? I'm not suggesting you are doing anything wrong, but it appears you are making some basic mistakes and so far your changes have been shown to be wrong. You could start by registering as a Wikipedia user and signing your posts.--Kirok of L'Stok 12:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
After looking up the Darker Projects server, the connecting attempts are failed because they tend to time out. Why?
This would seem to be something that is happening to you but not others so I would suggest that it is something to do with either your computer or your internet connection. Perhaps some other user could check that they can open this link? If others can confirm that the link is ok then it must be something specific to your situation.--Kirok of L'Stok 00:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
When I'm try to get to the Darker Projects server, but I can't. It seems something's happening to the server.
Brynsee, you're not listening to me. The fact that YOU cannot access the Darker Projects server does not mean that the Darker Projects server is down. I am looking at the website RIGHT NOW on another window. Why would I try to mislead you? Believe me when I tell you that the Darker Projects website is NOT down. There are two things you need to realise about Wikipedia ...
  • Everything must be verifiable - what you have put in the article is quite easily proven to be WRONG
  • I cannot revert something you have posted three times in the same day (stop me if I'm wrong here fellas) otherwise I will get a temporary ban put on me.
Why do you believe that because you cannot acccess the website that it is down? You have been told by the Darker Projects Admins that your insistance on this point is wrong. Why are you trying to push the point here? I have no idea why YOU cannot get the website, but I assure you that it is not the fault of the website. I've asked you to discuss things here before changing the article, is there a problem with that? Why do you keep changing the article to something that has been proven to be wrong?--Kirok of L'Stok 05:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
When I try to go to the Darker Projects site, the connection to it may be timed out. It says that the Darker Projects site is taking too long to respond. Why?
Double check your computer/DNS/access -- I can go to the site without problem or delay from both my computer at home and at work. I just went to the site just now. --Mhking 15:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I hope it might help. Anyway, are the Darker Projects team re-locating to the Carribean? If so, why would they not return? What about the Darker Projects site itself? It is going to be handled to the company in India? Is the Darker Projects site sill unavailable?
...and it was just after you posted exactly the same piece of misinformation on the DP Yahoo Group that the Group owner told everyone to stop replying to our posts and de-registered you. Remember this article is not for inaccurate conjecture Everything must be verifiable - and yet everything you have written so far can be easily proven to be WRONG. I think the time has come to see if we can stop you from doing this.--Kirok of L'Stok 10:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, Brynsee, I'm not sure how to do this, but I believe that what you are doing here is technically vandalism and I am going to deal with this as laid out in Dealing with vandalism. Since you haven't registered as a Wikipedia user i've created a User page for you as 60.50.62.33 and put your first vandalism warning on it. If you continue making these false entries you will get further vandalism warnings until eventually it will get you banned from Wikipedia either on a temporary or permanent basis. It is entirely possible that your posts are in good faith so feel free to discuss the matter here so that we can work out a way of you making contributions to Wikipedia that are meaningful and constructive.
Just for the record I can see from a check of the Darker Projects Yahoo group where you get your false impression. Chris Snyder, director & producer of Darker projects said in reply to your queries about whether the site was down with: "We're all going to the Caribbean to enjoy a life of endless drinking and debauchery. We're handing the whole thing over to a company out of India who say they can get the productions out in 12 hours time."
Brynsee - HE WAS ONLY JOKING! He finished off with "Seriously, the site is working for me. Friendly, Chris & Cougar"
Brynsee's answer was "When do you want to come back to run this site?"--Kirok of L'Stok 10:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
After Chris Snyder and all of the Darker Projects team are going to the Caribbean to enjoy a life of endless drinking and debauchery, why they intend not to come back and why they are handling the entire Darker Projects web site over to a company out of India who say they can get the productions out in 12 hours time? I'm still having problems connecting to the Darker Projects site.
Brynsee - The truth is that Chris was having a joke with you, they haven't gone anywhere. Not only is Section 31 coming back into production but Kevin Cho of Pioneers has found time to log back onto the Yahoo group and hopefully will be resuming Pioneers.
Sometimes we believe what we want to believe - I know you would like to be involved in the production of these audio dramas but it is a very complex business - I know that I would find it hard to come close to their expertise. Have you thought of auditioning as a voice actor? Perhaps if you posted on their audition's forum asking for a script to try out?--Kirok of L'Stok 12:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I still cannot access to the Darker Projects site. Can anybody help me to check the computer/DNS/access before going to the Darker Projects without problem or delay? (I think it is a broken link.) I think the statement about Eric Busby that "The Section 31 Files" is scheduled to come back from hiatus with a third season is proved false, is Section 31 dead and dumped in favor of "The Byron Chronicles" or Darker Projects becoming more like chattees of the Yahoo group?
Whether you think so or not is not the point -- the site is still present; myself and other individuals have confirmed this. I realize that the standard is to WP:AGF, but your actions and statements are making me doubt good faith on your part.--Mhking 17:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why you can't view the site, but I assure you I still can. The problem is clearly at your end, not Darker Projects'. Furthermore, I spoken to Eric myself a few weeks back, and I can assure you his intention to revist The Section 31 Files is genuine. Nick Cook 09:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I have just reverted another "site is down" and associated nonsense from the Section 31 entry. You are well aware the site is not down, so stop trying to tell people it is. Nick Cook 10:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it is obvious from your continued reposting of material that you cannot support and that is proven wrong by multiple users on this site that you have a fixation with seeing this misinformation posted. I've increased the vandalism warning on the User Page I made for you to level 3 and if you continue you will get yourself barred from posting. As a simple test for you, don't post anything without a URL that links to something that proves your point, for example a notice from somebody else who says the darker projects site is down.--Kirok of L'Stok 07:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Brynsee, do you have a reference for your statment that the next Section 31 will be online before the end of the year? I'm pretty confident that it will, knowing the previous track record of this group, but you have to have a reference, we can't publish guesswork. This is your chance to help us here, perhaps you've spotted something noone else has?--Kirok of L'Stok 06:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Of Gods And Men

I'd like agreement on this before it is posted. Given that ST: Of Gods And Men is filming at the moment, I think it is fair to say that they are in production, right? The amount of mainstream media interest generated by it alone makes it noteworthy. I think that before it has finished it will end up breaking new ground in many different directions.--Kirok of L'Stok 07:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Where do we put external articles?

I put the following notation in the page next to the "New Voyages" project section.

I know it's well worth noting in the page... and it should probably be cited as most wikipedia pages do at the end of the article, but I wasn't about to make a whole new section for it. Please feel free to note it more acceptably. Thank you btw, to all contributors, if it weren't for this great resource I don't think there's any place else that gives a decent overview of what's going on in this space. --mmeiser 15:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It should really go here But I'll let you have the fun of doing it! Good catch! --Kirok of L'Stok 08:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Fan Fiction

Looking at the number of fan fiction sites that are cropping up on this entry (and more notably the number of poorly-made sites linked), I'm seriously wondering about proposing that those sites be removed from this entry. After all, the primary intent of this article is to note fan-made video and audio productions, not fan fiction as a whole. If fan fiction continues being added, this will become nothing more than the sort of list that those who sought this page's removal several months ago talked about. Any discussion before I actually go ahead and remove the fan fiction section? --Mhking 20:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with this, as it's something I've been considering for some time as well. MikeWazowski 00:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's a suggestion: Find a site that lists such fan fiction and list said site or two (not more than half a dozen) and let that be it. That way, people will be able to find such fiction from this article, but this article won't be the one doing the listing. Val42 00:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
There's already articles on fan fiction - those links can be posted there as external links. I personally don't think fan fiction qualifies as notable, in and of itself. As Mhking said, this list is really more about "productions", which to me means fanfilms and audio projects, which have become notable for the greater media coverage they attract, their collaborative nature, and the current level of involvement many of them have attracted from the actual cast and crew. TheRealFennShysa 15:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that written fan fiction should not be included here (although I believe the virtual seasons are significant achievements). Could you point to any written works in this article though? Stop me if I'm wrong, but aren't they all either video or audio projects? Examples please.--Kirok of L'Stok 18:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. There are no articles on Star Trek fan fiction or Star Trek fanzines. The deletion of the material from this article suggests a bias toward the film media against the printed (or electronic) word. The suggestion that fan fiction sites are "poorly-made" would be acceptable had the same generalization been made about most Star Trek fan films. I'd suggest the reintroduction of fan fiction to this article. Orion Randy 21:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
For the most part, articles on fanfiction and fanzines have been removed because of questions of notability - as have some fanfilms, for that matter. The standard all entries must hold to is notability as established by reliable third-party sources. The simple truth is that fanfiction rarely gets any press outside of its own small clique of contributors, and as such, information on it is very difficult to confirm, much less treat as credible. As I also said before, the fan films that are listed, especially the ones with their own articles, have demonstrated their notability because of the greater media coverage they attract, and the current level of involvement many of them have attracted from the actual cast and crew. Trek fan fiction has none of that, fas as I can make out. If you feel the need for a separate article on fan fiction, by all means, go and write that - but make sure you remember that standards for notability, verifiability, and attribution will apply there just as much as here. TheRealFennShysa 21:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Then I suggest you check out BOLDLY WRITING, A Trekker Fan and Zine History 1967-1987, Second Edition, by Joan Marie Verba (ISBN 0-9653575-4-6). It's available as a free download in PDF format here: http://www.ftlpublications.com/bwebook.pdf It is a well-researched history of fan fiction. Frankly, asserting that fan fiction isn't well read is really an opinion you've formulated, not fact. Orion Randy 01:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I know of Boldly Writing , although I haven't read it, and I've interviewed Jacqueline Lichtenberg, the doyen of fan writers, who will firmly put detractors into their place! An amazing woman, as is her writing partner, Jean Lorah. The question isn't (or shouldn't be) whether you or I feel that fan fiction is notable or not. The problem here is a value judgement of what is notable and what is not in terms of the accepted usage of the word in Wikipedia. Personally I think there would be an excellent case for the mainstream importance of fan fiction and the resulting standalone article could easily reach the present size of this article.
My only problem with its inclusion here is that it isn't within the scope of the article, and to change the scope to include it would swamp the original material if done correctly. As I've said, my original definition of fan "production" was anything produced by fans but the concensus seems to be a "theatrical production" which cuts out games and crafts as well as fiction. Star Trek fan fiction is a significant and notable subject in my estimation that will make an excellent, independant article.
Any volunteers?--Kirok of L'Stok 08:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Fan Games

Should we make a section for fan games? Not only are they significant, especially in the mod community, but star trek fan games are among some of the first computer games ever made (eg, the star trek script game and 'super star trek'). Not only that, but a few games such as ega trek and originally, the starfleet universe, have received special dispensation from paramount to continue using certain proper nouns (eg, vulcan = ok, spock != ok).69.231.243.136 01:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It depends on your definition of a fan production. When I originally started this article I had the idea of also including ...
    1. VR (Virtual Reality) animations with subcategories for ...
      1. Stop motion
      2. Sim movies
      3. Flash
      4. Machinima
      5. CGI Animation
    2. Web Comics
    3. Computer Games with subcategories for ...
      1. Half-Life
      2. Star Trek: Elite Force
      3. Unreal Tournament 2004
      4. Freeware (ie others)
    4. Skills and crafts with subcategories for ...
      1. Card modelling

To my mind, a fan production is anything produced by fans but you could use the definition that it could be a theatrical production created by fans. To be fair although animations fit that definition, I don't think games and crafts really fit here now. There is a subcategory for games in ST: Spinoff fiction (which significantly overlaps this article, I might add) but I don't think it fits there either really. I think you should consider a seperate article - maybe split off the games section from the ST: spin-offs article?--Kirok of L'Stok 00:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

MST3K AND ST-V

In regards to the section titled Mystery Science Theater 3000 - Star Trek V: The Final Frontier where it says "Ryan K. Johnson's take on a film the original Mystery Science Theater 3000 never tackled," this may need to be re-written. It is true that MST3K never tackled it during its original run due to legalities, but more recently RiffTrax has tackled it. Mike Nelson, with the assistance of Kevin Murphy (aka Tom Servo) have deliciously lampooned it. Although this is not a fan film, because only the audio is available, so how one can worm this into the article is beyond me. However, although Ryan beat Mike to the punch, it has since been tackled, and expertly, by at least a portion of the original MST3K talent pool. -- ZachsMind 23:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

MST3K never did tackle Star Trek V". Rifftrax is not MST3K. Hence, the original phrasing is correct and completely accurate. And seeing as how the original phrasing predates the creation of Rifftrax, the "worming its way in" phrase is a bit strong, don't you think? TheRealFennShysa 16:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek Origins

A new fan film in production. I'm not sure how to edit it into the article so I put it here for anyone who can

http://www.startrekorigins.com/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.66.212.175 (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

They are still in pre-production - cast, scripts for 4 vignettes & a premiere ep, video equipment bought and just waiting for costumes before they start filming. Once they have that first vignette in the can they will be in post-production and eligable for inclusion in that bracket. Getting the front page of Fan Films Quarterly as well doesn't hurt their notability ... OMG, I can't believe I just said that!--Kirok of L'Stok 00:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Section 31 Files Vandalism

Bryan, we have been through all this before and your credibility in pretty much zero since you have never given one supporting reference for all the changes you have made. I still believe that you are simply a misguided fan but the situation has taken an all to serious nature. You have been told by the executive producer of ST: The Section 31 Files that if you continue with your campaign of misinformation against S31 he will discontinue the audio drama and it will be YOUR fault. If you continue with this consistent editing of the S31 piece in this article to make it sound like it has finished when you have no proof that this is so then it is entirely possible that you will push Eric over the edge and cause the demise of the very thing that you purport to be a fan of. Whether the threat is fair dinkum or not, what you are doing is vandalism and we will go through the same process as before, however because of your record, i will show less leeway than i did. For every edit that you make that is not supported by a verifiable source i will increase the vandalism warning. I have now posted a level 1 vandalism warning on your talk page. Feel free to discuss any questions you might have with this - I don't want you to unknowingly get yourself banned. --Kirok of L'Stok 11:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Bryan, I'm reverting your Pioneers edit since I know that the lines have been sent out by Kevin Cho for the next episode, and as agreed I'm going to bump your vandalism warning up again getting you even closer to being barred from Wikipedia. I am going to remove every post you make on this article that is without a corroborating reference - a link to confirm it - I will not allow you to continue this campaign of misinformation about things you are not prepared to get the facts about.--Kirok of L'Stok 21:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Bryan, Do you realise that someone who writes in exactly the same style as you, has posted exactly the same misinformation that you have been cited for? Do you also realise that the experts in such things on Wikipedia tell me that they can trace an IP address (did I get that right?)? Have you any idea how much it will destroy what little remains of your credibility if it is found - and believe me, these things will come out - that you have been posting under another name, even an anonymous posting? Now it is entirely possible that you might have forgotten to login as yourself, if so it might be best for you to tell us now because posting using what I believe they so amusingly call a "sockpuppet" is frowned on very severely.
However I find this hard to believe.
I think that you are basically a fan who wishes the best for Darker projects. Rest assured that the person who is impersonating you will be tracked down and severely chastised.--Kirok of L'Stok 09:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Bryan, I have first hand knowledge that work on the latest episode has passed another milestone. The fact that you are posting without logging in is a patent sockpuppet, especially since you are posting exactly the same rubbish on TrekUnited. I can only assume you are Trolling, you have made no attempts to support your villification of Section 31. I see no sign that you are going to stop, in fact your are stepping up the frequency of your attacks. I am going to bump your vandalism warning up to it's final warning. I find this situation that you have forced upon us to be distasteful in the extreme.--Kirok of L'Stok 09:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well Bryan, Despite your best efforts, Section 31 is not quite dead yet. You have recklessly pushed Eric to the stage of saying on TrekUnited that he was closing S31 down precisely because of your ongoing harrassment. I know that you believe this to be your final proof that S31 is in hiatus but you failed to take into account what i said earlier - Eric has an episode in hand that he has an obligation to produce out of fairness to the VA's and director. Read it and weep!

So this leaves us with the fact that once again you have posted on Wikipedia without confirming your facts. I believe that this puts you in default of your last warning? Is there an Admin around somewhere who can take it from here or do I have to get in touch with someone?--Kirok of L'Stok 10:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You should probably start at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, but I have never used it. Dan, the CowMan 13:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek (Reborn)

It doesn't quite fit in any of the categories shown, but I think "Star Trek (Reborn)should be included. The site is at http://www.startrekreborn.net/viewpage.php?page_id=3. Essentially, it's presented as a pitch to "reboot" the Original Series in a serialized, realistic drama format with suggested casting such as Sean Patrick Flannery as Kirk, James Marsters as Spock, Gary Sinise as McCoy (suggested before the Star Trek XI rumors), and Michael Paul Chan as a redefined Sulu. Several teleplays have been writtend and posted on the site. VaGuy1973 22:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If it doesn't fit on the page, it doesn't belong here. This page is about produced fan film, video and audio productions, not fan fiction. The project you mention had no chance of ever being produced or considered, even before the new film went into production, and a handful of fanfiction teleplays is hardly notable, as was discussed last October. Star Trek (Reborn) absolutely should not be included on this page. MikeWazowski 03:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I've got to agree. I admire some of the script-based virtual series and I applaud the idea of a virtual reboot (not sure about some of the choices) but virtual series are not within the scope of this article, script-based or otherwise.--Kirok of L'Stok 09:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Borg War

Borg War is a machinima, not a fan film. It should not be here - Count23 11:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Borg War is a movie length animation made by a fan - how is that not a fan film? Why would you not class animation as cinema? It was created using game software in much the same way that Stone Trek was made with Flash or ST: Aurora was made with poser & 3DS Max, the only difference is the software. Why do you believe machinima should not be here? Please explain.--Kirok of L'Stok 15:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Because it's nothing new or unique. Every other film has actually gone to the effort of making original work. Here it's just badly scripted EF2 character motions with the original dialogue playing in different sequences to the original game. This would be technically qualified as a parody, mod or farce, not a fan film - fan films have effort involved, not just program scripting. - Count23 10:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Why do I get the impression that you don't like it? All the points you've raised against BorgWar apply to all machinima so instead of saying BorgWars shouldn't be here, you should be saying, "Should machinima be allowed here". First off, is it a type of fan production? Yes, fan production, note the name of this article, it is not soley about fan films. Logically, a production can be anything that is produced by a fan - card game, card model or knitting pattern. However I have taken the stance - and it hasn't been contested - that the article should mean dramatic productions which takes out Fan Fiction, poetry and Filk since they are not classed as drama. So we can narrow the question down to "is machinima a dramatic production?"
Geoff has avoided any problem with the copyright because strictly speaking his work is "new games material" I understand that "BorgWar" will eventually be released as a game mod. The movie that has been released is, by this definition, a by product of the mod. Is the Mod an original creation? No, but it has had a massive amount of original material added to it. The test would be, I think, can you buy this off the shelf? How easy would it be for you or I to duplicate? What you so flippantly call "just badly scripted EF2 character motions with the original dialogue playing in different sequences to the original game" is in fact years of original work in two games, not one since the ships came from Bridge Commander.
So there is original work involved, does the fact that it is based on the work of others preclude it from being original drama? Hello? We are talking about fan productions here - ALL of them are based on the copyrighted premise owned by CBS / Paramount. If I buy a puppet and put on a show with the puppet is that an original drama made by me or by the puppet maker? The creator of BorgWars uses the EF2 and BC game engines as tools to make his production, just the same as Stone Trek uses Macromedia Flash and ST Aurora uses Poser. As regards the voice clips, the re-using of the original audio material is purposefully done to add authenticity to the movie ... and there is some original voice-overs in there as well, Lt Reg Barclay is one from memory.
If you knock out BorgWar, you knockout ALL machinima and I can't see why. You seem to be basing your case on a value judgement that is not supported by either the machinima community (viz, the Machies nomination) nor the general sci fi community - it was one of the two Trek fan films shown at last years Conflux 3 at the National Museum of Australia. Its a dramatic production, it is made by a fan, it deals with Star Trek and it is notable both within the machinima, Star Trek, general Sci Fi and mainstream community ... unless you can give us some citations to the contrary?--Kirok of L'Stok 10:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I met the guy who made it, he's apart of my forum. To my knowledge, he referred to it as a fan film- Me