I have refactored the longer comments to here in order to make the main day's AFD page easier to go through. Please continue to discuss here, and make short discussion and/or recommendations to keep/delete on the main AFD page. Stifle 23:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

Seriously, it would be interesting to know how you came up with such an assumption? Where did you find the "official release" designation? What you meant to say was I clicked on a link that referred to a dead page. It was entitled funkastophalaes. After clicking the cache portion of google I learned that an image associated with the page no longer exists. This demonstrates some sort of ignorance on your part. After reading the talk associatted with the page and reviewing its history I have seen that basically Joshuaz had prodded the page for deletion without giving a reason. Apparently he was kicked off of the associatted forum for making ideological comments against the film and general harrasment. So it has become clear that although this page stands in cue for deletion, we still do not know why? One reason was the result of googling, the other was apparently it because it is not commonly released...However, after reviewing the talk on the articles page, I have followed the links to zerohorizon.com and also contacted the webmaster of this page to see if I could obtain the screenshots that the previous anon user was mentioning with evidence that joshuaz had been malicious. It does appear to me that joshuaz does have an agenda. He stoked someone to provoke them so that he could get the page deleted, unfortunately it has revealed a sort of piling on - similar to a grade school conflict- of like minded fundamentalists who keep referring to some sort of pedantic refuge when prodded for their decisions, rather than acknowledging the flaws in their assertations. One question posed by another illuminated that the criteria for deletion had not been met, that there was some pretty POV and loaded observations of verifiable and that there is a possible agenda at play related to joshuaz christian fundamentalist background. These are all valid and I would hate to see wikipedians censor artwork because it isn't main stream, doesn't qualify in mainstream christian pedagogy, or for what seems to be happening which is 'shooting from the hip' reactionism. Seriously, google as a verifier? C'mon? If google is in fact the point of verification for wikipedia articles, then you are setting a dangerous trend for wikipedias credibility. I personally want to see if joshuaz does in fact have an agenda associatted with this page, whether he utlized his knowledge of wikipedia processes to bring this to this point and if in fact there is a malicious pattern associatted with this guy. I am firmly against blanket censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.36.12 (talk • contribs)

Great, but its not my forum. I am however a fan of the film. Why don't you explain how it doesn't meet those criteria? Every time you are presented with a question related to this you avoid it...Some very strong points have been raised you need to respond to them and stop hiding behind ambiguous assertions of power. ...added in two edits circa 11pm, 1 April 2006 by User:67.160.36.12 (contribs)

(1) It's not verifiable. When I polled Google for it yesterday, I got no hits. Of course, not all credible sources of information are on the web, let alone googlable. So what credible sources do you suggest? (I have a couple of excellent libraries at my disposal.) (2) When you comment, sign at the end. You do this with four twiddles in a row: ~~~~. Thank you. -- Hoary 23:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got a copy of the dvd for free by emailing them from their website. My friend got one when it was thrown at him from a moving car...I am not sure if it is in the library, the film is quite new but I will check when I go downtown this evening. It has played in the nwfilmforum, capitol hill, international district and at many art shows. the film is very art/indy and the director is pretty flaky (as per his post film talk). I will check these, also i will find a way to post the screenshots of what the webmaster sent me. 67.160.36.12 00:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, now you're talking. (And thank you for signing.) No, screenshots aren't helpful. But if this has been shown in many art shows, I'd have thought it would have been mentioned in some magazine or newsletter. On the other hand, maybe it hasn't yet but soon will be; if this is so, the article should be deleted but that deletion wouldn't prejudice its chances of being re-created when conditions are right (when news of it has filtered through to the odd newspaper or three). What you might do is create a username for yourself (easy!) and copy this article to a subpage of your own, so that you can work on it and repost it when its content really is verifiable. (As I've written above, I rather wish it were all true and verifiably so, as it sounds much more interesting than the average verifiable Hollywood dreck. Not that my tastes should have anything to do with it.) -- Hoary 00:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then I will find the flyers i have for it and possibly news clippings...But I do believe that animosity and maliciousness on the part of JoshuaZ should be noted, while it may be subtle it can be useful. Also, I told a firend who said he has evidence to demonstrate 67.160.36.12 01:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your continual attacks in this manner are getting tiresome. 1) I agree with other users that this would be an interesting movie, but it simply doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia verifiability standards. 2) As I have already told you I have never had anything to do with yout zerohorizon forum. The only usernames/usernames I ever use are strictly permutations of my name, so unless there was a Joshua Z or something close to that on zerohorizon it couldn't be me. 3) Read WP:NPA 4) If you are going to keep making this claim you could at least let us see your evidence. 5) Are you aware of how little credibility someone has making claims against other users after they have already attempted to impersonate that user and vandalize under the impostor account? JoshuaZ 01:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't impersonated anyone. You seem to have a problem and angenda. I posted on zerohorizon as Briar Rabbit and dealt with your tirade, you even tried to get the trailer removed from you tube. Here are the screenshots from your attacks sent to me by the admin from zerohorizon http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/7844/atopicarealist7bs.png http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/7497/banneduser032906ban4kt.png http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/1530/banneduser032906scomm3ra.png http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/3267/banneduser03290610013ue.png http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/4495/banneduser03290610077hh.png http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/8844/banneduser03290610149fz.png http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/6935/banneduser03290610180pj.png It is most defintely you. YOU made the forum get back from public to private only. You would link hi res images from nasa to slow the forum down, YOU would type things across to stretch it out and YOU have an agenda like you procliamed on there. I am getting tired of you accusing me of things. This is YOU you even put it in your signature as a threat!!!! What is your problem man. Also, explain how it doesnt meet verification standards you alwyas dodge this. Also, please stop slandering me and attempting to make it as if I am from some other place.67.160.36.12 01:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the image time and then the article I also noticed that this occured along with when you prodded for deletion. I feel that you have used this sort of strategy to get things removed that you do not like. Please answer the questions raised earlier in the discussion and stop hiding thanks!67.160.36.12 01:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, something odd seems to be going on here. 1) Could you please clarify if you made the User:Joshuaz with a lower case z, since it seems to pretty cleary be your handywork. 2) I am highly skeptical that these images are real given that it seems you have already attempted to impersonate me once. As I think most wikipedia users who know me will tell you, I don't talk like that. Can you provide actual links to where these posts occur? JoshuaZ 01:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm getting tired of requests for an explanation of how it doesn't meet verification standards. (The explanation appears above, repeatedly.) Can we please cut all talk of what people have or haven't done on other websites, and concentrate on the verifiability of claims about this movie? Above: I will find the flyers i have for it and possibly news clippings: good, it's the latter that we're after. NB we'll have to know where they came from; "I forgot to note that down" won't wash. And as I've said, if proof can't be found very soon, and the article is deleted, that doesn't mean that it can't be re-created later after the movie has made a splash of some kind in one or two newspapers. Actually I can't see what the urgency is: Citizen Kane had to wait decades for an article on Wikipedia, and I don't think its many admirers complained about the delay. -- Hoary 01:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait wait wait. My handywork? These are my posts and now you are slandering me...I think this has been your plan all along to cause a stir then get the topic pushed into and area of conflict so that you can find an easy out. Seriously, what do you mean those images aren't real? They are YOUR posts. You came onto the message board and posted...Then when you recieved no welcome you became agitated. lets look at the chain of events here: 1) you prod the page to be deleted the same time you are on the forum 2) you send me a PM asking who or if I was the author of the wikipedia article 3)you make outrageous accusations and threats 4)when you are wanred by the admin you start to post high res images and lsow down the forum for everyone. 5)when warned you say that you will have the wikipedia page deleted 6)we say go ahead they will re-up it and site an IBM study that indicates the pages get fixed within 5 mins. Also, the filmmaker and director of the film say this is first they heard of the page 7)you add a link to wikipedia into your signature as a subtle threat 8)you do more stuff and get banned 9) soon after several "people" sign up and start posting non-sense and even attempt to hack the bulletin board 10) the admin puts the password back on the forum as a result. prior to the board going public there was a debate as to whether this should be done-you have ruined this. 11)a user called Cristopher Reeve posts that the guy who was banned is deleting the wikipedia page. So you have gotten many people who have shown up. Exept that you want to try and say that they are the person with which you have a disagreement. I posted my posts and you can chech my ip, but stop calling me a vandal, this is distratcionary and misleading. Most likely an attempt to make a diversion from the fact that I was able to identify you as the maliscious user. A check of the times of my posting today and correlation will easily solve your "defense" quandry. Look I believe that this movie is very much verifiable and I disgaree with the methodologies you have cited. But this is side course as you have planned a conflict to happen so that you may be dismissive of the points made. Look you prodded the account and somebody asked you the reason and you refused to present it. Others were the ones who found reason later on, but originally people edited the page for orthographic reasons. ORIGINALLY YOU HAD NO REASON! and this is the point. What is happening now is your clever manipulation and understanding of wikipedia to get back at fans of a film that you have never seen but drew conclusions from based on the early trailer. I emailed the admin of the board and he sent me a zip file of all of those screenshots if anyone wants them email me at johnnyrotten909@gmail.com . You can easily get a copy of the film and you were asked if you wanted one and you decided to go off on people. So you were looking to verify the film and you found fans of the film and even the filmaker asked you if you want a dvd because you were so mad...So how is this not verifiable proof? email the filmaker saltchrome@zerohorizon.com the admin is boardadmin@zerohorizon.com....Now on to Hoary's comments. I agree with the verification, however I believe that the maker of the wikipedia page would have added more links and the like if JoshuaZ had responded to the many requests. He didn't even have a reason to prod it for deletion and I don't know what you mean about vandalising I haven't done a thing. The film has made an underground presence here in Seattle but the president we are setting is that there needs to be some sort of corporate acceptance to make things exist. If you were to see the film is this not verification? Otherwise then this prodding for deletion is simply cinematic criticism . In other words, it is saying that only films that are released commercially can be verified, if you meet the makers you will realize this isn't their intent but they offer free copies. Even Herzog has seen the film after his festival here in Seattle. Some things can be underground and truly independent without being corporately or finacially sanctioned. That is like saying Nirvana wasn't a band before 1987. But if you are given a dvd? Like I said I will check things and downtown also and I have emailed the filmmaker. What is this deadline you speak of? If Orson Welles had a dvd and wikipedia was looking for verification of the film he would have gladly gave it to them during the shelving of the film. Again the film is available... Lsat time stop with the slander JoshuaZ67.160.36.12 02:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, two very specific yes or no questions. 1) Do you have links to where the above forum posts actually occured? 2) Did you or did you not construct the Joshuaz user name on Wikipedia? JoshuaZ 02:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Whether the answers are yes yes, yes no, no yes, or no no, they have no bearing on the verifiability of claims made about this movie. -- Hoary 03:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you are correct that the various allegations are not relevant to the AfD, I have moved discussion of them to the user's talk page. JoshuaZ 03:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if true, allegations about what such-and-such a username did on another website throw no light on the verifiability of what's said about a film. If anybody wants to pursue such an argument, do it elsewhere. The film has made an underground presence here in Seattle but the president we are setting is that there needs to be some sort of corporate acceptance to make things exist. I think that by "president" you mean "precedent" but I still don't fully understand. Still, I can start to guess. If you're complaining that it's unreasonable to demand that the Hearst, Murdoch and similar infotainment empires must describe a movie before that description appears in WP, I completely agree. But nobody has stated this. Despite the best oligopolistic efforts of the infotainment empires, Seattle surely has alternative newspapers and news/events/arts websites (and I don't mean mere blogs). If you were to see the film is this not verification? No, because I'm just a nobody and there's no reason why others should believe my claims. If on the other hand James Berardinelli got it and wrote about it on his site, that would be verification. In other words, it is saying that only films that are released commercially can be verified. . .  No it isn't. Herzog has seen the film after his festival here in Seattle. You mean Werner Herzog? If he writes about it, we'll be interested. Some things can be underground and truly independent without being corporately or finacially sanctioned. Very true. But if you are given a dvd? Again, meaningless. If Werner Herzog is given one and writes about it, meaningful. -- Hoary 03:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horay your agitation is definitely not understandable. So you go on this long tirade about alternative forms of verification and I simply asked you WHAT DO YOU NEED? What I am getting from what you are saying is that somebody else needs to write about it...Somebody that has an archive? You are dancing around the point and fending off a critical point with your penned anger. This point simply is this- IF THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF THE FILM (including its distribution, viewing, content, and INTENT) IS TO AVOID THIS how then does one provide verification? I mean this is simply obvious, don't you see the question? C'mon man? The other point is that when JoshuaZ was presented with an option to obtain verification he turned it down, so hopefully you can see the confusion. However, this distraction from the intentions of JoashuaZ is puerile. BECAUSE it fits solely into the evolution of this argument. You were also presented with several simple questions which you have chosen to avoid, WOULD YOU PLEASE ANSWER THEM? Look I'm not talking about giving you a dvd, okay? I don't even know if the filmmakers would give you one unless you met the required criteria which is mentioned on the funkastophales wikipedia page. I am not their spokesman. What is meant is to point out that you are saying that there must be verifiable evidence that something exists, yet I am asking you specifics...Like do you want a note from the theaters who showed it? I have asked the admin at the website for this proof of verification and he said he will pass it on, after asking "what like flyers?" You have to understand that this film has occupied an interesting place in the undergroundnd community because of its unique nature and utter inaccesibility. I know that the film is being rented at a couple of indy video stores, I know that the first time I saw it I was handed a flyer that had a pciture of Barry Manilow with the eyes x'd out and the words proznark film in the lower right corner and a location, date and time. When I got there I see a video art installation, a robot display and this film funkastophales showing in the back room. Now this existed, but to verify is obviously difficult...Most especially when the work is targeted to avoid normal means of circulation. Hopefully you can see this presents a strong challenge to the presented definition of verifiability. The Henry Art Gallery is a contemporary art museum in Seattle, that doesn't mean they are the clearinghouse for all things art and if I understand the filmmakers presentation correctly he doesn't want them to be. If the filmmaker has chosen to expose this film to people who are NOT in the "business" of chronicling art then this presents a peculiarity, but not nessecarily a diversion from verification. You are suggesting that the filmmaker submit this film to a critic or get someone in a paper to write about it, this will make it exist-at least in the wikipedian sense? The almost robotic non deletes on this page only go to illustrate two of the major contentions here: 1)verifiabe is being mis-interpreted unfairly in the case of this film 2)There is a personal agenda at play here . But Horay please stop ignoring JoshuaZ's bias, it is VERY IMPORTANT! This is because he was in a position to obtain verification (I am assuming that this is why he wandered into the forum in the first place) becasue his rants had even gained the attention of the filmmaker on the forum. Like I said I have sent an email, I am sure that the filmmaker will have this creaky empiricism available. A couple of things...Please acknowledge that you understand the unique complexity at play...Please asnwer the questions presented. JoshuaZ please stop telling others to post deletes here...In fact you posted a warning to this affect LOL. And one last thing HorayWe'll be interested What? You are some dude on wikipedia man, you are not part of some wikipedia clan. Yet if this is the stance you are taking then I suppose you consider yourself part of JoshuaZ'z attacks?67.160.36.12 08:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also submit that the associatted webpage is a valid primary source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#Bulletin_boards_and_posts_to_Usenet67.160.36.12 09:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horay your agitation is definitely not understandable. I think you are addressing me, "Hoary". I am not agitated. (Indeed, I'm more than slightly bored.) What I am getting from what you are saying is that somebody else needs to write about it...Somebody that has an archive? Pretty much, yes. This point simply is this- IF THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF THE FILM (including its distribution, viewing, content, and INTENT) IS TO AVOID THIS how then does one provide verification? If this movie (or its distribution) is as remarkable as you say, then it will probably be written up, e.g. by Werner Herzog. (Here's his site.) WP can wait for that. What is meant is to point out that you are saying that there must be verifiable evidence that something exists, yet I am asking you specifics...Like do you want a note from the theaters who showed it? No I don't. You are suggesting that the filmmaker submit this film to a critic or get someone in a paper to write about it, this will make it exist-at least in the wikipedian sense? Actually I wasn't suggesting that earlier, though it's certainly an option. Indeed, you might contact a critic or a newspaper. And yes, if a paper writes it up, then that will be verifiable. You are some dude on wikipedia man, you are not part of some wikipedia clan. Well said: I am indeed just some dude. Thanks for the reality check! -- Hoary 13:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More