User talk:Fezmar9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A thanks[edit]

My apologies if this is an out-of-the-ordinary means of sending a message like this, but I couldn't figure any better method while the impulse was still in my head. I just wanted to express my gratitude that you've been willing to hash things out and exchange arguments on the Versions of Justice League AFD page. I'm aware my behavior on other sites gets hotheaded at times and I came on strong here, but I do firmly believe in my stance on this matter, and I greatly appreciate having someone on the other end of the conversation who'll properly explain and defend their reasoning, even if I ultimately do not agree. It's a far more pleasant experience than I expected, and a good chance to improve my ability to defend such positions according to strict standards in a formal arena. So, thank you. Gargus-SCP 15:19, 22 July 2019 (PST)

It's so funny that you say that because I was going to actually drop you a line and say something similar! I spent a great deal of time on that draft, and when you created an account that seemed like the sole purpose was to get this article deleted, I was frustrated. But I actually enjoyed the spirit of an intelligent debate here and you brought up some great points. I apologize for assuming your motives based on what I could find in a Google search and accusing you, in return, for being biased. Cheers! Fezmar9 (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, would you happen to have anywhere we might exchange contacts and discuss things in more detail? There are certain aspects of this conversation I'd like to hash out without cluttering the talk pages, as well as the possibility of discussing how to improve the article in the event it isn't deleted, since I feel I've a responsibility to make an effort to help on that front as the deletion nominator in the first place. Gargus-SCP (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2019 (PST).
Well, that's actually what talk pages are for! I'd say anything that has to do with getting into the details of our conversation or Wikipedia policy should go here, and anything related to improving the article should go on Talk:Versions of Justice League where other editors can chime in. It's a collaborative site, after all. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With the deletion discussion closed on a verdict of "keep," I'd like to once more thank you for your time on this matter, and note that I have begun a thread on the article's talk section where we can hopefully work to make it better. Gargus-SCP (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2019 (PST)

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to do that. Donteatpigs (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your work on Kristin Hayter; What a well written article! 💵Money💵emoji💵💸 17:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Money emoji: Thanks! It was a pleasure to write because Hayter is so well spoken in her interviews, and she's such a fascinating and unique musician. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Partial judgements[edit]

It's remarkable how you're allowing sources of screenrant and Smcolbert despite their articles being purely speculative. Whereas if I post information from Zack Snyder himself it's original research. Great, you're so logical Bjthegeek (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot[edit]

Thanks a lot
Thanks for ruining my edits.

I add the track listing template because it makes it look organized. Donteatpigs (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Smith's source vs Zack Snyder[edit]

You deleted my addition because you claim: "this exact same information is already in the article three sentences prior"

This is factually incorrect, Kevin Smith's quote is in direct contradiction with Zack Snyder's statement. Furthermore Smith is a reputable idiot who initially claimed there was no Cut of Snyder's Justice League. His quotes can be used but they should not be taken over the director himself.

Sources are important. And Kevin Smith is not a reliable source in comparison to Zack Snyder --Julian1Seguin8 (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Julian1Seguin8[reply]

@Julian1Seguin8: There are multiple sources stating the film is incomplete, including the very Snyder quote you're referring to (which was a candid, off the record comment where he didn't know he was being recorded—people tend to exaggerate in situations like this). He said it's "done" but further commented that it still needs more VFX work. So, he contradicted himself in his own statement. It's also factually incorrect to say that Kevin Smith initially claimed there was no Snyder Cut. In December 2017, just weeks after the movie premiered, he appeared on a podcast talking about how much better Synder's film would have been and even had someone in the audience who saw one of the early cuts to confirm what he was talking about (source: ScreenGeek). Fezmar9 (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your logic at all. Because Snyder was off-the-record, that does not in any way, invalidate what he said. Snyder did not say "it needs more VFX" in that video so I don't know who told you that. I happen to be in contact with a event-goer who told me that there was no mention of further VFX and rather the focus would be on marketing the movie. Furthermore, your one source, ScreenGeek is hardly source that confirm anything. Also Kevin's statement is based off of a guy who watched a screentest. This does not speak to the film's current status. Basically, it's the usual "I know a guy, who knows a guy". 7 months ago, he claimed it was three films.

--Julian1Seguin8 (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Julian1Seguin8[reply]

@Julian1Seguin8: The event which you're referring to was covered by dozens of sources who captured what was said via new articles or live tweets that were used as sources for news articles. One of those sources was actor Will Rollands, who attended the event and tweeted a quote of Snyder from that event saying it just needed "a few CG tweeks". Both of the citations currently in the article cite this as a source, as do a handful of others. If by "that video" you're referring to the short 20 second clip that snyderfetishists are constantly retweeting, that was one of MANY pieces of information to came out of the event, not the only quote to come out of the event. The original point of undoing your edit was that it was redundant to this sentence: "During an event, Snyder said that he had multiple cuts that were essentially "done," only needing "a few CG tweaks" to complete, but that it was ultimately up to Warner to release it." which essentially says the same thing to what you added. The article shouldn't state the same thing twice. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no need to be denigrating or offensive. Calling these people "snyderfetishists" is immature amd makes you out to be a real jerk. Also, Jason Momoa would later come forward and say that it was coming. Either way, Kevin Smith's quote is not in agreement with what Snyder says.

--Julian1Seguin8 (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Julian1Seguin8[reply]

@Julian1Seguin8: Absolutely nothing is in agreement with Snyder's "it's done" comment at this time. Not Snyder's other comment of needing "CG tweaks", not the half-completed shots Snyder has posted to Vero that clearly still need work, not Jay Oliva's claims that a cut of the film showing the basic story exists but VFX was still on going and there might have needed to be minor reshoots, not Mark Hughes comments that it's only 90% complete, not the Warner executives often quoted in mainstream media who say only a rough cut exists, not Junkie XL who was pulled from the project mid-way, not the film editor who was quoted in the media as saying the film needed another $40 million to complete, not the film crew who worked on Justice League and told Kevin Smith how complete the film was, absolutely nothing and no one have been able to corroborate the claim the the Snyder Cut "is done" since Snyder said it five months ago. It does not deserve anymore weight in the article than it already has. The people who have an unhealthy obsession over Snyder's work (call them whatever you like) either ignore all those other pieces of information or find made-up reasons to discredit them because it doesn't fit the narrative they want to believe in as I've personally witnessed on social media and from podcasts created by the community. As new information comes to light, as it does often with this subject, the article can and will be updated accordingly as I imagine it will for years to come. But as it stands, Snyder's off-hand comment goes against all other sources that comment on the film's level of completion. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fezmar9: Snyder's off-hand comment goes against ALL other sources that comment on the film's level of completion, then it goes against Kevin Smith's statement as well. You are trying to have it both ways. And regardless of the people who have an ″unhealthy obsession″ with the Snyder Cut, there is no call to sink to their depths, which you are doing, by insulting them. Whatever you've witnessed on social media, you should not feel the need to react to it in this manner. It only makes you a lesser person.

--Julian1Seguin8 (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Julian1Seguin8[reply]

@Julian1Seguin8: I think that because you are a part of this movement, you are completely incapable of looking at this subject from a rational, impartial and neutral point of view. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fezmar9: And I think you are completely wrong about me. My point of view is entirely rational given my knowledge while yours is overly pessimistic and far from rational in the conventional sense. You are just jumping to the quickest of conclusions. You are not showing any sense of impartiality, as evidenced by your immature remarks, and your utter dismissal of my argument. You only pretend to be reasonable.

--Julian1Seguin8 (talk) 02:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Julian1Seguin8[reply]

Henry Cavill[edit]

There are no sources that officially prove that Cavill has left the role of Superman. The source that claims Arnie Hammer might be Superman is We Got This Covered and that site is far from reliable. Unlike Affleck, who actually made an announcement, there is nothing that verifies these sources. Furthermore, they are contradicted by a statement from WB and from Cavill's agent Danny Garcia. Considering he almost played Superman in Shazam and only left due to scheduling conflicts, you have no logical reason to believe he is done. --Julian1Seguin8 (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Julian1Seguin8[reply]

@Julian1Seguin8: Currently, no actor is attached to the character of Superman and there are no reports of the character (whoever may play him) appearing in any upcoming DCEU films. A year ago, multiple outlets reported Cavill was unofficially out as Superman[1][2][3]. The reporting cited multiple insiders who leaked the information, including one who said, "Superman is like James Bond, and after a certain run you have to look at a new actor" and that Warner was reportedly seeking a replacement. Warner's official response to the report was that no official decision had been made, which means they were at the absolute least considering replacing him a year ago. If they weren't considering that, they would have explicitly said so to squash the story entirely. In the past year, there has been zero mention of any contract or attachment to any upcoming films including the character or the actor. So, he is definitely not currently Superman, in fact no one currently is, so the question becomes will Cavill specifically will ever return as Superman. The answer to that is unknown, officially. As recent as two months ago, he was reported to have said he "would" return or he is conditionally "interested" in returning if he liked the story, which is to say he is not currently Superman and it's unclear if he would return.[4] Unofficially, it looks like he's toast. I personally agree that We Got This Covered likely isn't a reliable source, but it appears to be used in 300+ articles, so apparently the larger Wikipedia community believes it is. WGTC has reported at least five different times since last year that WB is rebooting Superman without Cavill citing insider sources that haven't been corrected.[5][6][7][8][9] And I think you're really going to like this last one based on our last conversation where you showed an affinity for off-hand behind-the-scenes comments to fans at events more so than any other source, he told two different fans at SDCC at different times that by signing on to The Witcher he was unofficially moving on from the role of Superman in the DCEU since Warner didn't seem interested in him anymore[10]. So, no, I wouldn't say I have no logical reason for this information's inclusion in the article. As with the last discussion, the article can and will be updated in the case of an official announcement of his return should such an announcement ever be made. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Saying Cavill definitely is not "currently" Superman is nonsense. In the same way that I'm not currently asleep. This does not confirm his departure from the role. There is no confirmation that his contract has expired. Unofficially, he is still Superman. He says so himself, especially in his latest instagram posts. As for all the sources you list, they are inconclusive at best, and outright guessing at worst. As for WeGotThisCovered, I will not taking ANYTHING they say seriously and neither should you. They once went as far as to suggest that Michael B. Jordan would be playing Superman. The point is that the phrasing in Versions of Justice League makes it sound definitive, when it most certainly is NOT. You need to adjust the wording or remove it altogether. Otherwise you're just misinforming. And deliberately, at that.

--Julian1Seguin8 (talk) 03:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Julian1Seguin8[reply]

@Julian1Seguin8: Wikipedia gets its information from sources, not speculation. Please read our policy on verification. According to what source is Cavill contracted to appear as Superman again? According to what Instagram post does he say he is currently Superman and will play the character again? Also, WB considering replacing Cavill with Michael B. Jordan pre-dates WGTC's coverage and was even picked up by more mainstream publications like Deadline Hollywood, Consequence of Sound and Vibe.[11][12][13] Fezmar9 (talk) 03:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fezmar9: What you are posting is still speculation. There is no confirmation that Henry Cavill has departed from the role. ZERO. And the burden of proof does not fall on me. It's on you. Until you can provide such evidence, than we cannot definitively say that Henry Cavill has left Warner Bros. And now, you go the extra mile, claiming Michael B Jordan rumours are somehow valid. Also it does NOT predate the coverage. WGTC first posted on the same day that you mention and then all those other newspapers followed suit. This still is nonsense and is most likely based off of the way Krypton was shaping up. At any rate, you cannot prove that Superman is being recast, so until you get confirmation, you need to say that Cavill is "reportedly" out, at the very least.

--Julian1Seguin8 (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Julian1Seguin8[reply]

@Julian1Seguin8: Per Wikipedia's policies, the burden of proof lies with the editor who wants to make a change. And actually, that's how the burden of proof works everywhere else, including law. So if you want to make a case, then make it. Show me all the published sources that say Henry Cavill is definitely still attached to the role of Superman and that he is definitely going to appear in a future DCEU movie. Show me the previously mentioned Instagram posts that demonstrate he is definitely still Superman and definitely going to appear as Superman in future movies. All I see are published sources that say, "the studio is not currently moving forward with Batman and Superman movies featuring Ben Affleck and Henry Cavill, respectively" and "WB and DC Films could go in a very different direction now that Henry Cavill is out" and according to a fan who spoke to him directly, "Henry dropped out of the role when he took on The Witcher, as Superman wasn't being used in any future projects". Fezmar9 (talk) 02:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fezmar9: Wikipedia's policies? Are you serious?? The burden falls to whoever made this statement in the first place. They failed to provide incriminating evidence, as have YOU. And I already HAVE made my case. "Danny Garcia has officially stated that there is no change in Henry Cavill's relationship with WB regarding Superman." Warner Bros themselves have made no statements on the matter either. All of your published sources have only provided speculation or what they considered to be confirmation from another source that had no concrete answer either. This one guy who says that Cavill has left the role is hardly a reliable source. Also, I don't even think he's using the terminology correctly. If Superman isn't even being used in projects, then he isn't dropping out of anything. He is still up to play Superman. That's the part that counts. Saying that he departed the DCEU sends the wrong message. If you are asking for confirmation that Henry Cavill is Superman in a future Superman movie, I cannot give you that, nor should I need to do so. Your demand is ludicrous because THERE IS NO SUPERMAN FILM CURRENTLY IN DEVELOPMENT.

--Julian1Seguin8 (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Julian1Seguin8[reply]

@Julian1Seguin8: That is not even a direct quote of what you're directly quoting. It's not even a paraphrase. That tweet isn't even a statement, it's an announcement that a statement is coming. Instead of dispelling the headlines saying Superman was being recast and calling them false, WB's official statement later that day was, "we have made no current decisions regarding any upcoming Superman films". Not, "These rumors are totally false" nor "Cavill is contracted to play the part again and we will honor that contract," but a big giant 'we dunno who is going to be Superman next'. If I am still deciding what I'm having for dinner, then I am not currently eating dinner. Likewise if WB is still deciding who they want to play Superman, then no one is currently playing Superman. Both Garcia and Cavill have stated he is "interested" in returning. If I am interested in returning to Hawaii, then I am not currently in Hawaii. Likewise if Cavill is interested in returning to the role of Superman, then he is not currently in the role of Superman. And as you say, there is no Superman film currently in development and the character is not expected to cameo in any other film at this time. If there is no Rip Van Winkle film currently in development, then no actor is currently attached to the character of Rip Van Winkle. Likewise if no Superman film is currently in development, then no actor is currently attached to the role of Superman. Dozens of sources say he is out, logic says he is out, Cavill himself says he's out, his PR manager says he'd like to return (which is to say he's not "in") and WB have said they're still trying to pick a Superman. Zero sources say he is currently Superman, zero sources say he will play the character again. He might come back he might not, but as of right now, no one is Superman. This will be my final comment on the matter as this conversation hasn't gone anywhere in two weeks. Fezmar9 (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fezmar9: "That is not even a direct quote of what you're directly quoting. It's not even a paraphrase." Oh f--- me. You're asking for a word-for-word statement saying: "Henry Cavill is still Superman in Warner Bros"? That tweet is as close as it gets. You are deliberately deflecting at this point. And as you yourself then admitted, WB's statement was: "we have made no current decisions regarding any upcoming Superman films". But you, in your infinite wisdom, were unable to accept that as enough for the time being. With this kind of rationale going through your head, you shouldn't even believe the Snyder Cut exists. After all, WB never made an official remark on the matter. Does that somehow affect things? Likewise, the fan says Henry Cavill has supposedly left the role, but is open if there is one the in the future is SECOND-HAND info and not even paraphrased. Your use of Hawaii is nonsense and you are openly insulting my intelligence with your condescension. So Superman has no film officially in development, but that does not equate to the Cavill's ties with DCEU being severed and and that is what you are stating. Dozens of sources say he is out but no one can actually confirm it. None of these sources actually say he is out. They say: "according to another source" he is out, and either that source cannot be found or it can and that source then says that he "may be out". They add words such as ″probably″ or ″likely″ but at the end of the day, there is NOTHING. WB have said they're still trying to pick a Superman but they haven't. WB has made no such statement regarding Superman whatsoever. These are more rumours and they are not confirmed either. And for you to say that ZERO sources say he will play the role again, is neither here nor there. You need to accept that we are at an impasse. You cannot prove that he is done with the DCEU and I cannot confirm that he isn't. So alter the statement, or I will do it myself.

--Julian1Seguin8 (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Julian1Seguin8[reply]

@Julian1Seguin8: I've been editing Wikipedia for a long time now. You can keep editing articles the way you're editing, but it's only going to result in you getting blocked and then banned from the entire site. We have policies and guidelines here that some new users don't like, but they must be followed by everyone who wants to keep contributing to the site. According to our policy prohibiting original research, all sources must "directly support the material being presented" (emphasis theirs). So if there are reliable, published sources that explicitly state, "the studio is not currently moving forward with Batman and Superman movies featuring Ben Affleck and Henry Cavill, respectively" and "WB and DC Films could go in a very different direction now that Henry Cavill is out", then yes, you need a reliable, published source that directly and explicitly states Cavill is still Superman contrary to nearly all of the reporting over the last year in order to update the article to state his status is in question. The only source you've provided in this entire discussion is a tweet (not usually considered reliable on Wikipedia) from Cavill's PR agent, which is someone who's job it is to maintain their client's public image even if it means cleverly twisting the truth (in this case, I personally believe "the cape is still in his closet" is just PR talk for "he's ready if he gets the call"). On Wikipedia, these types of comments are usually paired with other sources that support their accuracy because of how inaccurate they can often be. In this case, there aren't any sources that agree with your interpretation of the tweet that we could use for corroboration. This ComicBook.com article[14] describes her tweet as "cryptic" and "incredibly confusing", and further postulates, "this could also just be a message of civility, asking those upset with the announcement not to take it out on Cavill or the studio." And this ScreenRant article[15] states "If Cavill's cape is still in his closet, that's no guarantee that we'll get to see him wear it again any time soon." Come back with a proper source that meets our reliable source criteria and directly states what you're claiming, if and when one is published. Until then, I'm not interested in beating a dead horse. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fezmar9: I don't care how long you have been editing Wikipedia. You could have started before I was born. I would not care one bit. I know about getting blocked and banned, and so far, there is zero justification for you to do so to me, or for the moderators. To take such drastic measures implies I am committing a violation of some sort, which as far as I can tell is invalid. As you say, the source must "directly support the material being presented" and yet you are not doing that at all. There are no reliable published sources that explicitly state that Henry Cavill is out. None whatsoever. There is only the rumour and that is not confirmation. The only source I have provided may be a tweet but is far more concrete evidence than anything you have brought to the table. It is also not just the tweet of a random person but Cavill's personal agent, a direct source. And now you say "I personally believe... this is all PR talk" which means you are dismissing it based on your own personal opinion of the matter. In the same vein, you are using unverified claims as evidence to support a statement that still has no evidence. If Cavill's cape is still in his closet, that's no guarantee that we'll get to see him wear it again any time soon." That still counts as Cavill being with the DCEU, even in the loosest sense. Worst case scenario means that he will come back once negotiations are complete. I don't need a proper source because there is no proper source that conclusively states what you are claiming. The onus is on whoever first inserted this incorrect statement, or in this case, whoever is defending it. Until you can definitely prove that Henry Cavill will no longer play Superman in future projects, which is essentially what is being stated here, there is no reason to keep the phrase as is. This may be a dead horse, but one of your own making. Right now, to say that Henry Cavill departed the DCEU is to say that he is done playing Superman. In Ben Affleck's case, we can agree that he departed because he officially stated it, and we know that Robert Pattinson is playing Batman in Matt Reeves' new film. Give me something like that and I will then agree that it is my prerogative to find evidence to the contrary. But my primary argument, has, and continues to be, lack of concrete evidence on YOUR part. I still see nothing that proves your case. If you want to go on believing it, there is nothing I can do about that. But I don't think that's a legitimate reason to punish me.

--Julian1Seguin8 (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Julian1Seguin8[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:To the Stars Media Logo.png[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:To the Stars Media Logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Secretandwhispergreatwhitewhale.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Secretandwhispergreatwhitewhale.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warner Bros: Snyder Cut[edit]

I changed your edit. You cannot use an article from last year as proof that Warner CURRENTLY has no plans to release the Snyder Cut. Their "current" position is unclear at best, and given that they follow Snyder on Twitter after having unfollowed him back in 2017, there is some evidence to suggest they are working with him again. Snyder never truly left Warner and remains a producer for two DC Movies. His latest actions suggest the cut going to be released.

Also in regards to removing this:

This would be contradicted however, by Jason Momoa who claims to have seen the cut himself and has implied that the movie is closer to completion. When asked if the visual VFX and sound editing were all 100% finished, Momoa did not answer either way, but maintained that the public should see it. [1]

This is no less valid than Kevin Smith and that has been debunked to hell and back. Smith is clearly referring to the assembly cut that was test screened before Snyder even left. This was not the last he worked on it. Furthermore, Kevin Smith claims believes we refer to the Snyder Cut as an "extended cut" but it is not that at all. The full cut is a different movie altogether as confirmed by the director and the cinematographer. Also, Kevin Smith's statement that It was a movie that people in production could watch and fill in the blanks never held any water as the film was confirmed to be in picture-lock as shown here: https://screenrant.com/justice-league-zack-snyder-cut-finished-vfx-editing/2/. The way Kevin describes it suggest there were still missing scenes that were not even filmed and that is not true.

Most recently, Snyder released an image on VERO, confirming its existence. [2] You can't dispute this one.


{Cite web |url=https://screenrant.com/justice-league-zack-snyder-directors-cut-confirmed-real-exists/ |title=Zack Snyder Confirms Justice League Snyder Cut Exists (& Has Proof) |last=Colbert |first=Stephen M. |date=December 4, 2019 |website=Screen Rant]] |access-date=December 5, 2019}}</ref>


--Julian1Seguin8 (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Julian1Seguin8[reply]

@Julian1Seguin8: Please open up a discussion at Talk:Versions of Justice League instead of my personal talk page so that other editors can join the conversation and this becomes less of a me vs you thing. When you open that discussion, please also provide more substantive evidence than "someone followed someone on Twitter, that PROVES I'm right!". Wikipedia uses official, published sources that very clearly and explicitly support claims added to articles. You're going to need a published source that says "Snyder is currently working with Warner to complete his film" outright if you want to make that claim on Wikipedia. You're going to need a published source that says "the 'Snyder Cut' is 100% complete and doesn't need any additional pickups, sound editing, or CGI" outright if you want to make that claim on Wikipedia. Short of that, you're just speculating, reading between the lines and promoting unsubstantiated internet gossip as truth, and this is not the platform for that kind of behavior. Also, your edits actually REMOVED a citation that used Snyder's Vero picture of film canisters, so if you wanted this to stay then please exercise caution when making edits to Wikipedia. See you over at Talk:Versions of Justice League! Fezmar9 (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Toxic fandom[edit]

Hello, Fezmar9. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Toxic fandom".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The American Dream (Walls of Jericho album)[edit]

Notice

The article The American Dream (Walls of Jericho album) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable work. Fails both WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. Sputnik is a user review. The rest are passing mentions.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:WallsofjerichoAMERICANDREAM.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WallsofjerichoAMERICANDREAM.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Mastodon-The Hunter.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mastodon-The Hunter.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Usedshallowcoverart.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Usedshallowcoverart.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Brilliant Tabernacle[edit]

Sorry, but maybe can be better, if You create a stub article about album? Just because the non-complete discography list is a confusing matter. 109.252.100.220 (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we don't really take requests or orders at Wikipedia. If this is an article that you would like to exist, you are welcome to create it yourself. I'd recommend doing some research to ensure it meets the General Notability Guidelines to make sure it won't be immediately deleted. If it does meet this criteria, go ahead and follow the Album Article Style Advice page. Fezmar9 (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answer, but, sorry... Registered users is only who can create a main namespace articles. Without registration, I can create only a stub article like stub:The Brilliant Tabernacle. That's a only approved way, and it's absolutely non-elegant solution. Maybe, You know the better conclusion, please? 2A00:1370:8119:29A1:5CAE:1541:A097:320C (talk) 03:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could create an account. Or I'd also recommend following the instructions at WP:DRAFTS to get a draft started and eventually moved into the mainspace. Fezmar9 (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, I mistook the "Drafts" namespace as a "Stub" namespace, and thanks for a great answer! But, just a little question about redlinking rule: can I clean the redlinks in a oldest artist- or band-templates like a Template:Jon Anderson? The "Earth Mother Earth" and "The More You Know" is a obviously parentless links, like a topicstarted album. Or here the another rules can work? 109.252.100.220 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, feel free to remove red-links, redirects or non-linked text in navigational templates. We want to be sending readers to existing articles. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FAC: Love for Sale (Bilal album)[edit]

Hi. Could you spare some time and review my nomination of this article? Here is the featured article criteria for guidance, in case you choose to do so. Thanks. isento (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of This Is Hell / Nightmare of You[edit]

Notice

The article This Is Hell / Nightmare of You has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Lack of significant coverage and no other indication of notability. Two artists, so there's no suitable redirect target.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Lennart97 (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Thisishell-nightmareofyou.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Thisishell-nightmareofyou.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Lookwhatididmyfirsttimeart.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lookwhatididmyfirsttimeart.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:OnthelastdayMAKEITMEANSOMETHING.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:OnthelastdayMAKEITMEANSOMETHING.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:VannaANEWHOPE.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:VannaANEWHOPE.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:ThereforeiamSOUNDOFHUMANLIVES.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ThereforeiamSOUNDOFHUMANLIVES.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of A New Hope (Vanna album) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A New Hope (Vanna album) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A New Hope (Vanna album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Onel5969 TT me 02:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Kline (Deafheaven)[edit]

John Kline played drums on Deafheaven's demo.

Jericho735 (talk)

@Jericho735: I highly recommend reading up on Wikipedia's Reliable Sources guideline or WikiProject Album's Reliable Source list. Just because you see something on the internet, doesn't automatically mean it's grounds for inclusion on Wikipedia. We want to ensure we're using the most reliable sources available so that we are confident we're conveying accurate information to our readers. Nothing you've provided here constitutes a reliable source. What I would recommend doing based on what you've provided here on my talk page is to use Template:Cite AV media to cite the 10 Years Gone liner notes directly -- not the Discogs source, which the Wikipedia community has deemed a non-reliable source. See WP:ALBUMAVOID for more information about why Discogs should be avoided. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can see on the actual packaging of both those releases that John Kline was the drummer; look at the photos. George Clarke also stated himself in that interview that Kline performed drums. I don't understand your refusal to accept that he performed the drums on the Demo; this is not something I am making up, and official Deafheaven band members have stated it. Jericho735 (talk)
@Jericho735: I literally just said to cite the packaging directly and instructed you how to do it. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the confusion. You stated that "Nothing [I've] provided here constitutes a reliable source" (which includes the actual packaging of those releases and the interview with George Clarke). I will make sure to cite the packaging directly. Thank you, and take care. Jericho735 (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of My Best Defense for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article My Best Defense is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Best Defense until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Boleyn (talk) 08:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of My Best Defense for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article My Best Defense is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Best Defense until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Boleyn (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of My Best Defense (album) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article My Best Defense (album) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Best Defense (album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Boleyn (talk) 08:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Singlefilemybestdefensecover.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Singlefilemybestdefensecover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:AlexisonfireOCYCEP.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:AlexisonfireOCYCEP.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022[edit]

Information icon Hello and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I saw that an article you created, Template:Crosses has not been added to any categories. According to the guideline Wikipedia:Categorization, every article should be in at least one category. Please help by adding categories to the articles you create. You can take a look at the categorization FAQ. If you need further help, ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023[edit]

Information icon Hello and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I saw that an article you created, Template:Crosses has not been added to any categories. According to the guideline Wikipedia:Categorization, every article should be in at least one category. Please help by adding categories to the articles you create. You can take a look at the categorization FAQ. If you need further help, ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference cinemablend-11.2.19 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference screenrant-12.4.2019" was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fezmar9&oldid=1187195253"