Read the Guidelines

I went through your guidelines word for word: My article isn't propaganda, it's not just MY point of view on the film--in fact it offers no POV's just the trivial facts--and the importance of it is that it is the first and so far the ONLY film to deal with the subject of secession, to be filmed in the chamber of the senate armed services committee, and to acheive success merely out of its subject matter. I have two more films I'd like to write about, but not until this particular matter is cleared up.

EZZIE 18:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

• Filming took place between July 2005 and October 2005.
• Congressman Henry Hyde makes a cameo as himself in the film.
• The only film to have scenes in the Chamber of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
• New York City shoot was achieved without filming permits.
• Actor Jack Moran walked out onto the ledge of a Lexington Avenue Highrise so that the cast and crew could get into an office space for filming.
• The Central Park Conservancy is the only New York City organization to cooperate with this film production.
• The Capitol Hill Police participated in making the filming in Washington, DC easier.
• A United States Secret Service agent stationed outside of the White House during filming had tipped off the crew to when the Presidential Motorcade would be coming down Pennsylvania Avenue. The filmmakers set up their equipment outside of the East Gates and filmed John Tully standing before George Bush's motorcade. This is in the blooper reel at [YOUTUBE]
• The scene with Henry Hyde was improvised in Hyde's DC Office.
• There is a cut scene available on [YOUTUBE] with actor John Tully walking down the famous steps from The Exorcist.

EZZIE 18:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Familiar WIth This

As an entertainment retail operator in New York I am familiar with this and can assure you of its prominence.

Comment None of the above has any bearing on the question of notability. How many people have ever seen this movie? How many have even heard of it? Is it being distributed? Is it being shown commercially? Has it been reviewed in any major national media? There's no indication that any of those things have happened. (By the way, Youtube and Myspace are generally not considered notability, as any teenager with a modem can post there.) Fan1967 04:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: ==Bias==

I agree with Cadebro, it's a very good point about "just because you've never heard of it, doesn't mean it's not worthy of inclusion"--it's an extremist view--a bias view without question. Thank you for stepping up to my defense on this article. EZZIE 08:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is shorthand for verifiability. I suggest you read the article on bias. You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means. What's more, I gave a call to some friends in Queens, North Merrick and Babylon. They don't know about this movie either.  RasputinAXP  c 14:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the issue of verifiability. You've offered no citations for your arguements. Oh, and because the movie films a scene on the "exorcist steps" does not make the film notable. I used that stairway all the time when I was at Georgetown but I don't consider myself notable because of it. --Strothra 00:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there's notability coming. WP:GIRLFRIEND.  RasputinAXP  c 04:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're Not a Crystal Ball

I'm not asking Wikipedia to PROMOTE The Long Island Project and I'm not saying whether it will be important, of major concern, influential, standing, high regarded, a huge immense success or not, I'm not saying that Wikipedia is a Crystal Ball as some have more than insinunated. But I think you all can confirm the film exists, its trailers and bloopers and cut scenes are scattered all across the internet, ifilm, youtube especially are the most hit pages. It's listed on the Internet Movie Database, which is not an easy website to have and independent film listed on. You want notability and importance--its importance is that without this article, how can the public know whether or not a film of this subject matter exists? Or that it's possible to do what has been done with this film? EZZIE 21:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's mission is to be a secondary source, to create articles about subjects which have already been written about and have already been deemed notable by the media, history, etc. Its mission is not to promote new creations or to inform the public about them. Gamaliel 21:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Also, please do not ask me to reconsider my vote unless improvements are made to the page which answer the reasons for my deletion vote. I keep most of the AfD discussions I vote for on my watchlist. --Strothra 00:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So basically what your saying is you don't mind that Wikipedia is second, or third, or forth--so on and so on. Okay... wow. At least you guys don't have to worry about competition, 'cause you'll never be the first. EZZIE 02:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. It is absolutely not Wikipedia's mission to be the first to present anything, or even among the first. Fan1967 03:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let the newspapers be the first. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news service. --PFHLai 05:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you arguing? --ElectricEye 06:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sweat it EE... I'm movin' on. EZZIE 07:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remind people what Wikipedia is Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_Is. The bottom line is that this is a valid listing, with valid information. To push for deletion is to do several of the things that Wikipedia is not. Now that you have successful pushed several people away from Wikipedia (I'm sure that the creators are proud of your behavior), I would like to ask you why you're doing this. The article's writer is not abusing Wikipedia. You don't know him personally so you can't have a personal vendetta against him. Aren't there people vandalising President Bush's lisiting that you can go push around? Do the little badges on your user pages give you the right to give people a hard time? Thank god for Google, #1 in information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadebro (talk • contribs)

Hey Cadebro, don't bother with them. They're gonna get their way--I say let 'em. If they want to base their faith on google and their other "heavily hit" websites, then by all means. Wikipedia is failing experiment because of them anyway. They state that they welcome "Reasoned Argument" but when you provided that they shot back at you with a hundred and one links to why you're wrong. There's no way to win with these people and the Administrator who red-flagged the page in the first place seems to have it out for my anyway. So forget about it. EZZIE 15:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are a new user so I will assume good faith as per WP:AGF. Please familiarize yourself with Wiki policy and review WP:NPA before you attack other editors. Thank you. --Strothra 15:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Tag On THis Page

I noticed someone put a new tag on the top of this page--so just because a couple of users have placed a KEEP vote, you automatically assume that they aren't REAL Wikipedia users? Definatley an alpha-level conspiracy. EZZIE 15:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All User And Administrators

[PLEASE VIEW THIS LINK] Unless you don't want to be proved wrong. EZZIE 16:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, a forum that got 10 posts in late January and hasn't been touched since. That's significant. Fan1967 16:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia must be pleased but the performance of its editors and administrators-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevenlinefeatures (talk • contribs) EZZIE

The Law of Unintended Consequences

EZZIE needs to be aware that any editor may update this article. If someone sees his movie, and is less than enthralled by it, they can post this on the main page or worse the talk page (where they can state their opinion" of the movie). See; Effectiveness of Vanity articles

That being said, I think this article is toast because of the Vanity Article issue. I know he wants to create buzz for his new movie (and I can sympathize with that desire), but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Mytwocents 17:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of people being able to make edits to the page, the idea of this is to dicuss a film and its topics and I'm open to opinon on both. This is not VANITY. Wikipedians are over-using and mis-using the word, this is an article about a film, the only film to be made that really deals with the subject of secession. If it was about VANITY I would have done a special page about the FILMMAKERS AND ACTORS AS WELL--but I didn't do that. It's about the film and the film's subject--nothing more. EZZIE 18:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that he may beyond the point of reasoning. He has vandalized and placed personal attacks in several locations. [1] [2] [3] [4] and assumes bad faith [5] [6]. He has also deleted all of the warning tags I have placed in his Usertalk which is against Wiki policy. Not to mention that he's also attempting to preserve the article by adding it to his userspace. [7]--Strothra 18:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it amazing how quickly you're able to use a non-relevant piece of information against me--for the sheer sake of destroying my article from existence. EZZIE 18:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the solution will be this: EZZIE, who is the producer of this film can proudly (and openly) promote his film on his user page. It's part of his bio. The main article will have to go. This isn't because some people on wikipedia are mean, it's just the rules against vanity and advertising pages. Wikipedia is a not a promotional venue. It doesn't accept advertising and can't serve as a defacto advertising vehicle for indie films, new bands, etc..

Mytwocents 18:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've had him blocked. --Strothra 21:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's going to fly either. There's precedent against both employing user space as a promotional vehicle and using it to post deleted articles. Gamaliel 18:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I know of precedent for it but I would assume that it's not an origional tactic. It's not like it's actually going to get much publicity while it's on a userspace anyway. --Strothra 18:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You guys have scraped the bottom of the barrel to find something to use against me. I just want you to know how absurd this looks for Wikimedia. EZZIE 19:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean wikipedia. Wikimedia, although related, is something different. --Strothra 19:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps EZZIE, in the spirit of his movie, should seccede from Wikipedia, and declare his userpage the 'Independant Wikikingdom of Thelongislandproject'. He'll need to get his own server though, use Wikipedias system, follow Wikipedias rules.....

Mytwocents 20:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updated

Please note that the article has been updated. EZZIE 19:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you think you were accomplishing something by nominating Kangaroo Jack for deletion? You didn't even manage to create the deletion article properly, and it will go nowhere. Kangaroo Jack was a dreadful movie, but it was released, and seen by a lot of unfortunate people in theatres. Quality is not a Wikipedia criterion. Notability is. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. - Fan1967 19:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Kangaroo Jack AfD tag because of the improper execution of the AfD process. I don't care if he does it properly. It can stay in that case. I have no doubts as to what the result will be. --Strothra 20:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have to say it's NOT a comedy? You haven't seen it. Just because it doesn't SEEM like comedy you remove the stub? Look at IMDB dude--you're so good at investigating reasons for deletion and flaming me out--but where's the effort in researching the details to keep the article? EZZIE 20:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one has seen the movie thus is cannot yet be categorized. If you would like to categorize it as a comedy then please cite IMDB in the article. The burden of proof is on YOU to keep the article. The AfD is a discussion on the merits of the article as it is in Wikipedia regardless of outside sources. If you update the article accordingly and provide the proper citations to back up claims then those will be taken into consideration. The bottom line, however, is that the movie has not been released yet and thus its notability cannot be established. This factor will most likely cause your article's deletion because there is no amount of editing you can do to make up for that fact. Please also note that the only individual responsible for flaming at any point in this process is yourself. --Strothra 20:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been monitoring several AFD's on Wikipedia and this is one of them, I noticed RasputinAXP put it into the speedy catagory, another user took it out of the speedy catagory, then he put it back into the speedy catagory... not to mention the writer's contributions have all been deleted, reverted, or red-flagged. There's some serious implications happening here and I would very much like it explained to me. Almost Famous 17:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no controversy. All the "speedy delete" tag does is place an alert essentially saying "an administrator should look at this and see if it meets the criteria for speedy deletion". If an administrator decides it does, then they can delete it immediately. By removing the tag, an editor is saying "I do not feel that this article meets the criteria for immediate deletion." This has nothing to do with this AfD. Gamaliel 17:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, thanks Gamaliel. Almost Famous 18:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What implications were you accusing us of, anyway?  RasputinAXP  c 18:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Long Island discussion plays off like a pack of wolves on a single prey, I've viewed a lot of AFD discussions before, but nothing like this. Not that I'm stepping up for the guy, I don't know him and he has no history (except those couple of articles and some edits on the NYC articles.) Forget about it... Almost Famous 19:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well he also refused to engage in civil discussion not to mention his repeated threats and personal attacks against several people involved in the discussion. --Strothra 20:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But, when all's said and done, the primary problem is that the movie's never had any sort of release. It's been shown at a few small indy film festivals, but there's no general distribution. Practically nobody's seen it. Fan1967 21:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. It's no longer a heated argument. I still think it should be speedily deleted. --Strothra 02:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You hadn't noticed? It's gone. Fan1967 03:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]