Welcome!

Hello, Dimondinthesky, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

A tag has been placed on Dakota A. Thomas, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable. If you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please affix the template {{ hangon}} to the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

Please read the criteria for speedy deletion (specifically, article #7) and our general biography criteria. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Fan-1967 21:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

You seem to be creating a number of articles about a future HBO show, with no sources for the information, and biographical entries on screenwriters for that show, none of whom seem to have any existing film or TV credits at all.

All Wikipedia articles must be Verifiable from Reliable Sources. Please read the definition of Reliable Sources carefully. Can you provide such verification for any of this? Fan-1967 21:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

I said read the definition, not vandalize it. Fan-1967 21:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Fan-1967 21:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Do you have any sources for this article? The article seems to claim that all details are not public and a google search turns up nothing useful. It is therefore hard to see how we can have an article about the matter at the present. If details do become public, or you are aware of sources which I was unable to find, please supply them. Thanks. JoshuaZ 21:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Unless you can provide some Sources to Verify these claims, the article will be deleted again. We do not allow unsourced, unverified, possibly totally untrue material. Fan-1967 22:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Can you offer any explanation why your fan site claims HBO has confirmed the show, but Google and Yahoo news searches can find no trace of any statement by HBO? Fan-1967 22:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

If you do not have verifiable sources today, the article cannot exist today. Fan-1967 22:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

If official announcements are made or similar reliable sources are found we can have an article. It may make more sense to wait a few months and recreate it when you have more publicity. JoshuaZ 22:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I have nominated it for deletion. Unless reliable sources can be found, its survival is unlikely. Fan-1967 22:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I can't find any mention there of the show. Could you point me to it? Thanks. JoshuaZ 22:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Typing "creep tonite" into the search bar returns a result on a british comedy show called " Lenny Henry Tonite". Certainly doesn't seem relevant. Fan-1967 22:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Forums are not reliable sources. Anyone can type anything into a forum. Fan-1967 22:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

You really want people to believe HBO has hired a bunch of 15-year-olds to write a new series? Fan-1967 22:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Age has nothing to do with it. There are no laws that set a age limit. We are who we are and yes there is going to be television program on HBO, We have attorney's that are representing us, and will handle all the finacial stuff.

Yeah, well we'll wait until HBO announces it. Fan-1967 22:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

HBO has announced it Independtly also meaning they need a production to pick up the show to produce along with Home Box Office.

There are no news sources of HBO announcing it all, in any way, shape or form. If they had, there would have been a press release, which would have appeared in dozens of places all over the web. Fan-1967 22:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Again it has been independtly announced. I feel that personally you should keep this on your site i have much more information to upload, and so on from there. You have to give it time to spread the news around, and for HBO to decide that the show will ofically be announced. We have actress, actors, and a director for some of the episodes all ready lines up. I have been in contact with HBO once since it was announced independtly, You can go to www.creeptonite,2fear,com and once again read the article for furthur information.

Whoa. A minute ago you claimed they had announced it. You have to keep your story straight. Here's something you need to learn about Wikipedia. We NEVER keep unverifiable claims. Fan-1967 22:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

so let me get this straight...say i came on here...oh two months ago...and decided to put the show are you afraid of the dark: the next generation that I had restarted with Nickelodeon. I had no offical source from Nick that the show was going on, but you could goggle my name, and in fact there was an article on this website about it, also a link to a website was as well on here. I have fan sites, fan trailers, fan forums, ect. would i have been able to add the show to this website

No, you would not have been able to. Fan sites are not reliable sources. Also can you please indent and sign your comments with four tildes? like ~~~~ this which will put your username and time of edit down. It makes it much easier to read. Thanks. JoshuaZ 23:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

It has been announced independetly, but not publicly. Those are two different things. You might wanna learn it. I feel very pahtetic wasting my time arguing with you. What more could you want. I've given you an article coming from HBO studios in California announcing to certain holders that the show will go on.

You've given a link to a private website claiming to be a an article coming from HBO. That isn't the same at all. Again, if there is something actually happening your best bet may be to wait a few months until you have real sourcing to back it up and then create the article then. JoshuaZ 23:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

A private website that is seen by hundreds of people ever day. The word is getting out. Enough to wherewe have some exciting people who have joined the cast and crew. It is offical. What do you think? I just pulled this out of my ass, and have this much information. I don't think so. Plus we will be on the Internet Movie Database at the end of the week because it has gotten so much attention.

IMDB is not generally considered a necessarily reliable source and a private website that "is seen by hundreds of people ever day" is still a private website with no reliability to it. (To use another example Answers in Genesis probably gets 1000s of hits a day, that doesn't make it reliable). Claiming you have "just pulled this out of my ass, and have this much information" doesn't help us in sourcing it at all. If you have the sourcing then please give it. Otherwise, wait a few months until you have sources and you will be more than welcome to recreate the article. I will however, also take this moment to point you to two relevant policies. one WP:3RR which states that you should not revert other editors on the same article more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. Second, WP:AUTO urges caution when writing about topics with which one is intimately involved. JoshuaZ 23:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I have a question. I am sure if you were around three months when "Are You Afraid of the Dark: The Next Generation" rumors were sent around. That was a show i was doing and got cancled. If i had added that to this site would it have stayed or got canceled. There were previous mentions of it, and a small paragraph about it on this site. I have fan sites, fan material, forums, and so on, but no actual evidence from Nickelodeon could i have added itm, and if not. I'd like to know how did the other person add personal information about me and the next generation show on the site.

Fan sites and forums count for nothing. If something supposedly came from HBO, we need to see it on HBO's site, or a report from a recognized news sources that HBO said it. Anyone can create a page on piczo or 2fear, and say anything they want, so these cannot be considered reliable sources. Similarly, you cannot report that IMDB will list the show; wait until they have listed it, because you cannot verify what they will do. Unsourced rumors about Robert Zemeckis or Jamie Lee Curtis are likewise unacceptable. Fan-1967 23:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

I'm not completely sure of what you are asking but I will try to answer. It seems like you are stating that a mention of your planned sequel to AYAOD was in the main article and that it was subsequently removed and you are wondering how it got to stay for a while? Presuming this is correct- if your show was added as a note to an article and there we rumors going a long then it might have been reasonable to have a single sentence mentioned on the main article page. Many editors, such as myself, would have removed any such comment if it simply came from a forum or such. If such a claim was up earlier and it was not removed that it is more indicative of something falling through our nets and/or the slight leniency that seems to exist at a de facto level here for minor points in TV related articles. I will also repeat my request for you to sign your posts with four tildes. JoshuaZ 23:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC) reply

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Creep tonite. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. TheRanger 01:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Do not add your alleged program to this article again until you have Reliable Sources to Verify it. If HBO hasn't publicly confirmed your show, it doesn't belong there. Period. Fan-1967 02:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Owen× ☎ 02:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Please stop removing Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Creep tonite — it is considered vandalism. You may comment at the respective page if you oppose an article's deletion. Thanks. Z388 02:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Please do not remove the AfD tag again. Removing the tags will not in any way alter the chances of the article being kept or deleted. Furthermore, you are likely to go over the 3 revert rule if you continue which states that no one should revert other's actions more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. If you continue, you may be blocked by an admin. JoshuaZ 02:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Regarding [1] the IMDB page doesn't list the added individual as an extra counselor. Do you have a citation for it? JoshuaZ 16:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

According to your article, Creep tonite, Stephanie Flores was born in 1990. Now you are trying to claim she appeared in a 1981 movie? Please, think very carefully before you even consider one more edit to any Wikipedia article. If you make one more blatantly false edit to any article, I can think of no reason why you shouldn't be immediately banned for vandalism. We're out of patience with you, and tired of cleaning up after you. Just stop it. Fan-1967 16:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Fan-1967 17:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Your recent edit to Creep tonite ( diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 23:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Do to your repeated vandalism of Robert Zemeckis, Jamie Lee Curtis, and List of programs broadcast by HBO, I have submitted a request to have you blocked. Many people have spent hours cleaning up after you, and you've been repeatedly warned.

I'm sure when you and your little friends get together at recess you think it's funny that you put your elaborate little fantasies into Wikipedia, but when you put blatant lies into legitimate articles, where people might actually read and believe them, you've gone too far.

Go play somewhere else. Fan-1967 21:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

How can you speak to me as if I am some adolescent immature twit?

To quote Homer Simpson, d'oh! Tubezone 08:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I am not. I may be young but that is no excuse or reason to treat me as if I am different from you. I have the same rights as a human being, and what is so hard to believe that we are actually making a show. Do I need to submit the script to you. So, you can read it and find the proof. I have tried to do everything that I can. I put rumored. That should be good enough for people to realize that it has not yet come true. On everything I have put rumored. How is it that this can’t stay up, but on Toby Hooper’s wikipedia page it says “Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3” rumored, but that page has stayed up? You have spent countless hours? What have I don’t ju8st added to someone page, which you can easy go in and delete. I highly doubt that anything I have done has caused anyone too much of a headache, and people are more then just a little excited to see such a wonderful style of a show back on everyone’s television screen.

Tobe Hooper (learn to spell his name) is a famous director. You are a high school kid who likes to make up stories. We're tired of them. You forfeited the right to ask for any respect when you insisted on repeating this nonsense and vandalizing the articles of people like Curtis and Zemeckis who have never heard of you and never will. Fan-1967 21:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Okay. I am sorry for not spelling his name correctly (believe me I noticed after I had already submitted it). How can you say such horrible things to anyone? I find that to be extremely rude, and I continued to do those things to prove that it is rumored. How can you say that they will never know who I am? You don’t know that.

If your script gets picked up and the show gets produced, then an article can be written about it. However, what you are doing right now constitutes a hoax, and is unacceptable. This is an encyclopedia; we write about things that are verifiable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. These articles will be deleted, and any edits you make to other articles referencing this as-of-yet non-existent work will be reverted. Continuing to add unverifiable information to our project could result in your being blocked from editing. -- Merope 21:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Finally, someone who explains the whole operation of this website in a nice mannor. With you saying that I will stop posting these to-be articles on this site. I am sorry If i cause anyone to much pressure or time. Enjoy the rest of your day.

According to the links you provided, what can be said about the remake is that it will come out next year, and will be scripted by Stephen Susco. If you wish to add any further information, find a Reliable Source to support it. Fan-1967 04:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

You can't just add any random claim you want by including the word "rumored". If it's rumored, produce a source for the rumor. There are tons of movie sites that mention the remake. I haven't found one yet that mentions her. Fan-1967 05:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Stephanie flores.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Stephnaieflores.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Do not add unsourced, unverifiable information. We are not going to start this garbage all over again. If you have a RELIABLE SOURCE that says you and your friends are involved in the remake of Prom Night, produce it. If not, do not claim that it's true. Don't try this garbage of claiming it's "rumored". It's either true and verifiable, or it does not belong here. Fan-1967 18:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't know why you would replace the infobox details for Prom Night (film) with the ones for The Blair Witch Project, but I've reverted your changes. Please don't do that again. Similarly, the information you provided in Prom Night (remake) was taken from The Blair Witch Project, and there was no other contents, so I deleted the article. FreplySpang 22:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Jamieleecurtis.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

Also, I have my doubts about the image's authenticity. It doesn't look as good as what I would expect from Sony, and it has certain mistakes that make it rather questionable. Providing the exact source would go a long way towards allaying those doubts. FreplySpang 22:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

The probrem was the only picture of it i could find was a small one, and i tried to blow it up and it got distored. So, the words and all are hard to see.

And misspelled. Doesn't change the issue of sourcing. FreplySpang 22:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC) reply

What is misspelled?

Thanks for uploading Image:Jamielee.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as The Last House on the Left (film), but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.darkhorizons.com/news06/060817j.php, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), you can comment to that effect on Talk:The Last House on the Left (film). Then you should do one of the following:

• Make a note on the original website that re-use is permitted under the GFDL and state at Talk:The Last House on the Left (film) where we can find that note; or
• Send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:The Last House on the Left (film).

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! -- ReyBrujo 05:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Promjamie.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I've removed your claim about the casting for the Prom Night (film) remake. Anyone making that kind of claim about a film in production would have to provide sources that support it, and you in particular have a pretty dubious history on this subject. The "poster" you uploaded certainly isn't proof of anything if we can't verify where it came from. Please stop making claims about yourself and your unknown friends in Wikipedia articles unless you have RELIABLE SOURCES documenting them. Otherwise, we may have to revoke your editing privileges - it is beginning to look like you are more interested in making yourself look famous than in helping to build an encyclopedia. FreplySpang 17:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Langenkamp.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Burges.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Chiles.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)