Talk:Albert Pyun

Objectivity

The article appears very, very optimistic. I wish Mr. Pyun well in his career, but the entry is a bit too fanboy-ish. Boonjava 09:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A bit too fanboy-ish? What an understatement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.175.80.61 (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This is where Wikipedia just fails as a serious source of information. This article is too fan boyish, too filled with hate filled snarkers and nothing sounds very objective. Wikipedia needs to trash this entire article and start over - The Professor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.215.168.117 (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC) About Pyun's involvment in Guam: Your reference about what Pyun said to Guam must have come from Guam officials. You mention that John Laing blamed Pyun in the LA Times article. Why do you not have one line from Pyun's point of view? He gave it to the LA Times and they elected not to include it in the article you reference because it wouldn't have sold as many papers.

Does anybody anywhere actually believe the Albert Pyun would sell papers in any way shape or form?144.178.0.140 (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)someone based in reality

It would be a good thing if wikipedia attempts to verify that Pyun was not named in the lawsuit, Pyun earned nothing from Max Havoc, received nothing from Guam, was not paid for directing Max Havoc. Pyun left the project before the loan closed, before the film was completed and after contributing his own money to pay people he personally hired. In addition, to date, Pyun has never defaulted on a film loan.

It would be appreciated if wikipedia includes at least one sentence from Pyun's side the of story.

Pyun claims that he was paid for directing MAX HAVOC. He said so at a German film website which is sourced on the Pyun main page. He did receive money from Guam companies, this is also sourced on the Pyun main page. His one quote from the LA TIMES article is posted below. Pyun left the project after the loan was approved, at his request, by the Guam Government. This is sourced on the Pyun main page. What sources are there for: Pyun's claims he paid his own money to pay people he peronally hired (sources besides Pyun himself?), his point of view that he gave to the LA TIMES that they did not include because someone here claims "it wouldn't have 144.178.0.140 (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)sold any papers?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.97.32.78 (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you drop some citation needed tags by the stuff that we need inline citations for (I'll do a pass right now and see what I can find)? I only started watching this page because of one persistent vandal I stumbled onto from another page I watch; this one was on his hitlist the day I spotted him. I'd be happy to help start plugging in sources and text when I can if I just know what we have sources for and such; especially since not a lot of people seem to be watching this one. I don't see why using Pyun's page as a source for the quotes and statements you note should be a problem. Millahnna (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. My eyeballs glazed over halfway through the 2000s on this pass. I'll hack at it again later. Millahnna (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Millahanna: I'm fairly new to Wiki, so I will do my best to help when work allows it and I learn more about the proper form of Wiki postings. For now, however, on the Pyun page, in the Guam section (in the 2000's), re: Max Havoc: Curse of the Dragon, the last line reads that Pyun claims he had nothing to do with the Guam Government loan transaction for the Max Havoc film he and the Max Havoc producer asked for. I thought this was a false statement made by Pyun and was sourced on the Pyun main page (until you deleted them) by info from the Pacific Daily News, KUAM, and other news outlets on Guam who have covered the MAX HAVOC story there for years. Maybe I'm wrong but when I attempted to clean the page up a while ago (but didn't due to fear of not posting properly) I read the sourced info and it was clear (to me) that Pyun was very involved w/ the loan transaction. Regardless, thanks for your help on cleaning up the page. ~~ HeMat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.97.32.78 (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

OK I'll take a look at my diffs specifically for that issue. I saw several KUAM refs that were just KUAM + a date, which didn't seem very reliable to me (no context of what interview, etc. this was in reference to). I'll have to go digging to see what I can turn up. If you find any links or anything, you can always drop them here with a quick note on the topic of the source in question. Then we can try to work out the related text and plug it in the article. I know there's one ref someone dropped in last night about Sword and the Sorcerer I want to go look at. I'm about wikied out for the day but I'll definitely be coming back to it throughout the week. Millahnna (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Millahanna:

I think the KUAM and Pacific Daily News articles about Pyun's involvement w/ the loan transaction were what Wiki calls "Dead Links." They were active links when I first started following this page. I thought dead links were ok. But like I said, I'm new to Wiki and not sure I know what's what. ~~ HeMat

I think dead links ARE ok, at least sometimes; more stuff I need to go read up on. But all that info is still sitting there in the diffs where I deleted them so we can pull them back out if we need to. And we might be able to use the internet Way Back machine to make the links live again with an archive page. Now that you've given me a better idea of what those refs were, I have a good jumping off point for research. I'm hoping some other sources have since commented on the Guam debacle. Now that I look at it, I actually didn't delete that much out of the Guam stuff (I did sort of butcher the earlier sections a bit though) because I want to try and hunt down those refs and see if I can find some corroboration. THe diff of me hacking at that section is here so we'll have it to work off of. For the most part, I tried to do each section separately so that if I killed anything that we actually needed it would be easy for me to hunt it down again.

Here's that other diff I spoke of above that I want to look at, also. I haven't looked at either link yet so taht we can incorporate the info but I know Pyun talks about Sword and Soc. in it so it might have some good info for either this page or the film's article. There's a few other bare urls that have been dropped into the article and external links that we can look at too. It's early morning where I am and I have job stuff to do today but I'm hoping to come back and play either tonight or this weekend (a few other wiki projects I've been putting off that I want to get to). I'm adding this page to my to do list on my user page though. Millahnna (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool! I too am starting a work jag and will start to work on this page when able. Nice to talk to you. ~~HeMat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.97.32.78 (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Concerning 65.211.219.162 recent edits re: what Albert Pyun said to Los Angeles times re: MAX HAVOC: CURSE OF THE DRAGON

This is the ONLY quote in the Los Angeles times by Albert Pyun:

[i]"Someone, usually the director, is always blamed when a project doesn't realize everyone's hopes. The film was shot on a shoestring and a prayer. I did the best I could."[/i] This hardly constitutes Pyun "explaining" how he and John Laing didn't keep their word to the Guam people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambulatory17 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious that Albert Pyun (or one of his minions) is trying to hi-jack this page for self-congratulatory spamming.

Thanks to all who help put a stop to him. Whom or what determines what is appropriate? I read a long blog interview with Mr. Pyun where he somewhat incriminates himself and the producers with specific acts in the so called Havoc fraud but it on a very obscure discussion page. I think this adds to the guam information but its not a "recognized" source I guess. So what is the criteria? I've read a number of pointed and biased attacks as well as fan point of view on this page so its quite confusing. As an example, the trial is simply a civil trial and about recovery of security for a loan but the article makes it a much broader criminal trial. Which is it?

~~Mostchin32 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostchin32 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Pyun's early life and the start of his film career

I'm working on this page and can not find any source for Pyun's early life. Any help would be appreciated. Readyforanderson (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Ready for Anderson Air Force Base.

Sofia Film Group external link

seems to me it's an inappropriate external links as per Wiki external link/spam guidelines; Albert Pyun is listed in the company and Sofia Film Group has nothing on the site but his movies. That's why I deleted the link. Someone rv the edit. Readyforanderson (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Readyforanderson

NPOV tag

The article appears to be written in press-release language, and many passages have a hype-y feel of spin. My fellow editor Readyforanderson has also addressed some of these issues. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the page needs the tag for now. You are correct that the page does have a hype feel to it. When I first started cleaning up the page I would read some of the sourced links that said this or that film was a big money maker with huge critical acclaim and Pyun was voted best film maker by this group or that group, and the links said nothing of the sort. I corrected those by removing offending passages/links. A problem I'm running into is with editor 70.189.192.168 who immediately rv these edits with no edit summary, usually putting passages back in that are cited, improperly, to sources that don't say what 70.189.192.168 claims they say. I believe that this editor is also trying to whitewash/censor the Max Havoc: Curse of the Dragon section along with attempting to use OR. Readyforanderson (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Readyforanderson

Opened an SPI case

due to tonight's edit from 75.160.53.246 (which are in the same exact nature of the advertising/spam edits of editor 70.189.192.168, I have opened a SPI case. I predict that more IP edits will occur rving edits back to spam and bare URL's advertising Pyun's upcoming film showings, originating from the west (Texas) and midwest (Indiana and Kentucky) as Pyun has an upcoming shows there. Readyforanderson (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Readyforanderson

As I suspected, new edit tonight from IP 208.180.95.159 from Lubbock, Texas placing URL listing of Pyun's upcoming film shows in Texas into article. I rv the edit back. Readyforanderson (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Readyforanderson

Layout

Is dividing this article into sections by decade the best layout? It's chronological but the decades are rather arbitrary. RJFJR (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

In cleaning up this page, I left the decade layout pretty much as is changing it around only to put the years back into chronological order. It seems to me it was originally written in decade-layout and to change it would require an entire rewrite.Readyforanderson (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Readyforanderson

And...

We have legal threat. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=440670563

And? And how about WP:NLT? This legal threat by Pyun is an attempt to whitewash and censor the Max Havoc: Curse of the Dragon section. Everything in that section was cited to a verifiable source. Pyun's claim that this information is "unverified" is BS. If he truly feels that some of the sourced information in that section contains "erroneous and libelous information" might we suggest he sue the Los Angeles Times, Pacific Daily News, KUAM, The Daily Marianas Variety, and the other Guam media that have been reporting on the film, him and the film's producer since the time the film was announced until said producer defaulted on Guam's loan and on into producer's upcoming fraud trial. In his legal threat he complains of Albert Pyun being "hijacked." You mean hijacked as in Pyun's User talk:70.189.192.168 incessant sock puppetry attempts to spam the page with his recent movie play dates which ultimately got him locked out of the page for a week? Readyforanderson (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Readyforanderson

The guam stuff has been problematic since I first started trying to clean up the page a little bit (I couldn't do much due to lack of knowledge but my efforts are above). Basically this entire article is a longstanding nightmare of an edit war between rabid fans and rabid haters of the man. As long as the phrasing stays neutral on the Guam stuff and we just report what's in the sources, we're fine. There's isn't a thing he can do about it (assuming that's even the real Pyin making the threat, which I doubt) unless he manages to become one of those few people that Wikimedia Corp. decides to NOT have an article for (which I don't know if there are any anymore). Millahnna (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the consensus is, I'm fine with. I'd just like there to BE a consensus discussion. I'm sure that when sock User talk:70.189.192.168 is allowed to edit again, the waring/spamming/whitewashing/censoring will begin anew. And the first edit the sock makes will be to edit the entire Guam stuff out and then list a play date for an upcoming Pyun show. Readyforanderson (talk) 05:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Readyforanderson

Well then in the interest of establishing consensus, the Guam information should stay since it is reliably sourced and a matter of public record as a situation at this point. When the trial Mr. Pyun mentioned in his threat gets coverage, we will add that info, as well, regardless of the outcome. That said, the recent pruning of that topic is probably for the best for WP:UNDUE reasons. Millahnna (talk) 09:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that he did a controversial film on Guam is surely needed to be mentioned, but it shouldn't be as detailed as in the film's article. The most detailed bad press should belong to the film and John Laing, but mentioning the film while censoring out the controversy is surely non-neutral. HkCaGu (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If this is the consensus of editors/admin far more experienced then me then fair enough. I felt the German film site links were important because it quoted Pyun contradicting every single source I could find about the Guam loan/making of Max Havoc: "I had nothing to do with the loan transaction" & "I got paid my salary when I left the island" when every verifiable source I found said he had ties with the Guam loan and he is quoted on those sources claiming he never got paid for the film. It's a complete 180° and is very telling. At the very least I would like to see this passage back into the Guam section: Guam Senator Ben Pangelinan accused Albert Pyun of dealing in bad faith with Guam officials in his quest to get Guam to put up money for the film. This is from the Los Angeles Times article and it tells, I think, a valid, sourced reaction from Guam about Albert Pyun coming to the island, asking for money, and making one of his films there. Again, if consensus disagrees with this, then I differ to a more experienced judgement. Also, this whole business in the article of this film being "the 89th most popular Cyborg/Android/futuristic Kung-Fu movie" or this movie being the "39th most popular kickboxing movie" seems not notable to me and should be removed. Readyforanderson (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Readyforanderson

/* And... */ Albert Pyun has not made contradictory statements about MAX HAVOC. He did not tell the German magazine that he got his paycheck and left the island. I have proofed and submitted his interview answers, on his behalf, for 10 years. He did not say it. It is not true. He never got paid for directing MAX HAVOC. Ever. c curnan.

So Where's the big bad Pyun lawsuit? More Pyun BS hyperbole, as is usual for the sad man — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.68.0.198 (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

pyun's lawsuit against the people in guam who have slandered him is starting in December 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.250.130 (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? In Pyun's dreams. Completely laughable Readyforanderson (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)Readyforanderson

Removal of not notable section

Around seven months ago I brought up a consensus discussion about the removal of a passage that refers to one of Pyun's films as the "37th most popular android movie of all time" or something close to that. See above. I find this fact completely not notable and unencyclopedic. With no objection from other editors since consensus discussion originated, I have removed that section. Readyforanderson (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Readyforanderson

Article reads like an Albert Pyun press release

Trying once again to clean up this page after a long time away. And once again my eyes are starting to glaze over. It's painfully obvious that Albert Pyun has taken control of page and uses it as advertisement for him self. If anyone tries to revert edits are properly format it he storms in and changes it all back to the way he would like it to read. Are there any other editors around who can help me work on this page so it doesn't read like an Albert Pyun ad? Readyforanderson (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)Readyfor anderson

What is not understood you say you has taken over the page and white wash.

Well, where's veriable source for the above statement. It clear some want to tie Pyun to any event concerning Max Havoc, even though: he left the film in June 2004. The high jaking by Guam residents in sn attermpt to smear Pyun. Even though he is not named in the litigation. You are ready for anderon, is trying to Keep pyun's name tied to Max Havoc no matter that in all press reports Prun is not tied to the litiagation, settlement or the commerica loan. Be honest, you want to try to get a dig at becsuae its clear you are pursuing a vendetta against pyun. it not about promotion. Be honest, thhat you are disppointed nor GEDA has taking pyun to task. it eels like you want the world to know about Max Havoc to place a dark cloud over him and I sense you don't want abything possible . You want the page to feature info to hurt Pyun. Id this i noy true, i apologize.. But it feels like the contributors want to keep havoc front and center to try hurt Pyun.

Pyun' s made 6 films since. so he doesn't care but you and anti pyun forces wishes pyun was univolved in the suit's and held accoountable. be honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.59.110 (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Pyun made the film Max Havoc in Guam with public money he and his producer asked for. This is cited in the Albert Pyun article and sourced. The film ended up in controversy. This is also cited and sourced. The results of that controversy are important and belong on the Pyun page because the results are about an Albert Pyun movie that created a windstorm of controversy. To not include this would be non-neutral. Two wiki editors who have worked on this page agree with this. Please see above. Readyforanderson (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Readyforanderson

But where does it say that Pyun is involved in the litigation and settlement which is what is implied. I agree the info relevant but belongs on the movie's page. What I've always felt is their is a negative bias toward Pyun. And an attempt not to just post the controversy but to imply by editorial selection of statements that are negative. It's clear if it was Pyun who is legally involved in the loan guarantee he would have been named in the court action. And if he was truly responsible for the failure of the film, then he would be sued by John Laing. So its really yellow journalism that is practiced here. It's frustrating because the editors like yourself have ties to Guam and so this is only relevant to a small island where the people love controversy. In any case, you are are editorialiizing and you are giving this undue weight in light of this filmmaker's remarkable 30 year career. I've written Albert to pursue legally action based on the smear campaign waged by Wikipedia. Several sites now ban mention of Guam because of the biased slurs used in an attempt to harass Pyun and his movies. Pyun doesn't care (he has three movies coming out next year) but his fans do. Of course, you can see the truth by virtue he continues to be financed unchecked and works with the largest independent and main stream studios. Which if what you are applying is true, he would not survive the financing and bank due diligence in order to get further financing. What you don't understand is how important Pyun is to millions of fans and filmmakers. His influence is worldwide and he's been a trailblazer. And that's why his Lifetime achievement awards and notices are relevant. The man is beloved by most but definitely hated by a few and you can tell the edits by those who are haters. Look at the quotes the "editors" select. It's clear they want to give the negative more weight than the good. If you can't see that then you have no business editing this page. Pyun is not going down over the guam so get over it. No one cares about Guam or the movie. It's relevant only to the two editors and Pyun Haters. And the "windstorm of controversy" is long gone and both KUAM and PDN no longer mention Pyun in their updates which have grown less and less frequent. Only the island native Marianas Variety still puts forth articles and they don't mention Pyun anymore as well. The references posted as sources in many cases is just hearsay (the crew member's "diary") or a one sided account (Uno). Both display a specific POV and bias and yet they are referenced here as some sort of accurate reporting. Its comical and sad that those "sources" are given any weight. There's no attempt by the two editor's to verify the source's info. Instead both "sources" simply use other publish information to their benefit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.59.110 (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

That's great that Pyun is a trailblazer and millions around the world love him. The fact remains he made a controversial film in Guam by asking the Guam government for money (properly sourced by Marinas Variety) to make Max Havoc thereby making the details of that controversy relevant to his wikipedia page regardless if he was involved with the litigation between GovGuam and MH producer. My edits to the Pyun page are not all negative and don't only deal with the MAX HAVOC portion of his career. I've spent countless hours trying to make this page more readable and format all of the edits you make which are not properly Wiki formatted. No big deal but please take a look at all of your edits. They are painfully, painfully non-neutral. You wish to whitewash this Guam controversy. It's beyond obvious. Wikipedia does not whitewash or censor. Readyforanderson (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Readyforanderson

Why not just state that the litigation did not involve Pyun nor did the settlement. I think its irrelevant that John Laing doesn't follow through with the settlement. What does Pyun have to do with that? I just have not understood why the crew member's report (un verified as to it truthfulness or accuracy) was ever included on this article nor why the Uno Magazine piece which clearly was just a regurtation of negative facts was ever allowed. The article makes not attempt to accurately report Pyun's involvement. Did he request that GEDA consider an incentive on par with other locations around the world - yes. Did he request a $800,000 loan guarantee -no. There's is nothing in anything in the sources that state Pyun ask for $800,000. Transcripts show he requested $264,000 and then $400,000. I think The editor's should source the loan documents to see if 1) Was Pyun a party to the loan or ANY of its terms; 2) Was Pyun in someway connected with Comerica's bank's loan: 3) Was Pyun ever involved with the film after June 2004; and 4) Why hasn't Wikipedia revealed the conference calls with GEDA board in August of 2004 where Pyun expressed grave reservations with the loan guarantee and told GEDA to do their best due diligence including discussions with Film Finances and several film distributor's about the accuracy of Laing's information and projections. If you are going to to try to smear Pyun, at least use the public records to get accurate information in this article. To many, it's clear the editors have chosen the lazy route (as have many of the reporters on Guam). Why not include the detailed interviews Pyun did with both KUAM and the PDN newspaper? After which those media outlets began not using Pyun's Name. Only one sorry ass reporter named Zita Y. Taitano who was corrected after Pyun issued a complaint of inaccuracy and pointed out errors in her reporting. Its sort of like the two "editors" of this page simply scan the internet for their "sources" instead of verifying hard facts. I think that's the least someone would do before trying to slander and smear an individual. I told Pyun to have his lawyers insist Wkikpedia delete his page until Wikipedia develops more professional standards rather than some backwater newspaper trying to make hay by using wholly inaccurate information KNOWINGLY. I've seen the press and initially there was a clear intent to tilt articles negative. If you look at the reactionary words used its clear, the Guam press didn't want truth, but wanted innuedo that would elevate the situation to scandal. All some of us who know the truth has tried to do is balance the scales. Because Pyun has been tried and declared guilty on Guam with NO hard proof. And many of us around the world love this man and his work and he's been a big part of our childhoods and career choices. He's a fine generous man who's given opportunity to dozens. He's the most generous man I've ever known and he has more integrity than any of these so called sources. Noone of him can produce anything but hearsay. I honestly don't undertand why accuracy is so crucial when the sources's have nothing but half truths and misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.59.110 (talk) 08:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It sounds 68.229.59.110 has some POV-issues when editing this article. Also you are suggesting using primary soures (court and loan documents) instead of reliable secondary sources (the press) in an attempt to pursue original research. Due dilligence is indeed needed, since there can possibly be some WP:BLP-violations, but we can't engage in original research or synthesis of sources in an attempt to clear a man that has been found guilty in a court of law. You will need reliable secondary sources, published commentators, that has already done this research. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I give up this battle. It's pointless to try to keep Albert Pyun from spamming his page with advertisements of himself. Make no mistake: this page will now be controlled entirely by Albert Pyun. It will be an advertisement for Albert Pyun. It will list every playdate for all his films and what movie theaters they will be shown in. It will showcase glowing reviews of all his films sourced to personal blogs written by his fan-boys. It will become an unreadable laundry list of his accomplishments with nothing formatted to Wiki standards. If any information on the page, cited and sourced or not, might make him look bad, Albert Pyun will remove it. This page will be 100% non-neutral. It will become one big ad FOR Albert Pyun written BY Albert Pyun. If Albert Pyun doesn't like whats on the page he will huff and puff and hold his breath like a spoiled child screaming about imaginary lawyers and imaginary lawsuits. If Pyun doesn't like the content of a cited verifiable source like a newspaper article well then the article was written by a "sorry ass" reporter from the the "backwoods" of Guam. I'm going to completely delete the the entire Max Havoc section just to make it go away. Just like Albert Pyun would like it to go away. Like it never happened. Welcome to the new AlbertPyun.com on Wikipedia. Adios Esta. Readyforanderson (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Readyforanderson

No need to give up. It's pretty obvious that there are edits from multiple-serial IPs which don't touch anything except this article and maybe Max Havoc. It's pretty obvious who that is, and these IPs, or the person behind it, does not deserve any respect due to reasons elaborated above. It'll be easy to semi-protect against IPs and make any registered editor accountable. HkCaGu (talk) 04:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Case in point:

The two latestest additions by IPs: they do nothing but advertise Pyun and are completely non- netraul. Including a link to a pod cast interview wiht Pyun and going of the way to say that the interview covers "that epic insane film journey of his." Really? It just makes you laugh how Pyun controls this page. Let me make a predicition: When Pyun's film "Road to Hell" plays in Hawaii it will be listed here. The post will come from Henderson, Nevada from an IP that only posts on the Pyun page. Readyforanderson (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Readyforanderson

Thank you

for finally protecting this page from Pyun's nonstop spam. For YEARS he has been spamming this page with promotional items. So thanks to whomever finally protected this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.110.123.105 (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Citation work needed on "Early Career" section

The following sentence needs citation work: But the actor decided not to do the film and Pyun found himself working on Mifune's TV series instead and under the tuleage of Kurosawa's Director of Photography, Takao Saito (Red Beard, Seven Samurai). The citation noted simply leads to Headpress Publications website and specifically to a Headpress book called Cult People. There is no information, just a photo gallery. If the information is contained within the book, then a page number should be cited. In addition, almost all of this new information added is cited to personal blogs, which is not a valid source. Readyforanderson (talk) 02:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Readyforanderson

I've tried my best yet again to do copy edit work and general clean up and check on the validity of cited sources to, at the very least, make this article readable. Every time Albert Pyun adds information (all painfully obvious self promotion) he cares nothing for general Wiki guidelines on any number of issues to say nothing of syntax or proofreading. He has done this way for years. He leaves the heavy lifting to others and hopes no one will actually research the sources he cites. He refuses to abide by consensus and consistently makes unilateral edits.

On May 22, 2103 Albert Pyun sock IP 184.90.98.94 added the cited source La Cosa Cine Fantastico issue #113, July, 2005 for some new information in an Early Career section. This is in fact not an article about Pyun but an interview with Pyun by Nicanor Loreti. All the information taken from this source is simply things Pyun has said about himself. There is no secondary source listed. Perhaps if we change the information Pyun added about himself to read: Pyun says..... It's my understanding that Wikipedia strongly urges against people writing autobiographies and instead suggests if a subject is important enough then eventually someone will write about them and then that article (not a blog or other user generated web content) can be used as a valid source.

On May 26, 2013 Albert Pyun sock IP 173.166.240.145 removed a long standing cited source (Uno Magazine June/July 2010 article entitled Max Havoc: Behind the schemes) saying the link was broken and that he possibly considered the Guam magazine a local entertainment rag. I added a Dead Link tag to the citation to resolve the link rot issue. It's interesting and telling that Pyun cited La Cosa Cine Fantastico (because it was him saying great things about himself) and wanted to remove Uno Magazine (because it said some not great things about him). So La Cosa Cine Fantastico is a great magazine and Uno Magazine is a "local entertainment rag?" In researching Pyun's source it seems to me La Cosa Cine Fantastico is simply an industry magazine with no critical judgement whatsoever. The junk food literary equivalent to a press release. Uno Magazine isn't high art; it's a men's magazine with pictures of girls in bathing suits but also containing well researched and balanced articles about movies, tech gadgets, music, etc. I live on Guam, I know. I'm speaking of the print issue of the magazine sold in Guam and not the website which is heavy on bathing suits. Pyun has a problem with an in depth article the magazine did on his Max Havoc: Curse of the dragon movie he shot here in Guam in 2004. He wants to remove the source from the page because he wants to censor and whitewash the entire Max Havoc story. Wikipedia does not censor and Wikipedia does not whitewash. Readyforanderson (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Readyforanderson

To me reading the Uno article seemed to be more a rehash from the LA Times and other news reports. I don't see that the writer contacted the subjects of his article (being Laing, Pyun or the production managers. If he did reach out for comment then I apologize but I would not consider the Uno article good journalism. The other issue I had was the way the article is structured on this movie, which I 've never even heard of, is how it says this happened and this didn't when it should just get to the end which was there was a settlement and Laing complied with it in the end and it was resolved and closed. Previously it was like reading a diary or chronology of events that in the end had no bearing on the issue.

In looking at the links yesterday and following up, I noticed although there are multiple sources for that films air dates and distribution along with its actual gross from various sources like tv, home entertainment and VOD streaming, there's not attempt to provide the film's financial performance. Even the Sceen Actor's Guild financials provide good insight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.240.145 (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

While the Uno Magazine article does contain information found in the Los Angeles Times article, it also contains an abundance of new information about the making of Max Havoc on Guam and the controversy that followed. There is information about John Laing losing his California case against GovGuam (Page 57). There are very detailed emails between Albert Pyun and GovGuam (page 58) and emails between John Laing and GovGuam (page 59). There are statements from a crew member not found in the Los Angeles Times article (page 60). There is an overview of Pyun's films and how his older films mirror the troubled Max Havoc (page 61). There is film-gross information (page 60) and information about the producer creating a company in Canada and buying the film for cheap at the bank foreclosure sale (page 60). In short, if you were somebody looking for detailed information about the making of Max Havoc on Guam and the fallout, the Uno Magazine citation would be a God send. Or conversely, if you were simply looking to verify a claim made on the Albert Pyun page concerning Max Havoc producer John Laing blaming Albert Pyun for the failure of the film you could find that on page 67.

Why do you feel the Uno Magazine article is not good journalism? I would consider the article unusually good journalism. They studied emails, talked to a crew member, had quotes from the film's director, producer and GovGuam politicians. Everyone told their side of the story.

I don't believe you that you've never heard of the Max Havoc film before. You're Albert Pyun and you're trying to spam this page with non-stop self promotion of yourself. You are also desperately trying to censor the whole Max Havoc thing. Readyforanderson (talk) 03:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Readyforanderson

I think what other contributor's are trying to get at is the size and worthless detail on a movie that has almost no notability in this filmmakers career. If the page is about the filmmaker then the weight of information has to be balanced across Pyun's 50 films and 30 year career. One movie especially one with another director co-making the film and one with such a minor release (although the charts show it grossing $1,700,000) and virtually is insignifigant to Pyun's career. Films like his Captain America, Cyborg and the Sword and the sorcerer have enduring legacies yet the one guam movie is given almost equal weight with his more notable and famous films. And even more notable is how it had virtually no effect on his career. He's still making movies, they are still getting releases from major distributors none of which is fully detailed in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.90.98.94 (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

"Almost equal weight" would be the imperative words here. It's been a hopeless battle here trying to stop you (and your cohorts) from spamming the page with glorified self promotion. The article is nothing but an ad for you. This film "was the 49th most popular Cyborg/robot movie," Pyun won all kinds of awards at film festivals nobody has ever heard of, this film "had at least one commercial theatrical booking", endless mentions of grade-z movies that are not notable by Wiki standards, endless info about director's cuts available for sale, etc, etc. The delusional non-encylopedic entries go on and on. And there is one film on Guam that caused a hail storm of controversy with all kinds of citable sources about it and there's what, 5 sentences about it? And 100 sentences worth of info about all his other films and his legacy and his lifetime achievement awards. It's called trying to make a balanced non bias encyclopedic entry. Save your self promotion for your website. Readyforanderson (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Readyforanderson

What is hard to understand is why a insignifigant film shot on a insignificant shoot location is notable at all to Albert Pyun's career is impossible to understand. That John Laign did or didn't fulfill settlement obligations has NOTHING to do with Pyun. It belongs on John Laing's page or the film's page. Pyun, as far as I can read, left the film June 2004 so anything regarding actions by third parties he was not associated with, don't belong on a article about Albert Pyun's filmmaking career. I don't think these organizations or publications or film festivals is any less notable than a place hardly anyone knows exists or is relevant to anyone's life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.90.98.94 (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not impossible to understand. The film is not insignificant for the very reason of the controversy of which Pyun played a part. Please don't ask rhetorical questions about the part Pyun played in the controversy. Please go to the article's cited sources regarding Max Havoc. Guam has a history and culture dating back to around 2000 BC and the Pollygrind Underground Film Festival from Las Vegas, at which Pyun won a lifetime achievement award, has a history dating back to 2009. Who says Guam isn't relevant to anyone's life? Guam was certainly relevant to Albert Pyun when he came here and asked the government for money to make one of his films. Yeah, you make a good argument.

Why can't you learn to post constructively to Wikipedia? Your self congratulatory posts are always a mess. An absolute mess. I simply refuse to copy edit your work anymore. You're Albert Pyun and you've been using multiple serial IP socks for years now and should be banned from Wikipedia for that very reason. Readyforanderson (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Readyforanderson

I re-read the articles but it seems to me that after June 2004, Pyun was no longer involved. He wasn't even called as a witness for either side which if he is the very reason for the controversy, he would have been at least called by GEDA to testify. But I think they concluded what two of you here can not, Pyun wasn't involved in the loan guarantee or the loan agreements after June 2004. There's also a tone to the Guam based comments that reads as prejudiced and hostile and I find a offensive and not objective in the least (granted I am a fan of Pyun's films. By the way, the Uno article did NOT interview Pyun, Laing, or any of those responsible for the financial side of the production. There's just one crew member who was a drug addict and a lighting guy on pornos. Its hard to understand why Uno could reach Pyun since the LA Times did. Too much trouble maybe? Too lazy?

By the way, at his screening in Chicago, Pyun discussed releasing a director's cut of Max Havoc of which he has the only copy. He'll do a commentary for it that he says will detail the whole deal. I would think it would be a best seller on Guam - lol. Pyun also said he went back to Guam in 2008 and shot some added material for the director's cuts. Should be interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.90.98.94 (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Is this the same Albert Pyun who was going to sue Wikipeida? Is it the same Albert Pyun who was going to go to Guam to testify against several Wikipedia editors that was going to lead to criminal charges against those editors? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=440670563 Albert Pyun is either a bald-faced liar, a first class nut case, or both. Readyforanderson (talk) 02:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Readyforanderson

This is what bothers me so much about the entries Pyun is always posting here through his various sock IP's: They're all lies. If accomplished editors don't vigilantly watch the page and delete them, they stay up. Luckily editor HkCaGu deleted today's post (5/29/2013) by Pyun sock IP 184.90.98.94 saying the entry wasn't formatted properly. It wasn't, but take a look at [1] and see what Pyun posted before it was deleted: Since Max Havoc, no other mainstream production from other parts of the world have come to Guam for production work except for Japanese and Korean commercials and Asian video porn shoots. He cited this article by Guam native Connor Murphy as the source: http://guampedia.com/filmmaking/ Of course the article doesn't say anything about there being no production work on Guam except for Japanese and Korean commercials and Asian video porn shoots. It says the exact opposite without even mentioning anything whatsoever about Asian pornography shoots. In the same post the Pyun sock quotes Robert Underwood, who is one of Guam's past politicians from the U.S. Congress, as saying: The money is not as big as the fact that it symbolizes the ineptness and the naivete of some of the people in the government of Guam sourcing it to the Los Angeles Times article of June 13 2007 (http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/13/business/fi-guam13). The money Underwood is talking about is the money GovGuam gave to Albert Pyun and John Laing to make "Max Havoc." Giving that money to the film makers, he is saying, "symbolizes the ineptness and the naivete of some of the people in the government of Guam" in trusting people like Albert Pyun and John Laing. He finishes by saying (not included by the Pyun sock, of course): "It's more an embarrassment than anything else." One has to wonder about Pyun's mental condition if he's posting a quote from someone saying it's naive and inept to trust him (Pyun).

The above is just one example of what has been happening on this page for years. And if the page isn't watch by diligent accomplished editors then Pyun's lies get posted and stay posted. He has repeatedly used multiple serial sock IP's. Is there a way to get him banned from this page? Readyforanderson (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Readyforanderson

In regards to Albert Pyun sock IP 184.90.98.94's edit on May 28:

sigh Readyforanderson (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Readyforanderson

Page Protection

Now that the page has been protected I've spent some serious time trying to clean up, condense, and fact check the article without fear of it instantly being destroyed by Pyun sock-vandals. I've made all the titles of films and tv shows in "quotes" rather then italics just to be uniform. I created an Awards section for Pyun's awards, eliminating stray sentences here and there. The article did not follow chronologically in places so I tried to put things in proper order. I eliminated a section about the "Captain America" director's cut being in "a film festival" and having "one commercial theatrical booking." This seemed not encyclopedic. There was a NPOV issue here and there that was removed. I linked some famous actors and Japanese film people. Massive copy edits all around. There is a citation needed tag that's bugging me regarding Pyun's birth date as May 19, 1953. It's been tagged since August 2011 and I can't find a source for that. Would like to see the tag remvoed if anyone can help.

Article is safe until June 29th, 2013 at which time Pyun IP socks will come and destroy it. Readyforanderson (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Readyforanderson

It didn't make any sense to say that "Captain America" ended "when financing fell through." The film was finished. The cited source for this fact (Las Vegas interview with Pyun) didn't mention the film ending because of financing. Not unusual for this page's cited sources to say absolutely nothing about what they are suppose to be citing. Going through and checking every cited source for accuracy. So, I moved the Las Vegas source to cite Pyun's release of a director's cut of "Captain America" as the Indywire source is no longer available. So in addition, removed the Indywire source. Readyforanderson (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Readyforanderson

Thank you for all the nice clean up work on the article. reads better. Still not really balanced as Max Havoc has more sentences than Captain America and Cyborg, two of Pyun's biggest and most well known film. Still think the non-Pyun info be put on the movies page or John Laing's since it really is about those tow subjects more than Pyun. To be clear from news articles in the area, its clear Pyun didnot travel to Guam together. Instead, Laing traveled to meet with GEDA and Gov Guam in December 2003. Pyun did not arrive until Feb. 2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.90.98.94 (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm part of a group of Pyun movie fans and we try to confront vandals wherever they appear. Mainly pathetic haters with grudges. Its nice that most of those have been cleared away because Pyun actually believes in ignoring the haters and their venom. He's too happy go lucky so we haven't been able to move him into action except with mainstream press. He's showed us complaints he or his atty made to KUAM, that Marianas paper and the PDN, and Pyun has received email apologies and retractions from the editors and even the reporters. But he won't try to go after individuals although we supplied him with IP addresses of workers who used their work computers to vomit hate and lies. At least 5 lost their jobs for using work computers to vandalize and libel. So that was a big achievement for Pyun to act and using his atty. We are all trying to convince Pyun to release emails from the Guam officials but he won't go public with those because they would hurt unnecessarily. But I think we've convinced him to release the Max Havoc Director's Cut so people can see what he did shoot and create. But his atty told him to let it all go away and forget it. Pyun even has an voice mail and email from Kim Christensen apologizing for skewing the article negatively and to the more tabloid elements. He apologized for not following thru on printing the real story because his editors thought it was not as effective as a more scandalous direction. It's eye opening for sure. If you talk to KUAM reporters or even Zita from the Marianas News, you'll learn Pyun never ducked a request for an interview. But, again, we're all very appreciative of your clean up. I noticed the page views were over 600+ today. Nice. Captain America has over 21, 000 the past 30 days. So its all good. We just want to do right by the man who made films we loved growing up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.90.98.94 (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

¨:well tell Pyun to put up or shut up, you know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.153.132.99 (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Some good news I guess. One of the most persistance Pyun haters has died from Cancer (karma) on June 1. He has attacked and spewed venom and lies from dozens of different screen names where he could libel and slander from behind a fake screen names. The other major liar and hater has been marginalized and efforts to expose his mental history have reduced his employment in the film industry. Hopefully he'll soon be out and on the street. We are trying as a group to uncover the true identities if these liars and deviants.

It's good news that Chris Bates died young with a painful death of cancer? http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0060882/?ref_=fn_nm_nm_1 You somehow chalk that up to Karma? The two people that posted the disgusting, revolting above paragraph are Albert Pyun and Cynthia Curnan. Chris Bates worked for years with them and now they gloat over his tragic and sad death. This gives you an idea of the kind of people they are. Since they are so quick to spout off about Karma before poor Chris' corpse is even cold, wonder what Karma has got in store for them considering their actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C05C:61B0:1F0:5C66:8AD6:7A33 (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

What Karma had in store for Albert Pyun was Progressing Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.108.124.89 (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think you should get your information correct, Neither Pyun nor Curnan put that talk item in. I did and I'm just a long time fan of Pyun and his films. I don't think you know everything Bates did to try to harm Pyun, Curnan and their families. Yes, he went that far and even tried contacting anyone who knew Pyun to see if they had dirt that he could use. I only know Bates from the time he even attacked me when I accused him of hiding behind a fake screen name as a female (!). There's a bout a dozen of us Pyun fans that confronted Bates under whatever name he appeared and managed to get him banned from several sites like the Albert Pyun Appreciation Group on Yahoo. Boy he'd go ballistic when confronted. But he's gone so let's let him go out of sight and mind and hopefully in peace. You could tell from his raging rants that he was troubled. If any karma comes back at me, I'm okay with that as I feel trolls who post hate and lies should be dealt with. And from what i understand, Bates didn't work at all with Curnan and only minimally with Pyun. He was more a production office worker I think and he worked under others and not Pyun directly. But I know Pyun liked Chris and asked several of us to back off the attacks and just ignore the snarking and trolling by Bates. But things did calm down since last summer as Bates' attacks seem to taper off and the many screen names he used went quiet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.90.98.94 (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

well that didn't take long -

Several hours after the page becomes unprotected, the page is bombarded from one IP with self-promotional fluff sourced to blogs, etc, etc. Wow, wonder who that could be? Readyforanderson (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)Readyforanderson

Pyun lives in Henderson, Nevada I believe but is presently on location shooting a film in Argentina. Me and the other pyun fans don't understand how we are spamming when many articles on wikipedia are devoted to future dates when TV shows will return to the air or use celebrity tweets as sources. All we are trying to do is support Pyun and to make sure he isn't maligned and smeared as has been the case in years past. You have to admit that there was some pretty mean and hurtful edits. Like the attempt to say he committed fraud which it were true, he'd be in court in Guam. But the guy who was really trying to twist and color everything negative has died. And the others have been hit by hard times and unemployment. The Guam stuff was slanted and disgusting yet it was allowed to remain even though it was mostly based on here say and and unverified information. I've seen the retractions Pyun received from the media in Guam and it really outraged us to take up his cause. He's far too busy to protect his reputation and just says he doesn't care. And I do agree with you that Pyun should release full transcripts of his conversation with Kim Christensen of the LA Times which he has. But he says let it go. No one cares if Christensen mislead him about the direction of the article. and then when confronted, Christensen apologizes saying it was the decision of his editors. I will refrain from any more edits as long as you and HaCa use your diligence on any obvious attempts to smear Pyun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.90.98.94 (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's obvious who you are and what's going on here. Many of your edits are sourced to personal blogs which Wikipedia considers not a valid source. Your edits reek of self promotional fluff and Wikipedia is not your promotional tool. You've been explained this countless times and you continue to make said edits. Myself and other editors have explained this to you so many times I've lost count. Your edits are not made in good faith. I'm tired of explaining this to you so from this point on I'm just going to revert your edits without explanation. Readyforanderson (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Readyforanderson

I'm pretty sure that the rotten tomatoes.com site, the new jersey star ledger and indiewire.com and rentracks are legit sources. How can those entries be self promoting? It details events that occurred months ago. Clearly by your word and attitude you do not have a npov toward Pyun or this article. Your earlier comments about guam reveals a prejudice favoring guam to the exclusion of facts. If the guam section was truly npov, the choice of wording wouldn't be so clearly negative toward Pyun. Jut revert everythng but the pov info you want this article to have. Clearly you have no interest in providing information about Pyun's filmmaking or career, which is what most people coming to this page are interested in.

Albert Pyun has asked that I no longer post any information on his pages as in hid view, it only incites his haters to spam and vandalize the page to minimize accurate information for the sake of keeping an inconsequential event in Guam that ultimately proved that Pyun was not involved (as the lawsuits reflect). In any case, we of Prun's fans have decided to set this article adrift into the seas of self serving vandals. Though, as I mentioned earlier, they are dying away or being isolated as the sad people they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.90.98.94 (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Got the same message. Will respect Albert's wishes even if its hard to not contest his distractors. Neutral Point of View - that's a big laugh. Bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.245.207.130 (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing like Albert Pyun and his gaggle of sycophants to determine what a neutral point of view is. Thank goodness for Wikipedia's source/citation rules. Prsrt ty (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Prsrt ty

Please cease and desist

It has been brought to my attention that article purporting to be about me exists on your site. Beyond the fact that it has erroneous and libelous information that is unverified and slanted by those who have hijacked the page. The page is controlled by those from Guam or live in Guam in an attempt to smear me because they are trying to discredit my upcoming testimony on Guam that will lead to criminal charges of these individuals . I will be asking my attorney to look into your site to seek damages incurring to my reputation by the posting of libel and slander.

best, Albert Pyun apyunfilm@aol.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.2.9 (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Albert Pyun has a new movie and that means:

Endless self-promotional posts of fluff and junk. As anyone can read the above years of posts on this talk page, Pyun won't adhere to Wikipedia guidelines for self promotion. He simply won't have it. He's got to promote himself here. He cites blogs, you-tube videos, and non critical websites that that contain powder-puff interviews with him and calls them valid sources. When you delete them he huffs and puffs and threatens lawsuits, etc. Readyforanderson (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Readyforanderson

Albert Pyun has been spamming this page for nearly six years

Albert Pyun has been spamming this page for nearly six years. He continually makes destructive unilateral edits and refuses to follow Wikipedia guidelines. He absolutely refuses to do any heavy lifting when it comes to proof reading, maintaing a single citation style, etc. He just cuts & pastes dubious sources and then expects others to clean up his mess. His edits always revolve around self-promotion, etc. Readyforanderson (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Readyforanderson

Maybe you can add this item from a source (CNN) I don't know if you'd consider it a verifiable source:

http://www.cnnindonesia.com/hiburan/20150213175245-234-32002/berkat-hammer-girl-julie-estelle-dilirik-film-asing/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.243.62 (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Case in point. Readyforanderson (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Readyforanderson

Albert Pyun has asked us to return again to correcting this page. UNLOCK THE PAGE!

We are his fans and we will do as he says. We grew up watching his movies and we want to do right by our hero. The entire Max Havoc section needs to be taken out, or at the very least to reflect that he had nothing to do with the loan from Guam. IT WAS THE PRODUCER'S FAULT AND NOT PYUN'S! He had nothing to do with it. One day Pyun will reveal all the secret information he has about the making of this film and Wikipedia will be sorry! We are the Albert Pyun Army! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.103.242.94 (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Albert Pyun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120326130839/http://www.bmoviecelebration.com/?p=718 to http://www.bmoviecelebration.com/?p=718
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.butff.nl/nl/artikel/de-awards-2013
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131017173100/http://www.igorslab.com:80/home/2013/10/14/buffalo-dreams-fantastic-film-festival-to-show-85-films.html? to http://www.igorslab.com/home/2013/10/14/buffalo-dreams-fantastic-film-festival-to-show-85-films.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Albert Pyun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511180136/http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html to http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2022

I would like to add that he sadly passed away on Saturday, November 26th, 2022 at 5:50 PM. This was announced via his wife's facebook page. Source: https://www.facebook.com/ccurnan/posts/pfbid0VGQMJiYM9z85UtfntnsmJh1A7g1RXywMh572byLTVMqnLW3ZTAsrQ7jPk2n4cafbl Cherrybracelets (talk) 06:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Done by User:Gianluigi02. --Mvqr (talk) 11:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)