User talk:CyberGhostface/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

---

Archives

Full Archive 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10

Contents 1 Sheckley 2 Hi again 3 Randall Flagg 4 Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays 5 Screaming latke 6 Thanks! 7 Image:Malcommcdowellgnu.PNG 8 RE: Dr. Gordon's fate 9 Mischa Lecter 10 RE:Hoffman deletion 11 So which articles next...Saw itself? 12 Lemony Snicket Roll Call 13 Eli Roth 14 AfD nomination of Mischa Lecter 15 RF 16 Randall Flagg GA 17 USM Video Game Cannon 18 Rob Zombie films 19 Flagg 20 re: Flagg 21 The Flagg FAC 22 Thanks! 23 AfD nomination of Lady Murasaki (Hannibal) 24 Flagg PDF 25 RE:Prison Break photos 26 Hi! 27 I would AfD....in a while 28 Randall FLagg FA 29 Horror 30 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Lemonysnicketgrave.PNG) 31 "The source" 32 Man Behind the Curtain

Sheckley

Hello, would you mind explaining your recent removal of material from Robert Sheckley? It wasn't me who put it there, but I thought perhaps a "citation needed" tag is required, not complete removal. Jashiin (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually did a quick google search and nothing about the quote turned up except for Wikipedia and various mirror/copies. If you go to Wikipedia:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material,there's a quote from Jimbo that goes "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons". That, and the editor in question who added was an anon who only did about four edits, and all but one involved the Running Man.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see; I agree with the removal now. I was worried because you didn't give any explanations in the edit summary. Thanks for replying! Jashiin (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi again

I was wondering as the resident Saw expert if there had been any word or scene I missed that explained what was in that letter to Amanda in Saw 3. It's been bugging me for a year+ now and theres no explanation I can remember or theory that I can come up with as to what would need to be written to her.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Aw man, it can't be that easy to draw your own conclusions if I haven't got a clue. The only thing I can imagine (Because, though I might be wrong, I remember Jigsaw telling her about the letter) is that it says he knows she hasn't been offering people the chance to live but if he tells her that it kinda messes up the end of the 3 unless she was too far gone at that point.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Randall Flagg

Hello again, and thanks for the message. The article is definitely improving, but in response to your question there are still a few things to do (some that I left out of my GA review as I thought I had probably given you enough work already!).

Before renominating at WP:GAN I'd recommend, if possible, adding further references. The GA criteria are pretty strict about this, probably more than anything else, and it tends to be the first thing picked up (although it depends to some extent on the reviewer you get!). As I said in the review, the minimum is usually regarded as one inline citation at the end of every paragraph that covers the contents of that paragraph, plus extra cites for quotations, controversial statements etc to prove they are not original research or editor commentary. You have all the quotations properly cited, but in much of the article there are very few citations for the actual text. To give but one example, the last paragraph of The Stand section makes the claims that:

In the original version King implies that Flagg may have had an out-of-body experience in the instant of the explosion that allowed him to spiritually (possibly magically, as later books suggest) escape unharmed. While the original version of the novel does not tell of Flagg's fate afterwards, the 1990 expanded re-release of the novel, The Stand: The Complete & Uncut Edition, explains that Flagg reappeared somewhere on a beach with complete amnesia, where it is suggested that he continued to wreak havoc upon the human race in his new form.

I don't doubt that this is true, but it needs to be referenced - in this case, citing the relevant pages of both versions of the book would allow a reader to follow up these claims for themselves. The same would go for much of the rest of the article.

In addition a copyedit is always beneficial; the prose is generally good so nothing major would be necessary, but it never hurts to get someone unfamiliar with the article to proofread. I noticed one or two small things while I was re-reading just now (I'm sure I saw 'it's' instead of 'it is' somewhere, but I've lost it!), and there are some phrases that come over as editor commentary that should be removed or reworded (eg 'oddly enough', 'Surprisingly, Walter looks hurt.' etc). The League of copyeditors may be useful here.

Finally, the article layout could perhaps be improved. The lead (per WP:LEAD) should be a summary of, not an introduction to, the article. It needs to briefly mention every major claim made in the article, and should cover every section. Although I think this is mostly sorted, there is no mention of reader/critic reaction to the character (ie the Literary analysis and criticism section). It may also help the article flow to have the next section below the lead as a "Concept and creation" section that deals with how and why King developed this character (this would perhaps be a better place for the quotation currently in the lead). I first expected to find this in the Origins section, but confusingly this deals with Flagg's in-universe origin, not the character origin from King's perspective.

Apologies for the long answer - hope this helps! EyeSerene^TALK 11:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays

Screaming latke

No problem -- your version is much better, thanks. NawlinWiki (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

You've made my day! SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 23:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Malcommcdowellgnu.PNG

Hello, this file uploaded by you is listed for deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Malcommcdowellgnu.PNG. --GeorgHH (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: Dr. Gordon's fate

I haven't listened to the commentary, but I definitely think it's worth noting that the actor himself believes Dr. Gordon to be dead. Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 21:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm probably not entitled to comment it just so happens that JackofHearts' talk page is on my watchlist still. Certainly if it comes from the actor himself its certainly worth mentioning, however I think it's worth bearing in mind that it's not cannon and so not an official fate. Agent452 (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Mischa Lecter

Per this edit summary, the reason I didn't do it that way is it seems to me that one picture of her is sufficient, and the other one shows her better. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:Hoffman deletion

I made sure to copy the text from the article into my sandbox before it was deleted, but I don't have the time to do much editing on here today or tomorrow. Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 00:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

So which articles next...Saw itself?

I guess from your comment on the current articles for deletion for the Pig Mask you're feeling like I'm feeling...pretty pissed off that despite the keep votes out-numbering the delete votes Hoffman was deleted anyway. And now the Pig Mask is up and so it will continue I guess. Think some soul should enter a petition to change the moto of wikipedia to "the Encyclopedia anyone can edit...provided they have a detailed knowledge of every single guideline, policy and discussion that has ever taken place." Anyway this rant was to pretty much say that I've voted keep but, like you said I hardly expect it to count...Agent452 (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Lemony Snicket Roll Call

Hello, CyberGhostface/Archive 7! Your username, as well as the usernames of other inactive members of Wikipedia: WikiProject Lemony Snicket, has been removed from the inactive members list, as part of a process for making the wikiproject active once again. If you would like to continue to be an member (inactive or active), please follow the instructions on the top of the participants page to add your username. Thanks! Clamster 23:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Eli Roth

I think it's time to block this user: MrHaney, their comments on the talk page are inappropriate as well. Vrac (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What have you against free speech? Mr Roth has a very strange obsession with other men's penises and uses his films as soapboxes from which to deliver bizarre lectures on child genital mutilation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrHaney (talk • contribs) 22:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with it. Vrac (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mischa Lecter

An editor has nominated Mischa Lecter, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mischa Lecter and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

RF

I would put it up on the league of copy-editors requests page and maybe a peer review, letting people know what your goal is. It isn't too far from FA. Wrad (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Randall Flagg GA

Congratulations - you've put in a lot of work and it's well deserved ;) EyeSerene^TALK 08:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

USM Video Game Cannon

sorry it took me so long to reply to your question, but Bendis announced he woul be writing an arc that covered and expanded upon the video game story after amazing friends. he made htis announcement in the Ultimate Previews mag that came out in the fall. Captaincanuck65 (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Rob Zombie films

Why are you bringing those back? The single characters do not have enough relevant information to warrant articles. Improve the film articles instead. TTN (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That kind of information would be covered within "Legacy" or "In popular culture" sections in the main articles instead of separate articles. Unless you think you can provide a few paragraphs of solid creation and reception information, you should just work on the main articles. TTN (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

And by solid information, I'm talking about a scenario where both film articles are bloated with information, but there is still plenty left to write about. I really doubt you're going to find that much that is fully separate from them. TTN (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you please just follow the proper flow of creating articles on fictional topics? Unless it is something truly iconic like Superman, we start off with the main article and work towards creating sections there. Afterwards, you split off if it is necessary. If you were to actually flesh out the two main articles fully, I'm sure you would see that there is no need for the separate articles. TTN (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

We're talking about this specific case, not every other article. I'm sure sources talking about the characters exist. That's evident from the DVD commentary. That does not mean that the characters need separate articles when they're not independent from the films. If you could find references on the characters that are completely separate from the films that show that these characters are truly iconic, that would be a different story. TTN (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between interviews about the characters to hype up or expand upon the films and those that truly get away from them. I've seen a few so far where the characters are talked about, but they do not actually separate themselves from the film. If you could just go and fetch one real quick, I'll shut up, but I have been in this situation before. This just never turns out well. TTN (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

See, that's the first type I was talking about. They focus on the characters in relation to the films (all three even seem to go into details on the films anyways). That kind of information is better placed within the articles. Information on casting, changes to the characters, ect would all go into development sections. Anything on the popularity of the characters should be placed within reception sections. Anything like merchandise should go into popular culture sections.

Now, if at that point you find that there is a just so much information on a specific character piling up, that may be worth bringing it back. That would have to be some fairly specific information, though. Otherwise, you can just trim and condense it. TTN (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

For the interviews to separate them from the films, they would have to provide evidence that they are iconic in their own right. Those show nothing more than them being extensions of a few cult films. Two films is not a really big deal; the interviews relate directly to the films (i.e. if you can find some from this year or something still talking about the characters, you'll have a case); and merchandise has more to do with the overall series and Rob Zombie than the specific characters. Just because the main articles discuss the characters will not mean that they aren't notable in their own way, if that's what you're worried about. They'll just be getting their specific weight in accordance with the overall topic. TTN (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The first one could possibly be used for something, but it is sort of borderline trivial. The second one provides absolutely nothing relevant. What I'm talking about would be ones that show that someone could just randomly name Captain Spaulding, and he'll be shown as something more iconic than the films themselves. I really think that if you want to do this, the split out approach is the best way. Also, making the two films featured would really show if they need to be split or not. TTN (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

We're not looking for every trivial mention of the character. You need significant details for the article to stand. TTN (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Interviews would need to be based upon the fact that the characters are iconic. If you were to find a interview from last month talking to Rob Zombie about how iconic the characters are at this point (with little mention of the movie), that would be good. Reviews reviewing just the characters would probably be valid also. I want unrelated article to talk about the characters, not just give a passing mention because of the actor or a reference to scary movies. TTN (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You're the one that claimed that they were iconic in the horror movie area, so I'm just sticking with that. It's possible to include those details; we've established that. The thing is that the details to not overreach the boundaries of the two films, which could use that information anyways. Would it really be that hard for you to work on production and reception sections for the two films? After those are fully developed, we can look over them and see if the included details have a lot of weight leaning towards one or two characters. If those details, would be better contained within an article, they can be split. TTN (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Iconic is iconic, even though there are certainly different levels. If they're the ones that are iconic instead of just the films, they should be able to show it. Obviously these characters wouldn't be able to have as much information as Jason Voorhees, but one interview praising the character's portrayal isn't going to hold up an article. You should take those kind of sources and put it behind sentences like "The characters of the film were well received, setting a standard for later horror films." in a reception section for the first film. The second film should somehow expand upon that. TTN (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You found one that mentions the character in a side comment. I'm talking about one recent interview where one single person, the whole cast, Rob Zombie, writers of the films, or anyone else important is interviewed about the character(s) and their impact on the horror genre, their ever lasting popularity, or anything like that. Those would be indicators of notability. TTN (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The main indicator of notability is significant coverage. So far, you have one or two things outside of the scope of getting a feel for the films. Those one or two things do not really shout "I'm notable." The films are notable, and the characters a big chunk of it, not independent from it. How about this for now: take the one list of minor characters in the films that is floating about and merge the characters to it. Work on both the film articles and the list. If they're independently notable, they'll be able to be split from the list. Otherwise, once the film articles are developed, the list can be redirected. TTN (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What exactly have you provided that shows that they're notable? The only source that you have provided that actually gets away from the films, and isn't just a passing mention is the interview with Gunnar Hansen. Even then, it's just a couple of quick questions about his favorite character. That doesn't hold any real weight at all, and I really doubt it would be included in any article. What exactly is so hard about leaving them as redirects until it is shown that they actually stand? TTN (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Reception has to be from critical sources. One guy that played a character in an unrelated movie is not relevant. Now, views directly from people that worked on the two films would be fine. If you want to save images, all you have to do is make sure you know the names, and ask an admin to undelete them afterwards. All of that stuff also fits into the film articles, which is what we've been going over for the past while. TTN (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If there a tons of independent, non-trivial, and reliable sources discussing the characters, that is enough to support independent notability. What you have shown me is nothing like that, and it fits with the film articles. TTN (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

We've already gotten past the point of citing guidelines specifically. At this point, we're arguing about interpretation. TTN (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Flagg

Thank you very much for the barnstar. I appreciate it, and I wish you the best of luck with the FA. I'll be keeping my eye out and cheering for you. Finetooth (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

re: Flagg

Not at all. It's difficult to give constructive criticism but I know it's even more difficult to receive it. I've been reading the R.F. article for a long time and I think it's ready for FA status. True that some sections are not terribly long, but if that's all the information available, it can still be considered comprehensive. Again, great work. --Laser brain (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The Flagg FAC

So, I'm thinking this candidacy is going to fail over the secondary sources concerns brought by Awadewit. I have mixed feeling about it because on one hand, I see his point, but on the other hand I really doubt there is much out there in the way of serious academic papers about Randall Flagg. But, I am offering to help do the research. I have access to the MLA database and I can start pulling sources if you are interested in a collaboration. I can pull sources and provide the full text to you with bibliographies. As time allows I can also help add sources to the article but I can't commit to much right now. What do you think? --Laser brain (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I found one article so far that looks promising, but the MLA database doesn't carry the full text. I will look elsewhere for it or request it from the library. I am starting a list here, and will post full text as I find it. If you see anything useful, you can cite it from my bibliography. --Laser brain (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I just wanna say hang in there on this FAC to you and others helping you with it. FA's can be brutal, and I should know... I've been through a couple really difficult ones. Just stay cool, remember that people are trying to help, and remember that even if it fails you can always renominate. Us horror fans have to support one another, right? --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm distracted, but will have another look during the week. You are actually very fortunate to be engaged with Awadewit, who is probably the most insightful reviewer we have onsite. Ceoil (talk) 13:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar! Galena11 (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Lady Murasaki (Hannibal)

I have nominated Lady Murasaki (Hannibal), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Murasaki (Hannibal). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Flagg PDF

Hey Cyber, I got that journal article about Flagg today. They sent it to me as a PDF. Do you want me to email it to you? If you use the e-mail link and drop me a message, I'll reply with the PDF. I don't know how else I could get it to you. --Laser brain (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

RE:Prison Break photos

I didn't save them. Sorry, I can't be of help. Regards, Ladida (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

That's nice that someone finally added Suzie to Sid's page! Very cool of you. But her last name is (was) Oberg, not Olberg. I think she uses Sid's last name now though (the real one). Just wanted to let you know, but you know, because of *someone* getting the page locked, I can't do it myself... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.58.52 (talk) 06:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean his real name. Mosesian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.58.52 (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

She signs her emails with that name, and has it changed in her IMDb page. You can also ask her on his MySpace page if you don't believe me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.58.52 (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would AfD....in a while

There is an injunction on all fiction articles concerning character articles and episode articles. I would consult Deckiller on this, to see if they think this page falls into that character category. To me, this page is redundant to the Category:Fictional serial killers, and similar categories. The page goes partial coverage of like six characters, and then just plainly lists about 20 or 30 more. Most of those characters either have their own page, or don't have a page at all. I don't see why the category that we already have in place can't suffice as a "List of", especially since we probably couldn't cover all of those characters fairly without creating an overly long list. But, like I said, consult Deckiller about whether it falls into the injunction. If it does, then you'll have to wait till the ArbCom is over before you do anything.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Randall FLagg FA

I'll give it a look. I've just caught up with all the LOST hoopla (I'd never seen an episode before this year, but on the urging of a friend, I rented the first 3 season... now I can't miss a new episdoe), and I think it'd be worth mentioning a flagg/john locke connection. There's a LOST producer out there who said something like "We are definetly attempting to make Locke a Flagg-esque character, etc." and it might be a worthwhile add. Artemisstrong (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Horror

It looks like the type of list that would be better done as a simple category entitled "Category:Horror film killers". — Deckiller 18:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Lemonysnicketgrave.PNG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"The source"

That's actually sort of a disappointing amount of material.. I was hoping that article would be a "treasure trove" of scholarly analysis about Flagg. Alas, alack. I will look at it this week and make some notes about where it might go. Are you thinking a separate heading for scholarly analysis, or working it into the plot summaries? --Laser brain (talk) 04:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Man Behind the Curtain

Sorry for stealing this off Helen (I have her talk on watchlist) - I've got a sandbox version here, so we don't have to work on parallel versions. Will ^(talk) 15:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

---

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.