User talk:CyberGhostface/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

---

Archives

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10

Problem with Millenium Shakespeare article

The title of the article is misspelled indeed, but as a new user I couldn't edit it myself, neither redirect the older article with the correct name to lead to the new version of the text. I would appreciate any hints on how to deal with that. Also, I don't see where is the conflist of interest in the article. Give me some hints. Thanks! Millenium Shakespeare (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The Sickness (on Lost)

I mentioned it on my message that you left, and think we should put it on the DISCUSSION page for anyone else to chime in on. As said in that previous message, I think that in fictional cases, we have more leeway to speculate on stuff, especialy when we are talking about LOST where answers are few and far between and often provide us asking more questions. Whippletheduck (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Randall Flagg

Take out the picture of King instead. A picture of the character seems more relevant than his creator, especially seeing that as of now, there are two images of him from the books, two from TV, one of King, and none from the comics. Kuralyov (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

My image qualm doesn't stop with Palpatine and Jabba. Those are older FAs that were established before the rigorous overhaul of fair use images in articles. Per the actual criteria, you need to have something about the image beyond simple identification (the only exclusion to that is the infobox image). My fear with the article in FAC is that criticism will arise about how influential this character is King's novels, yet how slim the article is on information about him. If you feel it is ready, then go for it. The worst that can happen is that it is not promoted, in which case you will most likely have a lot more eyes telling you what you can do to improve it, thus making it that much better. There is no draw back to not getting promoted other than not getting that little bronze star. :D  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Great work!

Hey, I just wanted to commend you on the excellent catch you made in the “Alice in Wonderland” AfD discussion – based on the new source you presented, I switched my vote to Keep. Great work! Ecoleetage (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Dark Tower WP discussion

Greetings Dark Tower WikiProject member, I would like to invite you to palaver about a possible expansion of the Dark Tower Project to include all Stephen King related items. I feel that the large amount of projects related to the author warrants his own Project—but as this one already exists—hesitate to begin a new one. Please feel free to leave comments of any kind and be assured that The Dark Tower will be held in the highest regard within the new King Project. Long days and pleasant nights. Blackngold29 02:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Saw traps

From what I remember of the list, it was just that a list of the traps. There wasn't much there but original research and personal observation about each of the traps - which is probably why it got deleted, and rightly so. If there was real content there, then that's another story, but I doubt that content couldn't be found on the individual film pages. But, if you feel that it was wrongly deleted, then I'd go to the deletion review page and start the discussion. Maybe the closing Admin was a little hasty in his decision making.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Saw characters

Hi ghostface, I was looking at the list of Saw characters page and wondered what you thought about rearranging the categories into major characters, minor, just basic victims who don't do anything but get killed, etc? Because of the number of overlapping and recurring characters and very minor ones, arranging them by film is not, imo, the best way to do it. Was just wondering what your opinion was.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not long off but I don't see how doing it before can cause too much harm. The main issues are working out guidelines for who can be classified into the sections. Minor characters are definitely people like the two at the start of Saw4 who do nothing but appear and die.

Personally I'd classify main as Jigsaw, Amanda, possibly Hoffman but would Adam and Co count as well? You could do notable victims but people like Amanda would fit into both. Jeff Reinhart was a major protagonist for one film and appeared in another but would you class him as a main character? But it shouldn't take more than 20 minutes to do the organisation itself.

Throw me some ideas of what you think might work because I'd just make a main, recurring and minor character section and I'm concerned that might not properly cover all the characters and until Saw V comes out, Cecil isn't a recurring character nor is he minor, but I don't consider him a main character :( *is confusing self* Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it, we could possibly do 'Lead Character', 'Notable Characters', 'Recurring Characters (I don't know if this would still need to exist at that point), 'Minor Characters'. That might work. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I dunno if most saw characters can be called protagonists, they're all in the situation for being kind of a dick to someone :P. I thought of a section for Jigsaw family but I thought maybe it would be like a huge spoiler though I guess if you're checking the page you're asking for it. Mostly concerning Hoffmans involvement. I think victims and people like the wife who survived that stabbing ordeal in the 4th film would be classed as minor characters. People who get a background story and significant screen presence like Xavier would be notable characters but not protagonists.

It'd be easy to name people as lead or protagonist like Rigg or Daniel (or whatever the cops son was called in II). It's difficult though as Rigg might be better classed as recurring and Kerry was recurring and a victim but definitely not a minor character so she might be better assigned to recurring or some other proper headed section. I think for now if we keep it simple and give it a shot and we can fine-tune any issues as they arise and as we get updated info about Saw V. I mean you could easily label Brit as a protagonist/main/lead character at the moment but the others? I wouldn't seperate them into things like 'cops/detectives' though, thats getting a bit too detailed.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok so after giving it some thought, how do these sound; Main Characters (Important people, i.e. Jigsaw, Amanda, Hoffman), protagonists (Doctor Gordon, Adam, Rigg), supporting characters (People who play a role in the films story but aren't that important (i.e. Zepp, Kerry, Agent Strahm, that guy from III's wife, Lynn I think she was called, cecil), Minor characters (unnamed victims or people only named in credits who appear for a few minutes at best like the two guys at the start of IV and potentially the guy from the start of V). I don't like the sound of protagonist because it doesn't seem to mesh with the other headers, maybe Notable characters, important characters (But someone will surely say "How do you judge who is important"). Give me your thoughts when you have time, I don't mind doing it but I might need your support on improving and maintaining it against revert-happy people. Later.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

True enough. I'm gonna give it a quick crack, will message you to have a look if you're still around.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, what would you class the majority of the cast of Saw II as? The house victims I mean? Daniel would be a protagonist, Amanda is taken care of, some like Addison and Xavier get significant screen time but I wouldn't class her in the same league as Zepp.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, where do I go to voite it?Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Made the changes to the page, I think it looks better. While I was doing it I did notice that a few characters, particularly the Saw II characters have a lot of repeated plot info there so thats somehting that might be worth looking at to.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It's alphabetical. I only put her up there because it actually says in her description that shes a protagonist. But I tihnk I will move her down to the bottom section until Saw V is released.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that yeah but I didn't know how to do it, perhaps a page "List of main characters in saw" where they get more detail but if they really cannot provide more htan plot summary such as (I think) Adam, then merge. Jigsaw and Amanda have enough real world info I think to warrant their own article and Jigsaw in particular is iconic enough to have one.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, after looking, Adam's page is just regurgitation of the plot, mostly from SAw 1. Theres nothing unique or interesting there that can't be found in the two paragraphs in the character list or in the Saw 1 article, its just fictional biography. Except for maybe mentioning the altered scenes which again I think could go in the main article for hte movie itself, Adams page should go.

Same with Lawrence. His list bio could be expanded slightly and include the real world info but that info is unsourced and theres no excuse for his daughter and wife being on that page.

Eric Matthews is still all plot but contains a decent sized chunk of out-movie info so take a look and see what you think of that one. Might be worth keeping.

The entire Reinhart family is plot regurgitation that can be killed except for the chunks at the bottom which describe the actors take on the character they play. I'd scrap the pages and keep that actor-info.

Rigg's article is pointless, almost nothing there at all.

Allison Kerry is nothing but plot. Gone.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Randall Flagg error

Cyber, sorry to say you've been on the receiving end of my first ever FAC archiving error: I moved the wrong file, and didn't realize until GimmeBot went through. Give me a bit to sort out how to best fix it with Gimmetrow. I am So Sorry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Whew, all sorted now, thanks to Gimmetrow. I altered my usual routine tonight, and grabbed the wrong file. I guess I'd best stick to my normal routine from now on. Anyway, the faulty archive is now reinstated at FAC. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Antiheroes

Why are you adding characters to this? The category was deleted.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

More abuse of process at CfD. I guess the next step is DRV. Alansohn (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:SAW

Hey. I've noticed the AFD and all the comments made at the projects talk page. I've seen all the movies watched the majority of the commentaries and I'm even doing my senior research paper on the entire franchise. so if you'd like to work on something together and maybe get some others and join as an effort for the project, please let me know, I'll be willing to help with anything. --HELLØ ŦHERE 21:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well, once you've basically decided which, if any, just let me know and I'll be there. --HELLØ ŦHERE 22:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Section length, Book titles, et al.

Hi. Can you read this section and then offer your opinion on the points raised, specifically the issue of titles in the FCB, length and detail of given sections, what constitutes “fannishness”, etc.? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Judith Orloff declined speedy

as it seems to assert notability with "best sellers." Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You did well and deserve praise

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For putting up a spirited and intelligent fight to save the article on the traps in the "Saw" films and for never losing your cool in the midst of the surreal struggle. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Brendan Croskerry

Hi. I don't really understand why you tagged Brendan Croskerry as an autobiography and as a candidate for SD under A7, but it's not really of my business since I'm not the one who created the article (nor did I significantly contribute to it), and I'm not really familiar with SD at this point.

My question is, why did you revert my edit? If the article is deleted, I wouldn't mind my disam fixes being sent into oblivion, but if the article is kept, then I (or somebody else) will have to tag them again. Was it a mistake or on purpose? Clarification would be very much appreciated :)

And if you could explain to me why you tagged the article the way you did (even going so far as to claim it as NPOV) then I'd be thankful for that as well, as I am considering starting to participate on the whole SD process and I'd like to understand more. I mean, the user has a copy of the article on his user page, but that doesn't mean he's Brendan Croskerry. It just means he was creating that article on his user page, right? Again, clarification would be appreciated.

Thanks. –QuadrivialMind ^(talk) 22:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware that I reverted your edits to begin with, and I apologize for that. I just restored your edits. As for there being conflict of interest...well, the fact the main contributor shares the same name as the subject's label pretty much speaks for itself.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

CG, we do not delete for conflict of interest alone, though it is certainly a very good reason for skepticism. The article indicates songs on recordings that charted. I am myself unable to judge if their being compilations affects the notability, but this would be a question for afd if you want to pursue it.

Similarly, for Vihang A Naik, I removed the speedy also, for although there is undoubtedly strong COI, the career as described is notable & there are references for the notability present in the article--I think it would hold up at afd. DGG (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. And thanks for restoring my edit :)

I hadn't realized the label and the page creator shared a name, and after seeing that, I absolutely agree on the autobiography or the COI tag... But not the speedy deletion tag, as the article appeared notable to me (charting singles or albums, and sources for those claims as well).

But I have seen what DGG pointed out, so I won't ask for any more explanations. See you around –QuadrivialMind ^(talk) 01:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

User:A Nobody/List of traps in the Saw film series

Hello! Just letting you know that it is now in my userspace should you wish to help continue improving it. Regards, --A Nobody 17:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Image overuse in fictional character articles

Hello - I have replaced the tags for the Saw characters. Almost every article about a fictional character is unable to support more than one non-free image to identify the character. There are obviously exceptions for extremely famous characters, but I can't see that these two characters - given that they're not even the main protagonists - qualify for this. I'd suggest trimming them down to one identifying image each, unless a case can be made per WP:NFCC for any additional images (i.e. possibly the jaw trap image, though I'm not even sure that NFCC covers this one, to be honest). Black Kite 20:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi - my take would be that Amanda's first two images are enough - sticking to WP:NFCC strictly, the other two images aren't really necessary to increase the reader's understanding of her character WP:NFCC#8, and/or are probably replaceable by text WP:NFCC#1. I'll leave it as is for a while though to see if it prompts any further comments. Thanks, Black Kite 21:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

United States-related articles

Ghostface, first I will tell you what I told Dp76764.

You said "not relevant to a US article)" - Yes, they are relevant to an article about a U.S. movie. It is legitimate to link to other official websites and to report on trends about the U.S. movie happening in other countries. Also the Japanese logo is distinct from the U.S. logo, so it may be used in terms of fair use. We are to present a worldwide view of subjects, including U.S. films.

Then you said: " (I have to agree. Can you explain what purpose this has?) (rollback | undo)" - Wikipedia articles are to reflect a worldwide view, so this is not a good rationale. The logo for Juno differs heavily in Japan, and there is a separate Japanese external link. Juno in Japan is as relevant as Juno in the United States. In Bruce Almighty we talk about how the film is viewed in Iran. Each article reflects the movie as it is seen and relevant throughout the whole world, not just in the United States.

Please revert your own edit. Also, please use talk pages and discuss. "Discussing" through edit summaries leads to revert wars. Please see Wikipedia:ES#Use_of_edit_summaries_in_disputes - Out of this spirit please revert your own edit and begin discussion on the talk page. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• See Talk:Juno_(film)#Japanese_official_website_and_Japanese_logo WhisperToMe (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If you've seen Saw V...

...can you keep a small eye on the List of Saw characters to make sure it doesn't get out of hand? Or ask someone you know will be able to? I don't think I'll be able to see the film until next week and there are dozens of edits so far, most of which from what I've gleamed are stupid, but I daren't read them fully, I've already maanged to spoil one thing from the film by doing so.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

So have you seen Saw V? If so, do you think Brit or Mallick should be categorised as protagonists? IMO they didn't really have the main character presence, Strahm is the driving character and they did little more than be victims in a trap with no real resolution or purpose. Xavier had more backstory and screen time. I dunno so its why I'm asking but I don't think they were really anything more than support cast. Strahm and Hoffman are certainly the main stars.

And Strahm sucked IMO, bad actor and bad lines. Who talks that much to themselves? I don't think Rigg did that at all. "You were meant to be the hero *WAHHHHH*"Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

WHAT!?!?!?!??! Why Is the Saw Traps Article Deleted?!?

Okay, I understand why the article got deleted. However if it did get deleted because it supposedly
was a spoiler page, then you, a Wikipedia Moderator, or someone else should've put a
humongus "Spoiler Warning" up. Also Rollinman is right, the traps connect the plot, movies,
characters, the Modius Oprindi, etc.
I know it's a little late to bring all this up but seriously, someone should've should've circulated
something to the Wikipedians or at least put up a warning of some sort. And as far as the traps'
relivency goes, they help connect everything in the movies together as well as helps some people
understand the traps' respective movies better. Please reconsider putting the article back up (with
a "Spoiler Warning" this time!)

Rww313 (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want additional real-world context for Saw traps, I came across this Wired article. Thought you might want to use it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The deleted list of Saw traps

Is there a way to access what it used to look like before it was deleted? Maybe some of it can be copied and pasted to other articles. Eg, the jaw splitter info to Amanda's article, etc, etc. Yeldarb68 (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• It is important to understand that one of the key reasons that the article was deleted was for failing WP:OR. Merging the content elsewhere just creates more original research problems, but instead scatters it over many articles. This is why the AfD was closed as delete rather than merge. Merging the content elsewhere just pushes the problem elsewhere. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
• I disagree with the notion that every single sentence on that page is original research. I was just contemplating the fact that well expressed and footnoted sentences and analyses of a trap may be relevant to a character, as the traps are usually with a symbolic irony to the victim associated with it. Yeldarb68 (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Finding out-of-universe references to support any analysis will be quite difficult. For the most part, they do not exist. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• J/w, am I on your watchlist or something?--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Just trying to help out. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not mad, I was just curious.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Saw Characters

It was better before when the characters were categorized by the first film they appeared in. As it is now: 1) It is more difficult to navigate through with the "minor characters" being such a long list. 2) The labels 'antagonist', 'protagonist', 'supporting', and 'minor' are subjective and arguably fall under Original Research. 3) It is spoiler-like to outline which characters eventually become protagonists and antagonists. Of course the page will give spoilers, but giving spoilers in the contents doesn't seen appropriate, as this is a list, someone might want to browse down the contents list for a specific character, only to be spoiled about something else in the contents list.

It should be reverted to the old structure of organizing characters based on their first appearance in my opinion. Mostly for reason number 2).

What do you think?

Yeldarb68 (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I am discussing it with that user on the discussion page of the article in question. First and foremost I do not want to be involved in an edit war. I'm not interested in that. But I am dissatisfied with the current structure of the article. I believe how it was before was fine. But I don't think it should just be my word against his. Wikipedia policy and encylopedic standards should be priority number one. Yeldarb68 (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey Thanks.

Thanks for clearing up my talk page with the message from that guy about the marvel zombies. Although I am thinking about putting them back on, just because they made me laugh my ass off. I mean "Do they provide near-sexual pleasure for you?", WTF. Anyway, thanks again.-- Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 01:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

RE:

Things like this don't help. You've gotta keep civil, no matter what. You haven't done anything wrong, but a spark is more likely to ignite something. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 20:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it; things often get heated in situations like this. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 22:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Poster talk

Done deal! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Saw (film series)

Hey, I've made a comment at both the Saw series talk page and WikiProject Saw talk page concerning a possible name change. Now I don't know if you'd like to throw in your two cents, but I do know that you put together the WP:Saw newsletter, and I thought if you were going to be making one soon, you may want to put that in there? I don't know. Just giving you a heads up. --HELLØ ŦHERE 21:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Karim Wade

I deleted the {{db-person}} tag you placed on Karim Wade. There is no doubt this person is notable: he is being groomed as the next president of Senegal, and his bio asserts notability by heading major national commissions there. I do NOT believe this is the article Wikipedia wants about this man, but I don't think we can assert that he is not notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Dyloot

While this article has its problems, I don't think it is a suitable speedy candidate. It cites several sources and Dyloot has quite a lengthy discography and the COI is not a valid speedy reason. If you still think it should be deleted, please nominate it for AFD. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Starlims page

Please assist me with removing the warnings on the Starlims page that I wrote. I have done whatever I can to improve the page to meet the standards of Wikipedia. I would really appreciate your assistance. --Ohadtpa (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

JJS Karate Dojo

I would really appreciate it if you could please visit my article JJS Karate Dojo and give some tips, improve/make some changes or somehow rescue me to save my article from deletion. Really need your expertise... Hope you will have favorable time in this mater. THANKZ A LOT!! (Jjskarate (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC))

KINDLY CONSIDER:

As of this moment I've edited and make some changes in JJS Karate Dojo articles (to the best of my ability)...

The following changes are:

• Omitted the school info box
• Added more reliable sources
  • Daily Star Newspaper (3 articles sports news)
  • Sun Star Bacolod where our dojo is the featured photo in the front page
  • Add more karate links and website
  • and a little correction
• Included our Karate Code of Honor
• Included our Black Belts

Hope my little knowledge regarding wikipedia will be able to save my article fron deletion. (Jjskarate (talk) 08:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC))

• Really need your help

the wikipedia about Randy Mengullo was redirected to Jack and Jill School fo lack of notability but very happy to inform you that article "Life Lessons from Karate" article of sensei Randy Mengullo was published yesterday in "Sunday Inquirer Magazine" of Philippine Daily Inquirer, one of the leading national newspaper in the country. Kindy help me make this a reference accepted to retain or pass the notability... THANK YOU SO MUCH in advance!!! http://showbizandstyle.inquirer.net/sim/sim/view/20081214-177923/Life-Lessons-from-Karate Jjskarate (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Paul McGowan

Just a friendly note on Paul McGowan. I've added a number of refs showing notability (several of the websites are the online versions of UK newspapers, and the stories in them are reprints of the newspaper articles), and have removed the prod tag. This google search might be instructive if you want more refs -- I don't have the time tonight to add them. If you still think it needs to go to AfD, please let me know. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The vals

Just a note to let you know that while I closed this as delete, Paul Erik, one of the article editors has found some more sources. As this seemed to be a sticking point at the AFD and is now resolved, I have restored the article. I have asked Paul Erik to add those sources to the article. If you still feel that the article should be deleted, please renominate it at AFD. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Rockin' Christmas to ya

Ecoleetage (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas

Much appreciation. I hope all is going well with your Wikipedian endeavors, and you have a great Christmas.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

{{db-person}}

Hey there. I see you've been tagging several pages with {{db-person}}—however, please remember that CSD A7 only applies to articles that make no claim of the subject's notability. It doesn't matter whether the subject is notable, or whether the article proves notability with sources. Any reasonably believable claim of notability is enough to "save" the article from A7; WP:PROD or WP:AfD are more appropriate choices in these cases. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, to survive speedy all an article needs is an indication of importance, and that's a lower threshold than notability. – ukexpat (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Erin McCarley declined again

Hello Cyber. I've declined this again for a number of reasons. As it asserts significance, it is not eligible for speedy deletion. Also, I had declined the speedy deletion earlier in favor of WP:PROD. Articles for which speedy deletion has been declined are no longer eligible. As the creator removed the PROD, the only avenue left for deletion would be to list at WP:AFD. Cheers and happy editing, Dlohcierekim 14:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Horror needs your help

CyberGhostface/Archive 9 : You've received this message as you are listed as a WikiProject Horror Participant. As you may have noticed, WikiProject Horror has suffered from a lack of direction and coordination of late. A suggestion on how to improve the Project and maintain it as a viable resource has been placed up for discussion here. As a member of the Project, your voice is valued and your input is requested. Thank you, hornoir (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD comment

Diff. Are you sure? Tim Vickers (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply: Hills Have Eyes Wikiproject

Yeah, deleting/merging would probably be best. Truth be told, I actually forgot about this Wikiproject. -- Lord Crayak (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Ryan can probably be redirected to The Hills Have Eyes: The Beginning (which I plan to expand... at some point) and Hades can probably just be meged with the mutant article, if that stays. -- Lord Crayak (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Responded on my talk page

As I said. --SouthernNights (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with that

I really wasn't in the mood for anymore of his shenanigans. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Apollyon (wrestling)

Just a friendly note on Apollyon (wrestling). I declined the speedy request because professional wrestler is a claim of importance. If you think this needs to go, AfD would be the way. HTH!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wilhelm Derksen

I declined your CSD request on this article; I agree it doesn't belong but alas, the parameters for CSD were not quite met since there was an assertion of notability in the article. I've nominated it at AfD; please feel free to add to the discussion.  Frank  |  talk  20:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Joker

please be sure to return to the talk page and continue to join us on this matter, your opinion is valued. ThuranX (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Horror Newsletter - February 2009

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 02:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

////wikipedianoob says: thanks for preserving saw traps :) /// —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.21.252 (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Spider-Man

Hello. :) Since you have been involved in editing the article Spider-Man, I wanted to let you know that we have nominated the article for "Good Article" status. You can view the review page, and if there is anything you can do to make the article better, please do so. :) There are a number of concerns to be addressed and some work to be done, so pitch in if you are able, make any suggestions that you think might be helpful, or at least just be there for moral support. :) BOZ (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, CyberGhostface. You have new messages at Dank55's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

H2

I know. Per WP:NFF, production doesn't just have to begin, it must be notable in its own right. At the moment, beyond saying "production has begun", we know nothing about what is happening. I told VampireKen, when we start getting to 3 or 4 paragraphs of real information, then we need to separate the page out. Right now, we barely have a full single paragraph.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really. First, he has no control over whether they put him in the film. Second, every contract any actor signs gives the studio the right to use any material from the film in anything they want (i.e. they own the film, thus they can use clips if they want to, they just have to pay him for using his image). Lastly, Zombie has given no indication that he plans to use any old footage, and he has explicitly stated that he is recasting the role. If he is recasting, what point is it to use archive footage of Faerch? If someone says, "Yes, we plan to use some footage of him." then that's fine, but subjective possibilities is not for an encyclopedia. I left him a message trying to explain why it wasn't included (maybe he'll understand). On a side note, you should feel proud that he included you in his blog title. :D  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Softbrands

Just a friendly note to let you know that I declined your speedy deletion request for Softbrands. Offices on five continents is a claim of importance (which is a lower standard than notability). If you still think it needs to go, AfD would be the route.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Randall Flagg revisited

Hi. I'm not generally inclined to post in peer reviews, but I noted a couple or so things and would rather note them here. One is just my general note about the use of the word "also", which pops up in almost every article in places where it isn't necessary. I didn't notice a lot of those, but there are a couple where the sentences are just as valid without it.

My first real comment is that it might be helpful to the uninformed reader (if there are those) to clarify more clearly about the appearance, form and origin of the Hand of God that detonates the bomb in The Stand. Had I not read this book every June-July for over 10 years (and I don't do that now), I might wonder about what that is. Perhaps something akin to "The Hand of God appears/forms from the static electricity/electrical charge/static" (whatever).

In another comment, is it more accurate to say that Flagg formed his own version of civilization, rather than say he tried to rebuild civilization? My impression has always been the former.

I can't comment on the more extensive material covered from the Dark Tower series as I didn't finish the series, or on the comics. Holistically, there might be some concerns raised about more in-depth referencing, but I can't say that for certain. I hope this helps a bit. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Horror Newsletter - March 2009

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 00:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Joker and Oscar

It is mentioned; search the page for Academy Award, and you'll find it. ThuranX (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Aren Ober (formerly Savalan)

I have listed this article for AFD. You prviously requested it to be speedied.Porturology (talk) 08:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Alanna Heiss

Hello, you might want to reply here or here regarding a tag you added. Thanks. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

James Rhodes (pianist)

I took the speedy tag off this one. I think concert reviews in major newspapers indicate at least some degree of importance.  – ukexpat (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Horror Newsletter - April 2009

The WikiProject Horror Newsletter Volume I, no. 3 / April 2009 Previous issue The Coordinator nomination has been extended! Please go to the nomination page now to add yourself to the election for a coordinator position. Voting will begin on May 1st. The current Collaboration of the Month (The Texas Chain Saw Massacre) has been extended by a month! The next collaboration will be selected on April 30th, 2009. Please place suggestions for the next collaboration here and/or vote on current suggestions. → Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page. → This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 05:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Marco Balderi Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I tweaked the Marco Balderi templates. The article was uploaded by someone who appeared to have a COI, and the text was also a copy/paste from a website. I took on the rescue project, after doing some research, and it is becoming substantially different from the original article. The author was notified, and I have enlisted help from editors working on the Conducting article, and am just waiting for additonal references. Please see the original article, as listed here: [1] to see the progress. Thanks for your dilligence. ;o) --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 01:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Saw VI. That was an awesome edit summary. I loved it. "Lovechild" = genius! Ha ha. Happy editing friend. --HELLØ ŦHERE 20:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC) File:Song of Susannah.jpg Hello CyberGhostface! I've noticed a little edit war between you and Jmj713 on File:Song of Susannah.jpg. I had initially raised my concern on Jmj713's talk page, and he/she has brought up some valid points. I encourage you to join our discussion here. I'd like to hear what you think so we can come to a consensus on which cover to use for the Song of Susannah article. Thanks! -Gr0ff (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Thanks again for joining our discussion and helping us come to a concensus. I've uploaded the additional hardcover art to File:WolvesOfTheCallaHardcover.jpg and File:SongOfSusannah.jpg. They have been included in the galleries at Song of Susannah and Wolves of the Calla. Check them out and let me know if you have any concerns on my talk page! -Gr0ff (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC) I also uploaded the Hardcover art for The Dark Tower VII: The Dark Tower. This file is located at File:The dark tower hardcover.jpg. Both covers can be viewed at the gallery. -Gr0ff (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.