User talk:Sullenspice

Welcome!

Hello, Sullenspice, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Karm a fist 00:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Carpenter

Wonderful work on the article. Thank you. --Fuhghettaboutit 22:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's my pleasure! ````

With regard to where to respond--there is no set policy or even recommendation. Personally I believe that discussions should be able to be followed in one place, so once I say something on someone's talk page I always monitor there for a while, but others, probably correctly, believe that since leaving a comment on another's talk page gives them the "you have new messages" alert, it's always better to respond there; I split the baby by posting to both. If you have an technical editing problems as a newcomer (or for anything else), please feel free to drop me a line.--Fuhghettaboutit

I will, thanks! Sullenspice 22:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Atkins (actor)

Thanks for info about vandalism. If you check User_talk:195.93.21.74, you'll see it's an AOL address, i.e. it's used by loads of different people. This makes it difficult to deal with vandalism, unless it's something still ongoing. Please be careful as a mistaken edit or factual error etc is not necessarily vandalism and shouldn't be marked as such, if it was contributed in good faith, rather than deliberate sabotage. Likewise, editorial disagreements aren't vandalism. You can place warnings yourself on talk pages by copying and pasting a template. See Template:TestTemplates for the "test" templates, normally placed in sequence (on vandal's talk page), starting with no. 1 usually. Get back to me if you need to . Tyrenius 15:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on the talk page. However, please calm your side of the talk down and don't respond personally, or you just weaken your position. Also edit differences shouldn't be marked as vandalism, nor accusations made as such, unless you know for a fact this is the case. You have to WP:AGF in the first instance. If unverified statements are made, then they can be removed, but don't get into an edit war. If you can't resolve things amicably, then go to a request for comment. If abusive remarks continue, you might want to check out WP:PAIN. I hope this helps. Tyrenius 22:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assault on Precinct 13

Don't thank me, thank the fine folks at www.impawards.com; seriously, though, I thank you for the kind words, but when I saw the "new message," I was afraid it was someone who objected. As these film articles lengthen, I hope the video covers can be restored. I feel strongly, though, that if it is only one image, it should be the original poster. Thanks for noticing. Reimelt 16:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Wayne Article

Thanks for the tip on the John Wayne troll. I might look into that. Levid37 05:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Szlovak

You should probably add something to the Charlotte Szlovak page you created explaining why she's notable enough to have a page of her own. All I can see so far is that she directed a documentary in 2003 which has only 16 votes on IMDB and no awards. I doubt that meets notability requirements. Mark Grant 15:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated on your talk page, her IMDb page is woefully inadequate. She has been writing and directing films since the 1970s. Also, since when have awards become the primary indicator of notability?

Sullenspice 19:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awards aren't the 'primary indicator', but they're one potential criteria for inclusion: Wikipedia:Notability (people). As I said, at the time you posted that, all that it included was one documentary made three years ago which only sixteen people on IMDB had bothered to vote on: had that documentary at least won an award or two, it would have provided more reason to believe she was a notable director. To be honest, I'm still not sure the information on the page now shows her as a notable director, but I'll let others make that decision. Mark Grant 19:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Wayne Troll...

Yeah, that guy is a trip huh. He's been doin that junk on the John Wayne article for about 3 months now. Everytime I (or someone else) removes his unsourced hatred he accuses them of being pedophiles or what not. I've tried to get him banned indefinitely, but apparently since he's using an AOL proxy, he gets a free pass to spout off that hate nonsense. Batman2005 15:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, he's gotten the John Wayne page locked a few times from his trolling. A couple of us have special permission from the admins to revert that page as often as needed so his useless edits aren't included. Batman2005 16:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Randomly random

The fact that you don't specify a gender on your userpage made me laugh entirely too hard ;-) Also, great job on Assault on Precinct 13! Hopefully this will brighten your otherwise anxiety-filled day. :-)> -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 17:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus Scheving talk page edit

Ha, that's hilarious... I had no idea he was an admin, I just thought he was some idiot! Kat, Queen of Typos 03:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Wayne vandal

He's back. See WP:ANI#homophobia and vandalism ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Red

I've replied at talk:Eric Red. I'm afraid I don't agree entirely with your position. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

let's talk about this at talk:Eric Red, and try to find a solution that makes everyone happy (or at least equally unhappy). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the anon is acting inappropriately. I'll request protection. Note that the LA Weekly says that Red was suing his lawyer for malpractice, so it's possible he won the suit. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page Vandal

I reverted some vandalism on your talk page. It's possibly related to this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

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

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon Wilson

Rather than start a potential edit war, I'll discuss the matter with you here. The character is not nearly notable enough to warrant his own article. You say he is notable due to being Carpenter's first anti-hero. Do you have a source to back this up? The article consisted of a plot summary and generic trivia while offering no real-world perspective and considering that the character has only been in one film (a small one at that) it is highly unlikely to find any relevant critical views on the subject. Redirecting the article to the main page is the best course of action--GroovySandwich 20:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, the article does need more work and more sourcing. I haven't had the time to work on it in a while. There are, in fact, a number of sources discussing Wilson as a forerunner of Snake Plissken (books such as, The Cinema of John Carpenter, John Carpenter: Prince of Darkness, a number of Carpenter interviews, and critical reviews of Assault). I also think that your characterization of Assault as a "minor" film is rather subjective. Carpenter's films have undergone a major critical re-assessment in the last decade. Both Carpenter and Assault have been cited as influences by Quentin Tarantino, Simon Pegg, Edgar White, and Roberto Rodriguez. At any rate, I still maintain that the character is noteworthy. If it is to be deleted, it should be done after more people have weighed in on the matter and voted; it should not be your unilateral decision. Sullenspice (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly do not see how much more can be done for the article than has already been done. It was practically abandoned for over a year before I redirected it. If any beneficial edits could have been made, they could have been done so in that time, yet they weren't. The sources you mention can easily be incorporated into the main film page. And even if I were to bring up a discussion on the article's talk page, who would contribute? The only real contributor to the article is you so really we'd be going in circles with my expressing its non-notability and you stating otherwise. I don't believe all this warrants an AFD when simply redirecting the article would suffice--GroovySandwich 22:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've already indicated what I can do to improve it. The Napoleon Wilson article is a "work-in-progress"--just like every other article on Wikipedia. I truly do not understand your burning desire to delete it. Also, I think we have very different perspectives about the passage of time. Not working on an article for a year or so sometimes means, "the contributor has an actual, real life with real responsibilities" not "the contributor has abandoned it." Sullenspice (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no desire to delete the article, as I said I'd rather avoid the AFD process. The article may be "under construction" as you say, and I understand that. But I'll say it again, whatever sources you plan to add to the character article can be added to the main film article. The improvement of that article would seem to be more of a priority, no? I'm assuming good faith but your devotion towards keeping this article hints to me some possible ownership issues. That very well may not be the case, however; but you are the creator and primary contributor to the article. It can be difficult to let the work go especially if you have worked hard at it, but in this case, it would work best to merge the character to the Assault article--GroovySandwich 23:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My world will not fall apart if the article is deleted. I just think that Napoleon Wilson--as a fictional character and as a Carpenter anti-hero--merits a separate article. Sullenspice (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he existed and was a prototype for other Carpenter characters doesn't make him notable. He hasn't had the same cultural impact as, say Michael Myers or Jack Sparrow or any other noteworthy film characters. Your rationale for keeping the article is rather weak. Merging the article into the main film will not have any harmful effects; whatever relevant sources can still be added then. Really, I'd rather resolve the matter here than in an AFD where the result would most likely be to redirect the article anyway--GroovySandwich 23:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. You haven't really presented an argument that persuades me, either. Personally, I think it would be a shame if Wikipedia just became a collection of articles favoring mainstream, popular subjects, but that seems to be what is happening. I have a tendency to be more inclusive, I guess. Also, the notion of "cultural relevance" is so fluid that I would hesitate making any absolute statements about it--even about Jack Sparrow. I still think the article should stay, and I don't understand your seeming rush to do away with it, but I have a feeling that you are going to do it anyway. Sullenspice (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're obviously not going anywhere with this. In all honesty the article doesn't mean much to me; I redirected it as it seemed the appropriate thing to do with a non-notable character article consisting of plot and trivia. It's apparent that I can't convince you otherwise, but the character is minor and doesn't quite cut it with notability. I didn't expect any opposition towards the redirect; other characters more notable than him have had their articles merged or redirected with no hassle. I can dig that you believe the article should remain, I've felt the same towards other articles in the past; I apologize for my repetition, but the best course of action is a redirect. Not every single film character is deserving of their own article--GroovySandwich 01:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Gunmen's Blues for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gunmen's Blues is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunmen's Blues until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Laurie Zimmer for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Laurie Zimmer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurie Zimmer until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Wgolf (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rattlers (film) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rattlers (film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rattlers (film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]