User talk:Jimbo Wales and Night of the Demons (1988 film): Difference between pages
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Film |
|||
{{Calm talk}} |
|||
| name = Night of the Demons |
|||
{{usercomment}} |
|||
| image = |
|||
| image_size = |
|||
</div> |
|||
| caption = |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
| director = [[Kevin Tenney]] |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|||
| producer = [[Joe Augustyn]] |
|||
|counter = 39 |
|||
| writer = [[Joe Augustyn]] |
|||
|algo = old(2d) |
|||
| narrator = |
|||
|archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
| starring = [[Cathy Podewell]] <br /> [[Amelia Kinkade]] <br /> [[Linnea Quigley]] |
|||
| music = [[Dennis Michael Tenney]] |
|||
| cinematography = [[David Lewis(cinematographer)|David Lewis]] |
|||
| editing = [[Daniel Duncan]] |
|||
| distributor = [[International Film Marketing]] |
|||
| released = [[September 9]], [[1988]] |
|||
| runtime = 90 minutes |
|||
| country = {{USA}} |
|||
| language = [[English language|English]] |
|||
| budget = |
|||
| gross = |
|||
| preceded_by = |
|||
| followed_by = [[Night of the Demons 2]] |
|||
| website = |
|||
| amg_id = |
|||
| imdb_id = 0093624 |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{AutoArchivingNotice|small=yes|age=2|target=./Archive 39|dounreplied=yes|index=./Archive index|bot=MiszaBot III}} |
|||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive index|mask=User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive <#>|indexhere=nein|template=User:Jimbo Wales/indextemplate}} |
|||
{{archives|small=yes}} |
|||
== [[WP:FA|Featured Articles]] on [[The Simpsons]] and notability == |
|||
{| width=100% align=center style="background:none; text-align:right; white-space:nowrap;" |
|||
| align=left|{{User:Dispenser/Link checker/config |
|||
| name = WikiProject_The_Simpsons/rightpanel |
|||
| interval = weekly |
|||
| generate = all |
|||
| title = Featured Episodes of ''The Simpsons'' |
|||
}} |
|||
|- |
|||
|align=left|[[Image:Featured article star.svg|16px]] "[[Cape Feare]]" |
|||
| [[March 16]][[2007]] |
|||
|- |
|||
|align=left|[[Image:Featured article star.svg|16px]] "[[Homer's Phobia]]" |
|||
| [[March 26]][[2007]] |
|||
|- |
|||
|align=left|[[Image:Featured article star.svg|16px]] "[[Homer's Enemy]]" |
|||
| [[May 7]][[2007]] |
|||
|- |
|||
|align=left|[[Image:Featured article star.svg|16px]] "[[You Only Move Twice]]" |
|||
| [[July 31]][[2007]] |
|||
|- |
|||
|align=left|[[Image:Featured article star.svg|16px]] ''[[The Simpsons]]'' |
|||
| [[August 14]][[2007]] |
|||
|- |
|||
|align=left|[[Image:Featured article star.svg|16px]] [[Troy McClure]] |
|||
| [[August 25]][[2007]] |
|||
|- |
|||
|align=left|[[Image:Featured article star.svg|16px]] "[[A Streetcar Named Marge]]" |
|||
| [[September 20]][[2007]] |
|||
|- |
|||
|align=left|[[Image:Featured article star.svg|16px]] "[[The Joy of Sect]]" |
|||
| [[November 25]][[2007]] |
|||
|- |
|||
|align=left|[[Image:Featured article star.svg|16px]] "[[Lisa the Skeptic]]" |
|||
| [[December 12]][[2007]] |
|||
|- |
|||
|align=left|[[Image:Featured article star.svg|16px]] [[Treehouse of Horror (series)]] |
|||
| [[January 22]][[2008]] |
|||
|- |
|||
|align=left|[[Image:Featured article star.svg|16px]] ''[[The Simpsons Movie]]'' |
|||
| [[January 28]][[2008]] |
|||
|- |
|||
|align=left|[[Image:Featured article star.svg|16px]] "[[The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson]]" |
|||
| [[February 4]][[2008]] |
|||
|- |
|||
|align=left|[[Image:Featured article star.svg|16px]] "[[The Last Temptation of Krust]]" |
|||
| [[February 23]] [[2008]] |
|||
|- |
|||
|} |
|||
Jimbo, in an [[User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_38#.22Notability.22|earlier thread at this talk page]] in a discussion about [[WP:NOTE|notability]] you said ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=240413941 The Simpson's anomaly is probably my own personal fault, because way back in the day before I really understood the limitations of the medium, I said something like "We should have an article on every episode of The Simpson's, why not?" Whereas now, if I were voting, I would vote to delete.]'' I am curious to hear your response to [[User:Durova|Durova]]'s subsequent [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=241172199&oldid=241133005 query] - which of those articles would you "vote to delete" ? '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 07:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Oh, either all of them or, possibly, all but a few. For me, were I voting today, I would look for much stronger verifiability as evidenced by reliable third-party sourcing rather than original research. In particular, I would be looking for something to suggest that the episode achieved some wider and significant specific cultural impact. (For example, the last episode of Seinfeld, or of Mary Tyler Moore.) It bears repeating: I am not trying to make policy here, just indicating my current thinking on these matters.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 07:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'm a bit puzzled why you'd mentioned original research. The articles may not be perfect, but OR is not an issue with any of them. Are you referring to the plot sections? It's generally accepted that editors can use primary sources for the plot section, so long as they stick to the basic details. [[User: Zagalejo|Zagalejo]]'''[[User talk:Zagalejo|^^^]]''' 15:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: I think Jimbo's response to this would be interesting to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Television]]. I'm also curious as a main contributor to ''[[Degrassi: The Next Generation]]'' articles. There is only one article about an episode of that show at the moment. I'm not sure if I understand you, Jimbo, when you said, "My increased "deletionism" is very mild when it comes to things like Simpson's episodes - not much harm done. But it is quite strong when it comes to biographies of living persons, where serious damage can be done". Did you mean on a episode-by-episode basis, as in not much harm is done to the episode by having an article about it, or not much harm is done to Wikipedia and its reputation WRT episode articles in general? (Don't worry, whichever way you answer I'm not about to create 146 articles on Degrassi episodes!) |
|||
: Personally, I'm a little surprised by some of the earlier articles that were given FA status. "[[Cape Feare]]", for example. If you take away the references from the BBC (just a summary as part of their episode guide from when they aired the show) and the DVD commentaries, we're left with 10 references for the entire article, eight of which are used in the Reception section. One of those, ref 8 is the opinion of 1 fan that happened to appear in ''USA Today'', the rest all say the same thing: "this episode was one of the good ones" (paraphrasing). Same with "[[You Only Move Twice]]". Twelve references, eight [[WP:PSTS|primary]] sources, only four secondary. Three of them discuss a character and say "he is good", the fourth discusses the episode and says "it is good" (again, paraphrasing). I'm not sure if notability has really been established for those two articles. The others are better, increasing as you get towards the bottom of the list, which only goes to show how the FA process is improving over time. [[User:Matthewedwards|Matthewedwards]] ([[User talk:Matthewedwards|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Matthewedwards|contribs]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Emailuser/Matthewedwards|email]]) 17:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[[Image:Simpsons triple crown2.svg|right|thumb|250px|The Simpsons project earned its own custom triple crown.]] |
|||
Jimbo, so you'd seriously delete articles that the community has decided to feature? Now I don't call myself an inclusionist, but there are five volunteers who worked very hard for many months to earn a spot [[User:Durova/Triple_crown_winner's_circle#WikiProject_The_Simpsons|here]]. I look at this thread and shake my head; to them your post has got to be a punch in the gut. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 07:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:My comment is not a comment on the quality of their work. One could write a beautiful poem that changes the history of English literature forever, and I would vote to delete it from Wikipedia. There are many factors beyond just the amount of quality effort that someone puts into something that determine whether or not it is right for Wikipedia. In any event, I am not suggesting that I would delete anything. I am just giving some context on my current thinking in these areas. Primary research can be great. It just doesn't belong in Wikipedia for a variety of reasons that we understand better today than we did some years ago.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 08:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Writing [[WP:FA|Featured Articles]] using research from ''secondary'' sources from newspaper articles, books, and [[academic journal]]s in an article about a notable topic in popular culture is not "primary research". '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 08:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Indeed, if that it what these articles were, I would agree completely. But let's face it, they are not. They are primarily original research.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 14:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::How so? Taking [[A Streetcar Named Marge]] at random, aside from the five-paragraph plot summary (which is cited not only to the original primary source, but also to an episode guide, which although not completely "independent of the subject" is nonetheless a secondary source), the rest of the article is thoroughly referenced to reliable secondary sources like the ''New York Times'' and an [[Planet Simpson: How a Cartoon Masterpiece Documented an Era and Defined a Generation|analytical book]] on the subject of ''The Simpsons''. I don't see any original research to speak of there. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 20:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::I agree with {{user|Josiah Rowe}}. These articles are in fact not primarily original research, but instead rely heavily on secondary sources. '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 05:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Wow, the creator of wikipedia thinks all of my FAs (and thus most likely a lot of the other articles I have spent a lot of time working on) are just original research and should probably be deleted. Way to motivate your volunteers there Jimbo. -- [[User:Scorpion0422|Scorpion]]<sup>[[user talk:Scorpion0422|0422]]</sup> 23:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Jimbo, I'm curious, what are you basing your "they're primarily original research" claim on? Which of the articles contain huge amounts of primary sourced material? Or original research? Because if it's there, we need to fix it, right? But I can't find it. Could you give us some specifics please? [[User:Gran2|Gran]]<sup>[[User talk:Gran2|2]]</sup> 08:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
What has changed since your original proclamation to make you reconsider? The cynical side of me says it's the for profit Wikia you launched which would love said articles and their traffic... but I hope it's wrong. [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<font color="green">"?!"</font>]] 00:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
===Minimum length for FAs?=== |
|||
On a related issue, there is a discussion and straw poll at [[Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates]] on whether there should be a minimum length in words for FAs of say 1,000 or 1,500 woords, and other issues. At the moment there seems no majority on this, so we are likely to continue to get increasingly short FAs - the shortest candidate I have seen was 329 words - many on small tropical storms (one reached 40mph for 1 minute) and American state roads (one a 1/4 mile long, outside a military base). [[Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Should_there_be_a_.28hard_or_soft.29_minimum_wordcount_for_an_article_to_be_an_FA.3F|The questions start here]]. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 11:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I'll have you know that [[Tropical Storm Erick (2007)|Erick]] reached 40 mph for about 12 hours. :-) In all seriousness, though, why does quality correlate to length? –[[User:Juliancolton|Juliancolton]] [[User talk:Juliancolton|<font color="#66666"><sup>'''T'''ropical</sup></font>]] [[Special:contributions/Juliancolton|<font color="#66666"><sup>'''C'''yclone</sup></font>]] 01:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::That information isn't in the article - I was going from the infobox statistic, which perhaps needs to further explanation, as so often. Is this article "Wikipedia's very best work"? I don't think so, though of course it is very well done (much better than the road). [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 01:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well, is the article well-written? Is it comprehensive? Is it neutral, unbiased, stable, and does it meet notability requirements? If so, what prevents it from being considered "Wikipedia's best work"? –[[User:Juliancolton|Juliancolton]] [[User talk:Juliancolton|<font color="#66666"><sup>'''T'''ropical</sup></font>]] [[Special:contributions/Juliancolton|<font color="#66666"><sup>'''C'''yclone</sup></font>]] 01:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::I've commented on those issues at FAC, & not all the answers are yes. But the topic is just too tiny. It's worth rememberering that it's only because the little storm happened near the US, and got an official US classification, that it qualifies as automatically notable. In most places in the world weather events on this scale are not remotely considered notable here. Maybe it's time to reconsider the notability criteria. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 01:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Indeed it is fairly non-notable; I completely agree that it's only notable for being designated by the NHC. However, being designated by the NHC gives a storm a large amount of notable via the media, government sources, tracking agencies, etc. Granted, a large amount of notability for a storm can be seen differently than a large amount of notability for another more widely-known subject. The notability given to any named tropical cyclone allows the subject to passe [[WP:N]], and as a result, can support an article. That said, if an article meets [[WP:N]], it could therefore survive an AfD. A while back, Raul said that any article which survives an AfD can become featured. Have our standards changed that much? What's wrong with a goal of getting ''every'' article featured? Now, I'm still slightly confused; "Wikipedia's best work" is named such for a reason. It's not called "Wikipedia's most notable work". Would a subject have to be notable before we can call it our "best work"? However, I understand and respect that Wikipedia is not ready for a 400-word article; hence I withdrew [[Tropical Storm Erick (2007)]] from FAC. I also understand why people might want to create a new class of Featured Content for shorter articles. (Jimbo, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated). Cheers, –[[User:Juliancolton|Juliancolton]] [[User talk:Juliancolton|<font color="#66666"><sup>'''T'''ropical</sup></font>]] [[Special:contributions/Juliancolton|<font color="#66666"><sup>'''C'''yclone</sup></font>]] 01:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::"Can become featured" doesn't mean "should become featured once all available online information has been compiled in a well-produced article". I can imagine (at a stretch) a fuller article on the subject I would vote for at FAC, but 329 words, no. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 01:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:These articles are a net benefit for Wikipedia, they don't cause any harm and doesn't violate any of our policy. From a PR point of view, they are beneficial, except if featured on the Main Page too many times. <strong><span style="font-family:Monotype;">[[User:Cenarium|<font color="#000080">Cenarium</font>]][[User_talk:Cenarium|<font color="#000090"> '''<sup>Talk</sup>'''</font>]]</span></strong> 01:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I hope we can abide by Jimbo's plea not to take his view (too) seriously here: "<i>It bears repeating: I am not trying to make policy here, just indicating my current thinking on these matters.</i>" if Wikia ever shut down we might be able to persuade you to his view back again! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/193.26.4.35|193.26.4.35]] ([[User talk:193.26.4.35|talk]]) 11:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
: Quality, not quantity ... – [[User:Thomas H. Larsen|Thomas H. Larsen]] 07:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== process & precedent for explicit image type == |
|||
This relates to [[:commons:Image:Anal Creampie.JPG]], recently placed on [[MediaWiki:Bad image list]] after being used for vandalism. A couple years back, you deleted [[:Image:Creampiesex.jpg]], used in [[Creampie (sexual act)]], with the edit summary "Image would trigger 2257 record keeping requirements." (It appears that the image and log has since been oversighted, but I wrote down the incident at [[Wikipedia:Pornography#Jimbo Wales on obscenity]].) Given how similar the images are, I wonder if you could clarify whether your previous deletion was a one-off and the stance of the higher ups have changed in the meantime, if you reserve summary deletion of these types of images for yourself, if admins have authority to do out of process deletion for these types of images as well, or if you wish this image to go through normal deletion discussions? Thanks, [[User:BanyanTree|Banyan]][[User talk:BanyanTree|Tree]] 01:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
All images which would trigger 2257 record keeping requirements should be deleted on sight, and the uploader blocked for simple vandalism. If anything has changed about my stance on this in recent years, it is a significantly lower tolerance for trolling us. I do not think it is out-of-process to delete such stuff on sight, and if it is, then the process needs to be changed to make sure it happens.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 14:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Thank you for the clarification. - [[User:BanyanTree|Banyan]][[User talk:BanyanTree|Tree]] 22:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Having had time now to review the particular case, it seems clear to me that the user in question was trolling.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 22:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: And to all, out of interest, [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002257----000-.html here's] the relevant section of Code that covers this - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family:Monotype Corsiva">'''A<font color="#FF7C0A">l<font color="#FFB550">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Alison|❤]]</sup> 22:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Also probably of interest to anyone reading this, according to Wikipedia "On 23 October 2007, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the record keeping requirements were facially invalid because they imposed an overbroad burden on legitimate, constitutionally protected speech." ([[Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act]]) Jimmy, when you said "all images which would trigger 2257 record keeping requirements", did you mean to include all images that would have triggered such requirements had the law not been deemed unconstitutional? If so, I believe this would represent a significant policy change. [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] ([[User talk:Anthony|talk]]) 23:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::It has always been policy to block users who are simply vandalizing Wikipedia and trolling others. These kinds of images have zero encyclopedic value. I recommend that we continue to take a hard line against them.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 14:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I guess I've got to wade through this crap to figure out what you're saying. So you would recommend blocking the uploader of [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Michael_Lucas_as_top_with_Kurt_Wild_as_bottom.jpg], [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:S&M_Dungeon_4_by_David_Shankbone.jpg], and [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Erection_by_David_Shankbone.jpg]? Should [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Masturbating_man2.JPG] be deleted as having zero encyclopedic value? At least two of these images are of topics explicitly mentioned by 2557 (via 2556). These types of images have been listed on deletion pages time and time again, and each time they are kept, not deleted, and certainly not deleted with a block of the uploader. Maybe you recommend taking a hard line against them, but this would be a departure from current practice, not a continuation of it. [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] ([[User talk:Anthony|talk]]) 19:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Hi Jimbo, in light of these comments, how would you view [[commons:commons:Deletion requests/Image:Keeani Lei 6.jpg|this image]] ? -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 23:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::It should obviously be speedy deleted and the uploader blocked.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 14:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::In contrast to the above, from a PR point of view, these images are detrimental. <strong><span style="font-family:Monotype;">[[User:Cenarium|<font color="#000080">Cenarium</font>]][[User_talk:Cenarium|<font color="#000090"> '''<sup>Talk</sup>'''</font>]]</span></strong> 01:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::OK, but it wasn't. As you see, a majority of commenters in fact recommended keeping the image. I don't have the bit to enact your recommendation of the obvious. Maybe you'd be willing to speedy delete it yourself, along with those 4 I mentioned above, and block all the uploaders. I don't actually recommend this, because I think it'd cause quite an uproar, though I do agree with your sentiment. [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] ([[User talk:Anthony|talk]]) 19:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Jimbo does not own Wikimedia nor Wikipedia and he both knows this and acts accordingly. Thus I read his above comment as indicating that he believes consensus should be that the image is deleted, not that he believes he should violate consensus and delete it himself. Since consensus did not agree with Jimbo's statement above, there are several possibilities: Jimbo could try to change consensus, Jimbo could decide maybe he was wrong, Jimbo could believe that his saying what he said usefully provides him with deniability, Jimbo could take an eventualist approach and accept that sooner or later the right thing will happen, and other possibilities as well. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 19:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I fail to see the point of this comment. Could you please explain your reasons for posting it?— '''[[User:Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Dæ</font>]][[User talk:Daedalus969|dαlus]]<sup> [[Special:Contributions/Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Contribs</font>]]</sup> /<sub>[[User:Daedalus969/RR|Improve]]</sub>''' 21:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::WAS, he said that he does "not think it is out-of-process to delete such stuff on sight". Then, after presumably looking at that deletion discussion, he said the image "should obviously be speedy deleted and the uploader blocked". Speedy deletion candidates aren't subject to vote, so I assumed he meant the image "should obviously be speedy deleted and the uploader blocked" despite a majority vote against it. Actually, I really can't explain his comment. It's almost like he didn't even look at the link or examine the details before commenting. But I'm trying to assume good faith here. So I'm trying to clarify. [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] ([[User talk:Anthony|talk]]) 14:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Since Jimbo is no more of a deletion process wonk than me (neither of us are spending lots of time doing deletion "work" here at Wikipedia), I interpreted "speedy deletion" as an English language term rather than a Wikipedia process term of art. But maybe he did mean it the way you thought. But even if he did, I doubt he had in mind the specific details of that process as identified by you. People are always picking up terms of art and using them in non-exact ways. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 14:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::That's why I asked a followup question, so he can clarify what he meant. (As an aside, though, the phrase "speedy deleted" is not a common English language phrase. Google the phrase. It's almost exclusively people using it to mean "deleting an article without going through a discussion".) [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] ([[User talk:Anthony|talk]]) 02:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::''Most'' pornography ''is'' uploaded by those with nefarious intent. Jimbo doesn't interfer much in day-to-day operations, and can't be expected to know the climate or practices. How much of an investigation did you really expect him to undertake? Videous Omnia and David Shakebone are fairly obviously not trolls, but this requires a more substantial investigation that you can reasonable demand of Jimbo for a question settled so long ago. [[User:WilyD|Wily]]<font color="FF8800">[[User talk:WilyD|D]]</font> 14:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Jimbo often says things like "I don't know, I have not looked into it." He could have done that here. Perhaps he will do so in the future more often. I am hopeful. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 14:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Really? [[User:Videmus Omnia|Videmus Omnia]]? An editor with over 30,000 edits on English Wikipedia and over 2000 edits on Commons? It's a moot point since Videmus Omnia has left anyway, but it still seems a little off to say he should have been blocked. Also note that the picture actually went through OTRS, presumably someone who dealt with it there should be blocked too... [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<font color="green">"?!"</font>]] 00:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Above Jimbo says: "These kinds of images have zero encyclopedic value." Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content (images, sound and video clips) to all. It is not limited to images with encyclopedic value. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Welcome. See http://libres.curtin.edu.au/LIBRE11N2/crook.htm for what erotic media that professional librarians consider appropriate for public libraries. I do not believe Jimbo is a professional librarian nor does he sometimes appear to understand that Wikia is not "the rest of the library"; the rest of WikiMedia is. But perhaps he does realize this and his comment was merely a regrettable error. We all make mistakes. With Jimbo's high visibility and people's constant efforts to have him tell them what to do, his off the cuff remarks sometimes carry more weight than they should. I guess this is just a case of an off the cuff remark, sensibly ignored. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 13:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Hello == |
|||
'''''Night of the Demons''''' (aka '''''Halloween Party''''') is a [[1988 in film|1988]] horror film written and produced by [[Joe Augustyn]] and directed by [[Kevin S. Tenney]]. The film received a limited theatrical release, playing in major cities and at drive-ins. |
|||
You have made a very good website, but please don't allow random IPs to edit. Registration should be mandatory. [[Special:Contributions/59.95.114.118|59.95.114.118]] ([[User talk:59.95.114.118|talk]]) 07:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Would you mind expounding on your logic a bit? I'm interested to hear your reasons, especially since you did not choose to make an account to post your message. [[User:GlassCobra|<font color="002bb8">Glass</font>]]'''[[User talk:GlassCobra|<font color="002bb8">Cobra</font>]]''' 07:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I have an account but I was just lazy to login :O Most vandalism is done by school IPs and<br /> other unregistered users {{fact}}, so why not just make registration mandatory! [[Special:Contributions/59.95.114.118|59.95.114.118]] ([[User talk:59.95.114.118|talk]]) 07:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Because most of our good edits are also made by IP's as well.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29&diff=prev&oldid=115731955] The gain of preventing (quickly reverted) vandalism is outweighed by the loss of quality edits, often made off hand by unregistered users reading our articles and fixing errors. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat </font>]] </span></small> 07:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Please don't use templates like that in other editors talk page comments. Either way the link is now provided for you. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat </font>]] </span></small> 07:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I think that is the same guy ([[Special:Contributions/59.95.114.118|59.95.114.118]]) who posted message in my talk page? --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:googlean|<font style="color:#1849B5;background:yellow;">''Googlean''</font>]]<small>[[User talk:googlean#top|<font style="color:#000000;background:white;"> <sup>Results</sup></font>]]</small></span> 07:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
The theatrical version of the film was edited to achieve an R-rating; an unrated version was released to video, and is the cut that is available on Anchor Bay's DVD edition. |
|||
:lol you're right Googlean [[Special:Contributions/59.95.114.118|59.95.114.118]] ([[User talk:59.95.114.118|talk]]) 08:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Note: Is it all shared networks? [[Special:Contributions/59.95.114.118|59.95.114.118]], [[Special:Contributions/59.95.108.209|59.95.108.209]], all of them are kept on adding/reverting/edit warring in [[Bajrang Dal]] article. I see that they know our policies well as can be seen from their comments at others talk page. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Soman#Warning_2 1] --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:googlean|<font style="color:#1849B5;background:yellow;">''Googlean''</font>]]<small>[[User talk:googlean#top|<font style="color:#000000;background:white;"> <sup>Results</sup></font>]]</small></span> 09:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::I've semi protected the article <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat </font>]] </span></small> 10:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Both Googlean and the IP have a history of sockpuppeting. '''[[User:YellowMonkey|<font color="GoldenRod">YellowMonkey</font>]]''' (''[[User talk:YellowMonkey#Straw_poll_for_selecting_photos_of_Australia_at_the_2008_Summer_Olympics|<font color="#FA8605">click here to choose Australia's next top model</font>]]'') 05:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Additionally, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Overturning_admin.E2.80.99s_action_by_another_admin my post at ANI] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Section_break this] threads too. I explained my rationale also over there on ''too old history'' of sockpuppeting. Please note that I came to this (Jimbo's) talk page only when I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Googlean&diff=243590745&oldid=243358524 noticed] that the ip posted a message in my talk page and later moved to Jimbo Wales page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=243603392 here]. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:googlean|<font style="color:#1849B5;background:yellow;">''Googlean''</font>]]<small>[[User talk:googlean#top|<font style="color:#000000;background:white;"> <sup>Results</sup></font>]]</small></span> 04:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I don't have a "history" of sock puppetry, please. What I did on [[Bajrang Dal]] was JUST FOR FUN because I don't like Bajrang Dal so I decided to mock them. and I never used multiple accounts to do this either, just my ip and only recently. I have now been punished for my deeds by the block. I apologize for this and won't do it again. I apologies to Googlean, Soman, Shyam and others whom I caused trouble. please forgive me and close this thread. [[Special:Contributions/59.95.107.95|59.95.107.95]] ([[User talk:59.95.107.95|talk]]) 15:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
On the DVD's commentary track director Tenney states that Alvin Alexis, who played Rodger, had already purchased a plane ticket to move back home when he received the phone call that he had won the part. |
|||
== Using [[websites]] in [[fiction]] == |
|||
Linnea Quigley and effects creator Steve Johnston met on this project and were later married, but are now divorced. |
|||
When I write my [[soap opera]], may I use [[Wikipedia|this website]], [[Facebook]] and other [[search engines]] as [[reference|references]] for [[My Beloved Girlfriend]]? [[User:Ericthebrainiac|Ericthebrainiac]] ([[User talk:Ericthebrainiac|talk]]) 17:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
A remake is currently in development with a projected 2009 release date. |
|||
==Cast== |
|||
Make sure you check out the sources first then; you never know... [[User:Wikisaver62|Wikisaver62]] ([[User talk:Wikisaver62|talk]]) 10:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*[[Cathy Podewell]]...Judy Cassidy |
|||
== User Page == |
|||
*[[Linnea Quigley]]...Suzanne |
|||
*[[Amelia Kinkade]]...Angela Franklin |
|||
*[[Alvin Alexis]]...Rodger |
|||
*[[William Gallo]]...Sal |
|||
*[[Hal Havins]]...Stooge |
|||
*[[Lance Fenton]]...Jay |
|||
*[[Philip Tanzini]]...Max |
|||
*[[Jill Terashita]]...Frannie |
|||
==Plot== |
|||
I reccomend you do not let any random people edit your user page, an invitation like that is difficult to come by and some malicious people would ruin the page to get a kick out of it. No offense, but you really are too trusting. [[User:Wikisaver62|Wikisaver62]] ([[User talk:Wikisaver62|talk]]) 10:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
{{Expand|section|date=May 2008}} |
|||
:It's one of the most watched pages here, and vandalism tends to be reverted almost immediately. --[[User:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000FF">Rodhull</span>]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FF0000">andemu</span>]] 12:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
It's Halloween night, and spooky girl [[Angela Franklin]] (Kinkade) and her boy-crazy pal Suzanne (Quigley) are throwing a party at Hull House, a local mortuary that was abandoned years ago after the Hull family patriarch slew his entire family within its walls. They have invited the usual assortment of party guests, including the class clown, the resident tough guy, the token black guy, the preppy, and the virginal heroine. |
|||
::Besides, it's a wiki! [[User:Dingold|Din]][[User_talk:Dingold|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#F00000">gold</span>]] 04:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Angela decides to hold a séance as a party game. They all sit in front of a mirror and concentrate on the reflections, and it works because one of the girls sees her own dead body hitting the other side of the mirror. Their séance has evoked ferocious demons who proceed to possess them one by one, in various sadistic ways. Finally only two are left to try surviving the night, fighting off the demons while waiting for sunrise. |
|||
== Ip's == |
|||
There has been a lot of discussion concerning the use of ip's on Wikipedia. The amount of vandalism by ip's must take up 90% of the reverts that good editors have to deal with. The question |
|||
I ask is, is there somewhere the community can discuss this, will it make a difference discussing it, and if there is a majority of editors who agree that everyone should create an account can it be implemented? [[User:Jack forbes|Jack forbes]] ([[User talk:Jack forbes|talk]]) 01:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Sequels == |
|||
:This does keep coming up. See [[WP:Perennial proposals#Prohibit anonymous users from editing]] if you have not already done so. If there were a consensus for change, then perhaps a change might occur. So far, there has been no consensus. [[User:Bielle|៛ Bielle]] ([[User talk:Bielle|talk]]) 01:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
The popularity of the film saw two sequels, one in [[Night of the Demons 2|1994]] and one in [[Night of the Demons 3|1997]]. The villaness Angela became the series reoccuring character in the films, with Amelia Kinkade returning both times. The central location of the first film, Hull House, was also used again. |
|||
::When was this last discussed? And I don't mean by admins. I mean by the everyday user. [[User:Jack forbes|Jack forbes]] ([[User talk:Jack forbes|talk]]) 01:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Like the original, the sequels took place on Halloween night. Both films dealt with Angela terrorizing a new group of teenagers, with little to no mention of the previous film. While the first two films were shot in Los Angeles, the third was shot in Canada, with a new (and notably cleaner) house standing in as Hull House. |
|||
:::See [[Wikipedia:Editors should be logged in users]] where the last comment by an "everyday user" is dated August 30, 2008. The one prior to that was sometime in 2007. [[User:Bielle|៛ Bielle]] ([[User talk:Bielle|talk]]) 01:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
A remake of this film is set to be released in 2009. |
|||
::What I'm really asking is, can there be a discussion within the community concerning ip's and there refusal to register? And if so, where can it take place within wikipedia? [[User:Jack forbes|Jack forbes]] ([[User talk:Jack forbes|talk]]) 01:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Night of the Demons Soundtrack== |
|||
:::I am no expert. Others may comment further. As far as I know, proposals to change the basic parameters of Wikipedia are always aired at [[Wikipedia:Village pump]]. If you bring this one up, a proposal that someone seems to raise on about a thice-yearly basis, you are not likely to draw a crowd, except of those who point you to [[WP:Perennial proposals]]. There is no other place, open to all, for such proposals, as far as I know. And there is nothing to stop you trying. [[User:Bielle|៛ Bielle]] ([[User talk:Bielle|talk]]) 01:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*Dennis Michael Tenney - Main Title Theme |
|||
*[[Bauhaus (band)]] - Stigmata Martyr |
|||
*Dennis Michael Tenney, Steve King and Tim Wojan - Computer Date |
|||
*Dennis Michael Tenney, Steve King, Rich Lowe, Paul Ojeda and Bobby Thompson - The Beast Inside & Victims of the Press |
|||
[[Category:Film series]] |
|||
::::Thank you for the advise. Perhaps the only way to draw a crowd is to let every user know there is a discussion on this, how can we do this? [[User:Jack forbes|Jack forbes]] ([[User talk:Jack forbes|talk]]) 02:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[[Category:1980s horror films]] |
|||
[[Category:Haunted house films]] |
|||
{{1980s-horror-film-stub}} |
|||
:::::I do not think there is any way to do such a thing aside from the types of banners that are used to announce elections and the like. I doubt this proposal, which has been turned down so many times already, or any such proposal for that matter, would be deemed by the developers to be worthy of such advertising. Any other attempts to reach large numbers of users would likely be deemed [[WP:Spam|spamming]] or [[WP:Canvas|canvassing]], which are forms of vandalism, and be deleted. If you put up a proposal on the Village Pump, those who are interested will comment. Those who do not know about it are, more than likely, those who do not know enough (or care at all) about, the inner workings of Wikipedia or are too new to have the Village Pump on their watchlist. Without knowledge, concern or experience, there is not likely to be informed opinion. [[User:Bielle|៛ Bielle]] ([[User talk:Bielle|talk]]) 02:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 08:20, 11 October 2008
| Night of the Demons | |
|---|---|
| Directed by | Kevin Tenney |
| Written by | Joe Augustyn |
| Produced by | Joe Augustyn |
| Starring | Cathy Podewell Amelia Kinkade Linnea Quigley |
| Cinematography | David Lewis |
| Edited by | Daniel Duncan |
| Music by | Dennis Michael Tenney |
| Distributed by | International Film Marketing |
Release dates | September 9, 1988 |
Running time | 90 minutes |
| Country |  United States |
| Language | English |
Night of the Demons (aka Halloween Party) is a 1988 horror film written and produced by Joe Augustyn and directed by Kevin S. Tenney. The film received a limited theatrical release, playing in major cities and at drive-ins.
The theatrical version of the film was edited to achieve an R-rating; an unrated version was released to video, and is the cut that is available on Anchor Bay's DVD edition.
On the DVD's commentary track director Tenney states that Alvin Alexis, who played Rodger, had already purchased a plane ticket to move back home when he received the phone call that he had won the part.
Linnea Quigley and effects creator Steve Johnston met on this project and were later married, but are now divorced.
A remake is currently in development with a projected 2009 release date.
Cast
- Cathy Podewell...Judy Cassidy
- Linnea Quigley...Suzanne
- Amelia Kinkade...Angela Franklin
- Alvin Alexis...Rodger
- William Gallo...Sal
- Hal Havins...Stooge
- Lance Fenton...Jay
- Philip Tanzini...Max
- Jill Terashita...Frannie
Plot
It's Halloween night, and spooky girl Angela Franklin (Kinkade) and her boy-crazy pal Suzanne (Quigley) are throwing a party at Hull House, a local mortuary that was abandoned years ago after the Hull family patriarch slew his entire family within its walls. They have invited the usual assortment of party guests, including the class clown, the resident tough guy, the token black guy, the preppy, and the virginal heroine.
Angela decides to hold a séance as a party game. They all sit in front of a mirror and concentrate on the reflections, and it works because one of the girls sees her own dead body hitting the other side of the mirror. Their séance has evoked ferocious demons who proceed to possess them one by one, in various sadistic ways. Finally only two are left to try surviving the night, fighting off the demons while waiting for sunrise.
Sequels
The popularity of the film saw two sequels, one in 1994 and one in 1997. The villaness Angela became the series reoccuring character in the films, with Amelia Kinkade returning both times. The central location of the first film, Hull House, was also used again.
Like the original, the sequels took place on Halloween night. Both films dealt with Angela terrorizing a new group of teenagers, with little to no mention of the previous film. While the first two films were shot in Los Angeles, the third was shot in Canada, with a new (and notably cleaner) house standing in as Hull House.
A remake of this film is set to be released in 2009.
Night of the Demons Soundtrack
- Dennis Michael Tenney - Main Title Theme
- Bauhaus (band) - Stigmata Martyr
- Dennis Michael Tenney, Steve King and Tim Wojan - Computer Date
- Dennis Michael Tenney, Steve King, Rich Lowe, Paul Ojeda and Bobby Thompson - The Beast Inside & Victims of the Press
 | This article about a 1980s horror film is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |