Talk:Nikolas Schreck

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted because... I remember the last time this was an article and it didn't have any sources and was barely legible. I have fixed these problems and added sections for both his work in Radio Werewolf (an article which has been cleared of any problems at this time) and his work as an author, of several books, including one which achieved quite some level of fame. If any additional sources are needed I can add them, but all sections have sourcing. Twarwick666 (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for creating this article, I have wanted to do it myself, but am fed up with the fascism of wikipedia. Much love. --84.210.51.133 (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted because... --Rammstein Viking (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This article has enough sources to stay. I see no reason why it should be deleted. If it's an issue of relevance, Nikolas' work was very relevant when it came out, and continues to have a cult following. He is also a significant figure since his band, Radio Werewolf, heavily influenced gothic rock music.

Constant Vandalism
Someone using the IP 93.152.185.150 and also the username Truth4ZeenaNikolasSchreck Has been repeatedly attacking this page.

174.62.218.24 (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Problems with sources and neutrality?
I am unsure as to why this article was marked as needing improvements on neutrality or sources. For an underground figure like Nikolas Schreck, it is difficult to find many sources for information, but the information that exists on this page is all sourced. As for neutrality, I don't see where there is any opinion or bias contained in this article. Twarwick666 (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The article uses qualitative terms like "famous" and "comprehensive" that give me concerns about the article's neutrality. Terms like these should only be used if they can be attributed to a neutral source. The referencing overall in this article is very sparse, particularly since the interviews are essentially unverifiable without better citation. IMDB and metal-impact.com are both unreliable sources. VQuakr (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Simply googling the interviews yields the actual footage of the interview in question. However you must understand, it is difficult to get good sources on such an underground subject. However, I am attempting to collect numerous new sources, but this may take some time, so hopefully there are no plans to delete it in the meantime. 132.198.251.56 (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * IMHO it would pass an AfD in its present state despite being deleted after one the last time. Either way, you would have a week's notice and a chance to chip in to the discussion. VQuakr (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Re neutrality issue - agree there are weasel words and the Manson File section seems to be written in an in-universe style (e.g.: "...allowing the true story to be told at last" etc). Manytexts (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Petition for permanent deletion of “People with missing ears” categories listing:
In response to Alepik's addition of the “People with missing ears” categories listing and comment, “Stop reverting, idiot, this is clearly mentioned on his own website in detail.”:

Alepik, it's neither helpful nor productive to refer to the greater Wiki editing commmunity as “idiots”. A little friendlier response goes a long way!

I propose permanent revert of this category to this public figure's listing according to Wiki guidelines (guidelines copied below for convenient review) with accompanying reasoning, also below.

After reading the below proposal, if edit wars on the categories listings persist, I will beseech the aid of a WikiAdmin to find an end to such nonsense. For now, I present peaceable reasoning for permanent removal of this superfluous categories listing.

Regardless of whether or not this public figure mentions the fact of his missing ear on his own website, this categories listing is superfluous and potentially malicious/vandalism in this particular case based on the following:

While it may be a known fact that Nikolas Schreck has a missing ear that was not a birth defect but a result of a physical violent attack (as Alepik correctly mentions, cited on Schreck's website), the below listed Wiki guidelines should be taken into account when utlising this categories listing with descretion. In particular, when considering the following:

1) Is Nikolas Schreck's missing ear so much a part of his life, career and what he's known for that it should be added as a categories listing? - (NO);

2) Does adding this superfluous category adhere to Wiki guidelines in the “Limit the number” clause for categories guidelines? (See below) / Are we limiting the listings to the essentials of this public figures's credentials? - (NO);

3) Has listings of Schreck's missing ear mostly been the source of malicious gossip and rumour by the cult of his wife's (Zeena Schreck's) estranged family (LaVeyan satanists, The Church of Satan and their followers) – (YES).

Therefore, according to Wiki guidelines for categories listings, Nikolas Schreck's missing ear is a non-essential aspect of his career but an incidental detail of his life, and potentially even a source of harassment, making this categories listing superfluous and potential vandalism.

Furthermore, unlike other listings in the category of “People with missing ears”, where the defect played a major role in the person's life story and/or work, the same cannot be said in this instance. It's only an incidental fact.

To draw comparisons:

1: Paul Stanley who was born with microtia, is an ambassador for the charitable organization AboutFace, an organization that provides support and information to individuals with facial differences and has appeared at fundraising events and in videos to raise awareness.

2: Bibi Aisha, the Afghan woman whose mutilated face appeared on the cover of Time magazine in summer 2010 prompting doctors to write in offering to help her.

To recap: That the subject of Schreck's ear has been a source of intrigue and malicious rumour has nothing to do with his work. So although it is a fact that he has a missing ear, dwelling on a non-essential, incidental aspect of a public figure's life, which has no bearing on his public work, borders on abuse of a category. In an effort to maintain quality control, gratuitous employment of Wikipedia categories regarding physical defects should be curtailed.

Please review Wiki categories guidelines (copied directly below from Wiki guidelines page):

Categories should not be automatically assigned: Categories are only assigned as the result of an individual assessment of the content of an article (lists are easier in this sense, because a doubtful assignation can be marked as such). See also Bots for a general discussion of contra-indications regarding automated operations.

Not all categories are comprehensive: For some "sensitive" categories, it is better to think of the category as a set of representative and unquestioned examples, while a list is a better venue for an attempt at completeness. Particularly for "sensitive" categories, lists can be used as a complement to categorization. See also Categories, lists, and series boxes.

Double check: Always check after saving an article whether the categorization strikes you as offensive or indelicate. The Wikipedia system allows anybody to edit the article and remove a questionable categorization. To avoid that, follow your intuition in finding those categories you think most to the point and inoffensive. Create a new category that better serves what you want to communicate, rather than using an existing category that is (partly) inconsistent with the content of the article.

Limit the number: Try to limit the number of categories. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right. However it is also important to ensure that categories contain all of the most relevant articles. This means that some prominent people, such as senior politicians who have held many offices, will be in a considerable number of categories. Apart from these factual categories, for those categories that require an assessment of personal characteristics (e.g. art movement style...), try to limit the number of categories to what is most essential about this person, something in the vein of: "give me 4 or 5 words that best characterize this person."

Exert extra precaution with regard to the categorization of living people: see Categories, lists and navigation templates.

(end cut)

Thank you Alepik for your many contributions to Wikipedia. Please take a moment in quiet to familiarise yourself with the list of categories guidelines above before jumping in again though, and keep categories listings pertaining to living people's bodily parts, which could be considered in bad taste, or a source of gossip or vandalism, out.

Thank You! Got2Bthere (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, please do include WikiAdmins into this argument, by my request, since I'm convinced my edits were valid. The background how he lost his ear is irrelevant and him talking about it on his own website clearly means that he does not want the fact to be hidden - how it happened being irrelevant. Should we remove Michael J. Fox from the People with Parkinson's Disease category as he did not have it all his life and played no crucial part in his career, there are thousands of other examples which I won't bring up.
 * Who is spreading what rumors and the family situation is also irrelevant.
 * Also, I referred to the person reverting my valid category addition as an "idiot", while not classy - my edit reversion happened without explanation. Never once did I refer to the "greater Wiki editing commmunity" as idiots, that is plain slander and false information. Thank you and good day. Alepik (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)