Talk:Sid Haig/Archive 1

Is This Wiki Entry Being Used As Sid Haig's Press Room?
It seems as if those who run Sid's site feel the need to delete any information that may not show Sid in the best light. The entry about Sid not knowing the plot of a classic horror film like Night Of The Living Dead is very relevant. When someone who is a cult film figure does not even understand a film's plot-especially after being featured in a (sub par) remake that is relevant. I think it is unbelievable that some are running Sid Haig's Wikipedia page as an extended publicity release, and a propaganda site. This situation requires immeadiate attention. Any addition of information certain posters don't like, even when it is relevant and cited is an outrage and runs counter to what wikipedia is supposed to stand for!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rcarey1979 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Just because its true doesn't make it relevant. Had this been a big event that everyone talked about, you'd at least have a leg to stand on. This is just a minor throwaway comment that Sid made at a convention. Its certainly not notable to have an entire paragraph about Sid making a goof and making POV statements about Sid's horror knowledge. Unless you can find other sources which also report on Sid's mistake, its not notable. And the whole brains bit is a common mistake. Its like people who say Dracula was killed and staked--he wasn't, he was killed with a bowie knife. You're overreacting. Give it up.--CyberGhostface 00:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. RCarey has been adding (and having removed) and re-adding the same trivial POV statement for MONTHS now. Despite the change in IP address, it is the same account. As Ghostface said, what RCarey added is POV and not biographical. If this indeed were being used as a press room, then RCarey MIGHT have an argument, however, I wokred a long time to get that BIography to an NPOV status, and get it up to a Class B rating. I will NOT sit by and watch this person try to ruin the work I, and others (including CGF), have done to make that page what it is. Thank you, CGF, for the support. I find it more than odd that RCarey would dispute the neutrality of Sid's page when he is the only one trying to make it non-neutral.Spirot 01:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well Spirot, I am glad that you are continuing to show yourself to be dishonesty. If anyone cares to look through the history of Sid's page and look at my first posting of the item, it's possible that they may come to the opinion that the information could be trivial, and perhaps not found it relevant. Spirot has a history of accusing multiple people of "Vandalism" and "Stalking Sid". His tone has been VERY abusive. Because someone posts a FACTUAL! Yes, factual item about Sid-That is not "Vandalism". The man obviously had no idea what 'Night Of The Living Dead; was about, and there he is on camera saying so. I have no problem with Sid Haig, I just found it odd that someone who is a popular figure in horror films and a cult star was not familiar with that film. Are you going to tell me that you did not find that just a bit suprising, but perhaps it was no big deal. Maybe it merited mention, perhaps it may not have. But regardless Spirot, you had every opportunity to address the issue with me in a non hysterical manner. Instead you chose to rant and rave after I posted this item, demanding I be banned! Banned for what? Because you want Sid's wiki entry to be sanitized, and a essentially a well guarded puff piece?

I am very open minded and had you just simply engaged in a dialogue with me without resorting to insults and pettiness, I would still be more than happy to try to resolve this issue. Do you even consider that when I posted that item it was because I thought it relevant? And that perhaps I was sincere in doing so? Was I over-doing it? Was the item irrelevant? Upon reflection, perhaps it was, at least in the context of this page. If There was an entire paragraph in Bush's biography about him choking on a pretzel, that would probably be a waste of space.

As for the whole IMDB thing you can't seem to let go of, and has no relevance here (By the way, I was never "banned" or warned, or had ANY of my comments deleted by imdb moderators-despite your repeated false statements) My initial post was civil, and devoid of any maliciousness whatsoever. Posters on that board became hysterical and insulting like little children. Many of those were the ones who had their posts deleted.

Spirot, you have accused me of "stalking Sid" and that makes zero sense. I have never met the man, nor have I followed his career. I don't know exactly who you had a problem with before about Sid's page and imdb, but as far as the Wiki matters go, I only posted and item and found it deleted repeatedly with no effort to explain why or discuss it. I have nothing against Sid Haig, and I just want to resolve this issue with everyone here without having to take it further. I hope this can be soon, but that depends on people other than myself.
 * If you had nothing to worry about with your IMDB posting, why did you delete it after Spirot posted it here?
 * Also, someone making a very common mistake doesn't mean he doesn't know squat about the film. I mean, the whole notion of zombies eating brains is canon. Why is it so hard for you to accept that people are going to make mistakes? Why is it relevant?--CyberGhostface 18:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, what does IMDB have to do with anything. This is not the appropriate place to be discussing this, this is Wikipedia. If you would like us to resolve the dispute, I'll be happy to discuss that with you. Lets keep this relevant. I look forward to your response. Thank you, Rcarey1979
 * You posted the same exact stuff about Sid on IMDB, and when Spirot posted a link to it on wikipedia, you had it removed. If you had done nothing worth reporting, you wouldn't have suspiciously deleted it.--CyberGhostface 02:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Precisely, CGF. Why indeed. And why follow from IMDB to here with a miniscule nugget of information which is not biographical in the slightest, that no one has even brought up anywhere past this one person, only to start trouble and be warned by an administrator for doing it?

I think Rcarey has posted enough for the administration here to make an informed decision. I would still like to see proof of any bullying/threats/"hysterical" reactions/demands, but that can't be done, so I have nothing to worry about, and neither does Sid. This is a waste of time and energy and needs to end now.

To clarify why I call what you are attempting to do "stalking", RC, here is some text from Wiki's very own page on Cyberstalking: "Stalking does not consist of single incidents, but is a continuous process...As Rokkers writes, "Stalking is a form of mental assault, in which the perpetrator repeatedly, unwantedly, and disruptively breaks into the life-world of the victim, with whom he has no relationship (or no longer has)....Moreover, the separated acts that make up the intrusion cannot by themselves cause the mental abuse, but do taken together (cumulative effect)." This is sourced HERE.  I will not be threatening legal action here, as you have done, because it is against Wiki Rules.  The only ones I ever accused of this are you and "Chris masters", who also followed over here from IMDB.  Should the admins wish to know why IMDB is incredibly relevant here, they may go to the front page of SID'S SITE. We'd finally gotten that problem solved, now it begins here again?

I leave this to the admins. Spirot 04:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

CyberGhostface you have gone from making some valid points about the item's not being appropriate for the Sid article, to sounding like Spirot. Making comments like "If you had done nothing worth reporting, you wouldn't have suspiciously deleted it." are just idiotic. First off, who are you to question my integrity. You didn't ask me why I took this action, but you are now stupidly making accusations towards me. I actually was going to thank you for make some valid points I your earlier postings, but you have just taken on the air of a someone conducting a witch hunt. First off, I posted the item FACTUALLY, without any abusive tone. I was then called every name on earth by Sid's zealotic fans. I said I was suprised that a man like Sid Haig did not know what 'Night Of The Living Dead' was about, and he did not! It suprised me, and I was abused for it. Your saying "You must have done something, because you deleted this, and that is just lacking in logic. You castigate me for jumping to conclusions about you working for Sid, and then you state I must be hiding something! I do not appreciate being called a liar! I do not appreciate your lack of graciousness. I expected this from someone like Spirot, but know you are following suit and, essentially telling me that you have no interest in resolving this issue despite my REPEATED invitations to do so. I do not hear you say one word about Spirot calling me a "stalker". Is that behavior fine with you??   and As for what Spirot posted maybe you should read Wiki policy about personal attacks using external links:

"Posting a link to an external source that fits the commonly accepted threshold for a personal attack, in a manner that incorporates the substance of that attack into Wikipedia discussion, including the suggestion that such a link applies to another editor, or that another editor needs to visit the external source containing the substance of the attack."

I've never had a problem on imdb that required anyone taking action against me. But do you know that Sid Haig and his girlfriend/publicist were thrown off imdb for their behavior? See Cyber Ghostface Sid and his "companion" got thrown off imdb, so by your logic he MUST be guilty of something! Maybe the editors over at imdb are stalking Sid too! Sid seems to have lots of stalkers according to some.

Can we have an article on Sid's page about his war with imdb, and how he tried to sue imdb to have a poster on the message boards removed? I would think that would be relevant, or would it be taken down right away as 'NPOV' or something else?? Doe's Sid's girlfriend/publicist/co-litigant post on Wiki by the way?

All I did a few months ago around Halloween was to be watching TCM and happened to see Sid Haig mention the "Eat brains to survive" noted it on his message board, and Spirot and the others went crazy on me. Then I mention it on here, Glen_S takes it down because it lacks a source I find the source, and re-post it and Spirot, who puts everything, and anything he/she wants on this page removes it and makes accusations, rather than what you said initially.

Do I need to check with Spirot and his friend/moderator Glen_S if I have the audacity to want to post an item about Sid. Spirot cries for me to be banned. And I do not believe that Glen who is impartial as a moderator should be. I get warned by Glen and Spirot is told if rcarey does it again let me know, I'll block her, instead of engaing in a dialogue. I fear that I will be banned from Wiki based on this sort of overt favoritism. Perhaps I am overreacting, but I have asked you more than once to discuss this, so that we can resolve this issue, and all you have done is respond without answering. I am surmising based on your irrelevant responses that you have no interest in resolving this issue.

Instead of speaking with me you contact Spirot and state: "Yeah, don't worry about it. Frankly, I was willing to reason with her until I read about her stalking Sid on IMDB. Now its 100% obvious its just a personal vendetta.

I'm Mephistopheles from the TDR boards, btw.--CyberGhostface 04:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That is really open minded of you!

This issue really needs to addressed with mediation! I was actually going to say that you had a point about my posting the item and wanted to talk to you about this in order to resolve this issue as soon as possible, but this is obviously a waste of time, and you are no more rational than Spirot!

As for Spirot leaving this issue to the administrators, I would ask that the administrators look at my posts on other articles on Wiki to see if I have ever engaged in the sort of behavior that Spirot regularly accuses many people of. I would also ask the administrators if they feel that the angry rantings that Spirot regularly leaves on history pages:

1) Spirot accuses me of Vandalism on imdb! I have never had any problems on imdb, nor have I ever been warned by them. You are welcome to contact imdb about my postings. On the other hand, Sid Haig, and his "girlfriend" have been newspapermen banned by imdb, if that information is relevant.

Would it be "stalking Sid" to request that the topic of Sid's legal battle with imdb be incorporated into Sid's page? If it should not be why not.

I honestly made efforts to discuss this issue with the parties involved, but all I am getting is accusations of stalkings, deletion of items and bullying.

I have had no problems with anyone on Wikipedia, until I posted a factual, verified item!


 * Sheesh. There's way, way too much fighting over this issue. The fact he made the mistake may be factual and verifiable, but it's pushing the edges of notability and it's not really WP:NPOV to list one mistake in an encyclopedia article. However, the way it's phrased, stating that it shows he's not an expert is not verifiable or factual; it's WP:OR.--Prosfilaes 14:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to be resolved. It has no relevance for the article. There's nothing more to be said. Tons of celebrities make mistakes everyday, we don't need to chronicle them all. And regarding IMDB...you posted about Sid's mistake there, and when Spirot posted a link to that here, you removed it. You still haven't given a reason to do so if you had done nothing wrong.
 * And Spirot didn't have to convince me; the facts spoke for themselves.--CyberGhostface 20:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries, CGF, Glen has sorted this out. I think things will quiet down now. =) Spirot 06:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)