Talk:Deadly Friend

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: American This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Horror This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I can't see how this film belongs in this category. There's very little romance or comedy in it, I think it should be removed.
-George100 20:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put it in this cat based on the combining cats it was already in. IMDB puts it in the cateories of Comedy and Romance (it never combines the two). I haven't seen the film so do not know if the existing cats and IMDB are both wrong. If they are, please do removed it from Romantic comedy, the cat is bursting at the seams anyway! Mallanox 01:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I own the movie, it is definitely not a Romantic Comedy. Also I've removed Comedy-Drama, which does not describe the film. -George100 10:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a horror film. 24.160.83.60 (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has major problems with an overenthusiastic fan adding all sorts of material that is simply inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Just because you can find some fan page on the Internet saying something does not mean that it is either true or, more importantly, that it is notable enough for mention on Wikipedia. Some of this content here doesn't even attempt to give sources, and some of it finally made the attempt but chose to include YouTube videos that are just converted personal PowerPoint presentations and so forth.

The main editor in question adding this poor content has stated his/her intention to just keep restoring it over an over despite what anyone says. This is a violation of Wikipedia's policies. I would strongly suggest this individual take the time to learn how Wikipedia is supposed to operate and start following our rules. It may be though that his/her agenda for the article is simply incompatible with this website. It sounds like what he wants is a personal Deadly Friend wikia site with all the trivia he could ever want, or his own personal website to post his own opinions and views. DreamGuy (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heh-heh-heh, well nice to see you actually put some effort into control of the article. I was beginning to wonder when you will finally start doing that. To tell you the truth, when i send you my first message months ago and you didn't respond, i thought that you either gave up or just stopped caring. But despite the fact that i am quite dissapointed with the way that this...situation between us got out of the hand, but fortunately not in a big way, i must compliment you on not giving up and doing your job right, and surprising me because of that, of course. Anyways, jokes and colleague-confessions aside, let's talk.

First of, i am not a fanboy/fangirl. In all honesty Deadly Friend is far from being my favorite Wes Craven film, in fact i'm pretty damn sure that i wouldn't even call this one of my favorite films at all. But reason why i've been keeping my sights on this particular wiki for quite some time now is because i was asked to research, collect and add all the information i could about the movie by some fans. Of course, like you are aware of, i have also been rather...insistive, i believe is the word i'm looking for, with keeping the article at its most detailed and quite big list of information.

Why? Two reasons; I don't like wasting my time searching for some piece of info so long, only for it to be removed not too long after i include it here. Second reason is because, like i said, i was asked to keep my eyes on this article which i did, and with quite vigilance, i must add.

But since you obviously have same "spirit" and i'm sure you won't let this bone out of your mouth, i'll tell you what; I will keep guarding this article from any additional interference that could be caused from either small grammar or similar errors that i guarantee you will be made (one of the beauties of internet world, everyone can be grammar nazi) but i will not, repeat i will not re-add any info until this particular problem is resolved. Hopefully, both of us will do our best to make this article better.

In the meantime, i suggest we make a truce before this little thing blows up in keyboard/site war. In case if you think that you deserve an apology, well you're not gonna get it, because like you, i was doing my job the best way i can and was trying to help and do what i was told. Still though, i hold no grudge against you (at this time anyway :)) so let's not lower ourselves to that level.

I believe that wishing good luck to us both is in order, and once again, don't worry, we're watching. Scott Deveraux (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]