User talk:McDoobAU93/Archive/2009

RE: Production facilities at Universal

Thanks. Another fact which can be added to this section is that Psycho IV: The Beginning was filmed entirely at the park in the former Bates Motel and Mansion Sets and in the soundstages. Another program filmed in the soundstages was the Swamp Thing television series. However, I'm not sure if this information should be added to the article yet without references.--Snowman Guy (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Hollywood Bowl Theater

Would you happen to know any reliable sources which can be added to the article? As I understand, construction on the attraction is nearing completion, yet the article is still but a stub. Thanks.--Snowman Guy (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Image:DaveGoelz (2009).JPG

So, you were there too, huh? :) - Brian Kendig (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

disney vandal

no worries. If you're not already aware, you'll want to read up on "bambifan101" on various admins' pages. See WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive175#Bambifan101_and_his_socks for more info. Cheers! SpikeJones (talk) 03:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Bolt

Hello. The dog in Bolt is an Indian Spitz. Since there is no more space in wikipedia for trivia sections, it would be better to have this incorporated in the sentence. Monkeytheboy (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool! You're right about the citations. I will see if I can find some info on it too....... Monkeytheboy (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason I added the Indian Spitz part was because I used to have one. They stay small for their entire lives. They are always white. (The wikipedia article says they are sometimes brown or black but I haven't seen one yet). They are EXTREMELY playful and bolt's tail is fluffy. Just like an Insian Spitz's. So they have similar height, and tails and color. I think. I will see if I can watch the commentary tonight or something. Thanks!!! Monkeytheboy (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Manta Concept.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Manta Concept.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Six Flags Edit

Well I guess you learn something new everyday! I didn't know there was a fate field on the company template! I had never seen it before, and thought someone had made it up. Thanks for the clarification :) Nathanhillinbl (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

matterhorn

IIRC, the matterhorn is generally considered the first modern steel coaster, using tubular steel for track. Many references can be found highlighting this. (that edit was misplaced on that article anyway, but still) SpikeJones (talk) 02:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've heard that for years as well. Although, the whole "modern" thing seems more like a marketing buzzword to me. RCDB shows 110 steel coasters with opening dates prior to 1959, mostly wild mice and some unusual designs from Japan that used an I-beam style rail section. I can concur that Arrow and Disney developed the tubular steel coaster as we know it today. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 02:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Explanation

Can you please explain why you keep reverting my edits, It is particularly important to provide a valid and informative explanation when you perform a reversion. thanks South Bay (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a fair question, and one I'll be glad to answer. Your first edit was to add a theme park infobox to the article for Universal Orlando Resort. Whenever I revert, I attempt to provide a concise explanation for the change. In this case, the infobox was inappropriate to this use, since Universal Orlando Resort is not a single theme park. The two component theme parks of the resort, Universal Studios Florida and Islands of Adventure each have theme park infoboxes already.

The most recent edit relocated a number of pictures, added others, deleted some pictures and added another infobox, this time for a company ... all of which was given the edit summary "minor clean up". With all due respect, this is hardly informative, nor does it match what was done, but that's another issue.

Again, the infobox was inappropriate to this use, since Universal Orlando Resort is not a standalone company. It is, instead, a component of Universal Parks & Resorts, which does have a company infobox. Personally, I had no issue with creating the image gallery, which is why I basically kept it. I relocated the pictures back to their original in-line locations and restored the deleted photo (a good panorama shot of Universal Studios Florida that was deleted for no reason).

As to the rest of the gallery, the captions had numerous issues. A few were misspelled, and not clear as to what they represented. Others were simply incorrect (Universal Studios Florida doesn't have a "back entrance"). I culled out the duplicate pictures and left behind a number of the ones you added. Like I said, I liked the idea, and just cleaned it up.

I appreciate good-faith edits, and I don't think your edits are anything but good-faith. However, they do need to be appropriate to the article. If you have any further questions or comments, I'll do my best to address them.

McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to make an edit box that fits your ideas, thanks for your help. South Bay (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you can enlighten me on something ... is an infobox necessary for each and every article? I'm not opposed to one, especially if it's a basic part of the standard design of an article (i.e., all articles require an infobox). I look forward to seeing what you develop, especially if it helps to improve the article. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to revert my edits if you don't like it.. South Bay (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Walt Disney Imagineering

From my talk page:
Hi ... I wanted to let you know that your restoration of info to Walt Disney Imagineering has been reverted. While I can see by your edits that you are working in good faith, it is important to remember that Wikipedia is based around facts, not rumors. If these three Hong Kong Disneyland developments are indeed true, there should be some reliable and verifiable sources that mention them. If you (or some other editor) can provide them, then we need to include them. Otherwise, this is pure speculation. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave them in the article's talk page, or on my own talk page. Thanks, and please don't let this discourage you from your continued editing. I'm a Disney fan myself, and I love to hear about these rumors; unfortunately, they don't belong here. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the edit did not seem to have any reasoning because of the lack of an edit summary, so I reverted it. 1313 South Harbor Blvd. Anaheim, CA (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Six Flags Fiesta Texas

Why did you remove all that stuff, when that stuff has been there forever? And now your deleting it.(talk) time 6:25pm June 26th 2009 (UTC).

In answer to your question, information that is not cited can be challenged and removed at anytime. Admittedly, it can't be deleted willy-nilly, and when making a major change it is important to give a reason why, something I believe I did in my edit summary and in the discussion I started on the talk page to explain my actions.

A large chunk of what was removed was the timeline, which generally included when attractions were added or removed. That duplicates the info in the current/former attractions tables, and thus is redundant. I did go through it and try to find information that did not relate to the opening/closing of a ride, and added that into the article.

The next thing I removed was the "Flash Pass" references. While it is OK to mention that the park does offer it, Wikipedia isn't really a "how-to" site. However, I think in retrospect it'd be OK to add it back, although maybe it'd be better in a subheading instead of a part of a table (unless the majority of attractions use it, which I don't believe is the case).

In an ideal world, the article should be almost entirely in prose, meaning it shouldn't be a bunch of lists and tables. If you look at a print encyclopedia, it describes everything, instead of listing it. I'd be glad to discuss this further, if you wish.

--McDoobAU93 (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

SHECKYmagazine.com

Dear McDoob, I am making an effort to clarify the proposed deletion of the entry for SHECKYmagazine.com.

In a comment, you said: "The article could potentially be saved, but would require the initial author to stay out of it due to conflict of interest concerns."

Okay. Fair enough, I suppose. Simple. Easy to understand.

Then you wrote:

"The article's current sources are articles that cited the subject website themselves, so some research would be required to neutralize the point-of-view."

In order to act on this, it might be necessary for you to restate it. Not really clear what you are saying here. The articles are from the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Not sure what the problem with those are. Links are provided.

Thanks.

Bmckim (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

To answer your questions, some of the cited articles in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today are merely citing your work on the website, not discussing it. I do recall some others did discuss the site, and those could remain as reliable and verifiable sources.

The biggest overall problem with the article is, unfortunately, your's and your wife's involvement in it. I know that you mean well, but if every agency that has an article here started writing their own stuff, it would be a collection of ads and not a collection of information.

I'd be willing to take a look at it and see what could be done, since the site does have some notability, and thus can be part of Wikipedia. If you have other questions, I'll see what I can do to answer them.

--McDoobAU93 (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Dakmg367

Note: Due to the length of this message, I'm going to post my responses in-line, indented and italicized, to make them easier to find and read. --McDoobAU93

Okey, after typing the following message up, i think i might have figured out how to respond to you or other people but i am still not too sure if this is where i type my messages back to someone who deletes what i type or what. i have no clue how to work this website.

This is a response to a message i got on my talk page from McDoobAU93..I am Dakmg367. I have looked all over the place for a way to mail u back or respond to your message but i can not figure out how this whole wikipedia thing works, so i am sorry i am typing here. u can delete this after u read it, and maybe explain to me how i am supposed to respond to someone. The rules and guidelines for wikipedia are way too complex and long for me to read and even understand. I tried reading a few of the pages but they just don't make sense to me. So sorry if i did something wrong. I am not even sure if this is going to be read by you or not, or whether it was just some automated response or bot that messaged me, so i hope i am not wasting my time typing to something inhuman.

You've reached a human this time, and I'm hoping this won't be a waste of time for you. The rules and guidelines really aren't that hard to understand, and other editors (myself included) will be happy to help you if you have questions. That said, it is important that these guidelines and rules are understood as you edit, as all editors (yourself included) hopefully have the same goal: to make this a reliable source of information, accessible to everyone, editable by anyone.

As far as me posting material without a reliable source on the Bloody Mary folklore page, i do not not what exactly you are referring to because i only edited that page one time and it was weeks ago, and i forget what i even typed other then the fact that the story of Bloody Mary can cause someone to be extremely afraid of mirrors(meaning they have catoptrophobia). And if that is the comment that is in question and was deleted, then my answer to that is-I, myself am the one it happened to, so I think i should be qualified enough to know how much of an effect hearing that horrible story has had on my entire life. The only reason i am petrified of mirrors is because someone told that story on the bus when i was little and it scared me worse then anything I had ever heard in my entire life, and thus, i became petrified of mirrors for the rest of my life, and am still afraid of them now. So unless I am lying, which obviously i am not, nothing i typed should have been deleted because "I" am the reliable source. But if u want to delete things that i type on here, fine. That is just ignorant, especially since it means i wasted my time telling the truth, but the fact is, i dont think children should be exposed to a story like that when they are under the age of 10 like i was or it could cause severe emotional problems or psychological damage like it did to me! But i am sure the rules(somewhere in with all of that giberish that is on such a high level of understanding that even me at age 26 can not understand hardly any of it) it probably says I can not consider myself as a reliable source I guess.

While I'm sorry that you have a fear of mirrors, life experience is not considered a reliable or verifiable source for this encyclopedia. In fact, it actually falls more under original research. To discuss each of those things quickly ... a "reliable source" is one that, generally, is reviewed and fact-checked prior to publication, and thus are more likely to "tell it like it is" instead of "tell it like they think it is" (such as a newspaper or an academic journal). "Verifiable" means that any other editor on Wikipedia could (if they looked for it) find the same information in other published sources. Lastly, "original research" means things that we discover on our own; because this information has not been reviewed by others, we don't know how the information was obtained, so it doesn't belong here. And, yes, there is a rule saying that the editor generally cannot be considered a reliable source (there are exceptions, but your edits didn't meet them).

Further, one's personal opinions on a subject do not relate to an article's content, because Wikipedia is not censored. You say children shouldn't be exposed to such things because of what happened to you; that's your opinion and you're welcome to it. That doesn't make it worthy of being in an encyclopedia. In my own life experience, I have issues with death that I can probably attribute to going to a funeral at a very young age. My opinions on the subject have no place in articles in this encyclopedia related to it.

Now, as to what you specifically edited into the article for Bloody Mary (folklore) ... you drew a conclusion that hearing the legend causes spectrophobia. If you had a published source that made that same conclusion, then that source could be cited and that information added into the article. For example, if you look at the article for spectrophobia, there is a cited source saying what the fear may come from ... since it is published and reliable, it's allowed.

But whatever. it doesnt really matter because that page is not that big of a deal. And u probably wont have to worry about me "citing material without a source" and all that because for the most part i will probably be staying off here and not even typing anything. So far, out of like 10 things I changed, at least 9 of them were either automatically deleted right away, or else someone bitched and complained about them and put something on what i wrote that made wikipedia delete it. So apparently I am not a qualified "genius" which someone seems to have to be in order to change things on wikipedia.

There is no IQ requirement or education level required to edit Wikipedia. All that is necessary is understanding the rules and guidelines, and there are people here to help you do that. While I certainly don't want to discourage you from editing, it is worth noting that having one's work edited or reverted at will is the nature of Wikipedia ... so if you have ownership issues with things you edit, you might want to reconsider adding things to the project. Also, the pages you edit may not be "a big deal" to you, but they are a big deal to others, which is why they defend them.

It is really messed up though that things which are extremely important that I change get messed with or deleted, when it's all true because I know it is...whether or not other people do is not my concern. Besides, i only really made an account on here for one page in particular, and thankfully(so far) no one has deleted the most important things i typed that people need to know. i am not going to even mention which page that is because then you or some bot will end up investigating it and finding some reason unknown to me why even that should not be on the site possibly, even though there is nothing wrong with it ... but acccording to bots and everyone, so far, they find fault with every single thing I have "contributed" or wasted my time expanding.

If you're referring to the article for fire safe cigarettes, where you've made the majority of your edits since you started using this account back in April 2009 ... I'm sorry to go all Big Brother on you, but if anything, it shows another key point of Wikipedia. Every change is stored, and is logged with who made it and when. It is quite possible and easy to see every article that someone has worked on. I looked at what you added; while I believe it was made in good faith, it still lacked citations that confirmed the conclusions you presented. Of course, if you made "the edit" from an anonymous IP address before creating the account, then you're as smart as (or smarter than) you say you aren't. ;)

So dont worry, i wont be messing with anymore pages most likely, unless the one important thing is deleted. Other then that, I'll leave all your precious pages alone. Also, like i said, if u could tell me how i am supposed to respond to you or some bot or anyone else that writes me on here, that will help me...so i dont have to type my message here in places like this. I am not doing this to be ignorant or rude or anything, but i honestly do not know how to mail somebody back on here and do not see any mail option anywhere on the site. There is the "my talk" page, but i do not know if that is where i am supposed to write to somebody or not.

Talk pages are exactly where these questions belong, so you got it right. :) Even bots have talk pages, and occasionally they get something wrong (I wrote an article about a member of the Tuskegee Airmen who had died, and a bot kept trying to add the article to a category about living persons).

When something was originally first deleted i did not understand why, and the bot told me to look at this page and that page and all these other things...so i checked a few out, and Good Lord...u have to have an IQ of 140 it seems to even understand something on this website. The rules and guidelines are way to complicated for me to understand...sorry. Plus they are way way too long, and there are way too many rules for me to sit here and go through a million pages, trying to make sense out of 1 paragraph when i just can't understand them to begin with. So I apologize for typing these things here.

There is no need to apologize, but it is important that you understand the rules being presented. You don't have to read every single word or take a test related to it; just the basic concept is enough. And if people revert your work, hopefully they have the good sense to say why in the "edit summary" after the change. If it doesn't make sense, then you ask about it, as you did here.

Please, just tell me how i am supposed to respond to you(or anyone else that mails me) so i know where to type my message in the future....that way i don't accidentally break some rule or something. But like i said, i most likely wont have to be editing any of the pages on wikipedia anymore. Every time i tried(almost) has been met with some kind of disapproval or had been changed almost immediately. The terms of use and guidelines read like some over college level essays and almost foreign language to me...i think they should be made simpler, so that less intelligent people like myself who have never even gone to college(and are not a super genius) can understand them better. Espescially when there seems to be a rule against almost every single thing that someone can type. I honestly don't know how anyone could use this site without breaking at least one of the rules or policies...there are too many of them.

Something you might want to consider is adoption, a process where a new user is "adopted" by an experienced user who can help them understand how to do things, what the policies are, etc. I have offered my services there, and would suggest you visit the page to see what you think, because I believe you honestly want to edit here, and just need to know how it all works.

Thank you...and I will also type this up on My talk page, just in case u go to that page and find out i responded to you rather then have it be edited by some unknown third party. I mean, i know that everything i am typing now will and should be deleted, obviously, I still want it to be read. I just don't understand the rules on how to mail someone back. That is the only reason I am typing all this here, so i apologize again. I hope this even posts and some bot doesn't automaticallt not let me type this here...then i dont know how the heck i will respond to you! I am definately copying all this in a word doc just in case it is not read by you.

You're welcome. Also, when you make changes to talk pages, it's helpful to sign your comments. You do that by typing four tildes in a row (~ is a tilde, and it's found on most keyboards in the upper left corner, near the '1' key). You don't sign additions to article pages, however.

McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Walt Disney World Monorail System

Careful, you are getting close to 3RR. Since you've been here for a while, I'll do the courtesy of not leaving you the template, but consider this message exactly like a {{uw-3rr}} -MBK₀₀₄ 20:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your review and your warning. I've requested a 24-hr full page protect to see if we can lock things down long enough to establish a consensus and decide how this is handled, and I don't plan on editing the main article anymore until this is settled. The back and forth reverting is going nowhere, which is why I asked for the discussion to move to the talk page. When it got changed again, I asked for the page protect, as there is (and has been, since this story broke) no consensus among the editors, based on the number of changes being made. Again, I'll stay out of the main page and focus on the talk page for the time being. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Walt Disney Company - Mickey Mouse Monopoly

Hi McDoobAU93! When you say here that the "source looks dubious" do you mean you've actually examined the content of the referenced material and found it doesn't meet WP:RS? You also said "see talk page for more" but I can't see what you're referring to, other than perhaps a passing mention of the referenced documentary which says nothing about its veracity or value as a ref; have I missed something? I know space is limited in the edit summary, and at least you made an effort to explain removing referenced content, which is more than the previous editor did, but I still don't see any clear reason to assume bad faith or poor judgement on the part of the editor who inserted the referenced material in the first place. Please can you point me to the "more" on the talk page, or add an explanation there? Many thanks -- Timberframe (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Scrub that - You explained yourself while I was writing this (which took me an hour 'cos I got called away). Thanks for your explanation -- Timberframe (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Think nothing of it. Something about this Media Education Foundation just rubbed me the wrong way, and not because I'm a Disney fan. I've heard for years how Disney revises the fairy tales it produces. Then again, there are very few films based on books/plays that are word-for-word, plot-for-plot duplications (Kenneth Branagh did a verbatim movie version of Hamlet several years ago), which is why they say "based on" or "inspired by" in the opening credits. I think there's room for this, and there should also be better, unbiased sources, as well. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for reverting vandalism on my talk page.   ■ MMXX^talk  15:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again!   ■ MMXX^talk  04:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Rockit soft opening

The Orlando Sentinel has just published a story stating that Rockit has begun a soft opening. Do you think this can be added to the article?--Snowman Guy (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that it can be added, but obviously we can't change the opening date in the infobox yet, and we should continue to leave "under construction" in the opening sentence. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I won't contest your removing my reference to the soft-opening however I do question why. The soft-opening is factual and both the Orlando Sentinel and Screamscape.com verify. That, plus my son rode it twice this weekend. Wikipedia is a source of the very latest information and at this time the ride has had a soft opening which by its very term means it's subject to closures. Once there is a grand opening the article would be updated again. Thanks, KINGBOBOFTHENORTH —Preceding unsigned comment added by KINGBOBOFTHENORTH (talk • contribs) 01:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd be glad to answer your questions. First, no source was added to the article; when you add information to an article, it's good to add the source for it at the same time, instead of assuming someone will come behind you and add it. Second, while the Orlando Sentinel is definitely a valid source, Screamscape, as a self-published blog, is not considered reliable for the purposes of adding information. I read Screamscape all the time, so I'm not dissing the site at all, but it is blatantly a rumor site (that said, the webmaster does post links to reliable sources from time to time). Lastly, personal experience doesn't count when adding information, as it is considered original research. As to what a soft-opening means, those of us who follow theme parks know what it means, but what about a casual reader? We should write the article such that anyone can understand what is being discussed.

I hope that answers your questions ... feel free to respond here if you have additional comments or concerns. Thank you again. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) "soft openings" are not "openings", regardless of press coverage, just as "preview screenings" for films are not "release dates". Hope that helps. :) SpikeJones (talk) 03:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hollywood rip ride rockit is open.There are videos of people riding it as well videos of the opening.Go to www.Universal Orlando.com,and you will see it say:HOLLYWOOD RIP RIDE ROCKIT NOW OPEN!I am sorry for my early opening dates that were false.Now I am positive it is open.Thank you.user androllercoaster.=D =D =D

Now that the attraction has been deemed open, would you happen to know if any images of the entrance are available to replace the concept art currently in the infobox? thanks.--Snowman Guy (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's most likely going to take someone physically going to the attraction and getting some free photos of it. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the article does not need a Summary section. I believe that some info from other sections of the article (particularly "Track layout") can be moved to a Summary section to avoid redundancy.--Snowman Guy (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The summary section was too long and too detailed to really be a summary. I would suggest looking at WikiProject Roller Coasters and seeing how they prepare articles about such attractions. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 00:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

snowman guy: Go to google images and type in hollywood rip ride rockit.You will see all sorts of photos as well one or two of the entrance.I hope I helped!=D =D =D user androllercoaster 00:48 21 august 2009 (UTC)

Fingerprinting at Disney Hong Kong

Hi: I'm a relaitvely new user. Forgive me if I'm not using this talk page correctly.

You apparently moved my entry about fingerprinting at Disney downpage -- I'd missed that and first assumed it had been simply deleted. Once I figured it out, I restored your edit. My question is this: at what point does this practice warrant promotion to the lead part of the article? I thought it pretty shocking that Disney was employing high-security biometric techniques to control access to its facility. There's a legal challenge brewing, although there has been no press yet. Pristine2 (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If there has been no press (or other 3rd party unbiased coverage), then it cannot be listed as a criticism. The biometrics is a factual item at all the parks, not isolated to just Hong Kong, so the entire section may be slightly misplaced as well (meaning, it should be relocated to the main parks page, with a hatnote/main tag if there is specific Hong Kong-related coverage). SpikeJones (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I've edited this entry to reflect your concerns. There has of course been significant media coverage over the fingerprinting issue in the United States, and I've referenced an IHT article to substantiate this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pristine2 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Xenobot Mk V/requests#Mistagging reports: USFILMS

Had a follow-up q for you there. Also, use "{{Bots|deny=Xenobot Mk V}}" if it is continually getting something on a page wrong. –xeno^talk 22:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for your hard work and contribution on wikipedia. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Protection for a Page

Hi, I need to protect or semi-protect the "Walt Disney Platinum Editions" article as it appears that many uregistered users put information that is not true all the time. Can you tell me how to protect the article or could you do it? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disneyfolly (talk • contribs) 23:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking at this article, and I do agree that there is now a reliable source for the information. However, some things that are provided, such as the release dates for films beyond the upcoming Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, are still uncited. I'm going to look at cleaning up the language and formatting, along with improving the citation links (using the same ones you provided, but more in like with the Manual of Style. As to page protection, go to WP:RPP and fill in the requested information. If you use Twinkle, click on the rpp tab on the article page and it'll help you prepare and post the request. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I tell you what:

I have had it with that doofus and this isn't the only long-term sleeper I found. This has BF101 written all over it. I left the talk page open on this one; he generally abuses the talk page privileges, but I wanted to see if I'd get a legit unblock request. The fact that he hasn't answered tells me all I need to know. I wonder why this site drives me nuts and then the answer comes to me: Some of its users are already nuts.  :) So, if you ever see any bizarre edits to Disney-related articles or requests for unprotection, it's our "deer" little friend. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep my eyes open. Other editors (notably SpikeJones) and I have been busy with an anonymous editor who appears to use a range of IPs (mostly 83.70.xx.xx) to add in unannounced Disney feature films. Then there's another long-time Disney vandal who keeps trying to move Fantasyland attractions around between Disneyland and Tokyo Disneyland. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad you caught me since I was signing off. If you do a geolocate check of the anons and it comes up as BellSouth in Atlanta, it's him. WP:LTA/BF101 has a bunch of info. His entry on the LTA page was becoming so long I had to spin it off on its own! Good luck and keep me posted. I can spot this guy without even so much as a computer, he's so obvious. PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I just reviewed this fellow's unblock request and I'm convinced he is not BF101, but please let me know if there are any future problems since I went ahead and unblocked him. Thanks for the alert in the first place! PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Dot

certainly, please do add when you see them. Maybe we can identify an IP range or show enough nonsense to get those pages semi-protected indefinitely (won't likely happen, but you never know).SpikeJones (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The one I added to your list just got blocked for adding it back several times, along with adding stuff to various DreamWorks Animation articles that Disney would now be distributing those films. Disney and DreamWorks do have a partnership, but the Animation group is separate and not part of the deal, so maybe that will be another clue as to what's going on. Thanks. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

point of clarification, Dreamworks Animation is a separate company and has been since the 2004 spin-off. the business relationships of Dreamworks SKG are unrelated to the activities of DWA. 75.84.123.169 (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your note on my talk page. I knew that the DreamWorks/Disney deal did not involve the animation unit, but I wasn't aware of the specifics, so thank you very much for the info. Happy editing! --McDoobAU93 (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

yeah it seems this confuses a lot of people, who may have good intentions but are factually incorrect. Munroe sums this up pretty nicely here http://xkcd.com/386/ 75.84.123.169 (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) got part of the IP range softblocked for two weeks. Let's see what happens next. SpikeJones (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You "goodfaithed" a revert earlier today. Generally speaking, it appear that most of these bad edits we're chasing are coming from 83.70.xxx.xxx. Something to look for. SpikeJones (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw the 83.70 in the IP, but still tried to at least give the benefit of the doubt. Thanks for the heads-up, and your help this week. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

---

dot's back with a new IP range to monitor with a ton of bad edits. Looks like 78.16.x.x (today was 78.16.219.126). SpikeJones (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

ANDROLLERCOASTER

Wikipedia has been having these problems before,I mean,thats our job, to edit.So whats bugging you? What doofus. Because I'd like to help you two. I know one thing for sure,PMDrive and Mc Doob,you can sure deal with problems.One more thing,I dont know why I am saying this but still,am I by any chance the so called doofus. Just asking. Because I am still kind of "bummed" over the whole HRRR thing.Please reply!

I moved this down to start a second section, because it kinda is a new thread, even though it's an offshoot of a previous one. To begin, let me clear up your biggest concern: no, we are not discussing you, or your previous edits. As I noted on your talk page, you're working in good faith, and since all that, I haven't seen any edits that you've made to any of the articles I watch that would cause me to think otherwise. So no worries there.

As to what PMDrive and I were discussing ... within a number of the Disney-related articles (notably the films), there is a particular editor who continues to make edits against consensus, despite repeated requests to not do so. The editor has been banned and blocked repeatedly, but every so often keeps creating new accounts or editing from anonymous IPs (look up WP:SOCK for more details). In this particular case, PMDrive blocked an account that, to him, appeared to be this user (who has gone by the username BambiFan101, or some derivative). When the blocked user appealed, PMD realized it wasn't a new sockpuppet, so he released the block. However, as you noted above, PMD did become frustrated as to why BambiFan doesn't take a hint.

You are correct in that our work on the project is to edit the articles. However, I, as do a number of editors, believe that our time is better served improving the articles instead of fixing juvenile pranks. That said, we take the good with the bad and do what we need to do to improve the articles, even if it is just to clean up someone's ill-intentioned handiwork.

As to how you can help ... keep an eye out on articles that interest you, that you care about. The article for Hollywood Rip Ride Rockit would be a good one, for example. Be sure to use your watchlist, so you can keep track of edits and who makes them. More often than not, the edits that are made are well-intentioned and work for the article. Most of the rest of the time, you get what I call "fanboy edits." Your initial work fell into this category ... that's not meant as an insult at all. Fans mean well, but may need a friendly primer on how the project works (such as adding verifiable facts instead of rumors). Many of those--yourself included--react well and become productive editors on the project, which, to me, is the best possible outcome after dealing with a potential problem edit.

Less frequently, you'll get unnecessary, pointless edits (like "this ride is coooooooooool") that are easily taken care of. Less frequently still are repeat offenders, like the aforementioned BambiFan, who have a pretty consistent M.O. and who may well be editing to just cause trouble. I hope that clears some things up, but if it raised more questions, feel free to ask them ... and again, be sure to use four tildes to sign your responses, since that automatically affixes your name and the time you made them, making it easier to locate. Thanks!

--McDoobAU93 (talk) 06:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

THANKS!

Hello! Mc DoobAU93,you seem to be a big help in wikipedia.Every time somebody has a question you answer it. You haved helped me from day one.(my rather confusing day!)Anyway,thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Androllercoaster (talk • contribs) 13:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome, and thank you for the compliments. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

HELP.

I dont really understand wikipedia very well.(not in a bad way)I just need help getting used to this. McDoob,does a "speedy deletion" mean I will be kiked out? I would like to stay.So,could anyone kind of give me advice to writing better messages and articles? Thank you! Please reply! =)--Androllercoaster (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, this seems like it would be a good choice for adoption ... someone who could help you understand how things work, what to do, what not to do, etc. There really isn't much that will "kick you out" as it were, and what you did was an honest mistake, so no worries there. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I have found one:

McDoob,I was planning to say this before but,I think I have found one of the people such as bambi fan.In the Montu article there were a bunch of false statements.I constantly corrected them,but every time I did,it changed back.I havent seen anything about it lately,but I just wanted you and PMDrive to know.Just in case.--Androllercoaster (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it and see what I can find out. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: I took a look at the edits, and so far you've done the right thing. I've added Montu to my watchlist, and if the change occurs again I'll ask about it. Thanks for the heads-up ... by the by, have you given any thoughts to Wikipedia Adoption? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, joy...

I'll just have to monitor things closely. I have limited internet access for a brief time. Ah, but not to worry. I'll have it back soon.  :) If a Disney vandal does show his face, you let me know anyway, capeesh? Thanks for the nice words, by the way. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• I wish to high heaven I knew what leads these unsupervised little monsters to mess with Disney articles. Heck, I offered to mentor Bambifan. Twice. My wife and I have deluxe annual passports to Disneyland and I've even had breakfast at Club 33 a couple of times. Thought he'd appreciate someone with a real-world perspective of Disneyland, but no. He's pure-D insane, that one. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Never been to WDW, but someday, perhaps. Hey, nothing geeky about timing that trip the way you did! We were there for the 50th anniversary and I thought for sure it was going to be INSANE. The line stretched halfway across Downtown Disney, but they cut off the admissions after awhile. The result was one of the most pleasant and memorable days either of us had ever spent there. We were at the Carnation Cafe on Main Street at 4:30 when they replayed the opening day speech; it was impossible not to shed a tear. When they say the place is magical, well, times like that sure are. When we get through this hectic but pleasant time which is limiting my internet, we're going back. Can't this week; definitely next week. Besides, I think "Haunted Mansion Holiday" is up and running...! Can't miss Jack Skellington, y'know. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ditto for me returning to Disneyland ... I'm ready to go back. It really was an amazing day. I took the "Walk in Walt's Footsteps" tour and have my tour ticket with the Dec. 5 '01 date stamped on it. I really need to frame that and other mementos from that trip. (As I recall, 2001 was the debut of Haunted Mansion Holiday ... I still have my glow-in-the-dark sweatshirt that I wear when I'm in the parks for the holidays, or even on Christmas morning.) --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes! Did the Walk, too. Truly amazing history. Getting to go in the Tiki Room before the crowds was beyond cool, especially when they passed around an old Audio-Animatronic bird to show how it worked. The group we were with grew kind of restless and basically cut the tour a bit short, which worked to our advantage. After lunch, we thanked the tour guides who in turn got us VIP passes to ride the Lilly Belle presidential railroad car. I can't tell you how many times I've done that "grand circle tour," but this was the first time sitting in an overstuffed chair in a private car! Gotta run...take care...see you here, I hope. PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Busch

Hey thanks, it was a mistake on my part. Once the change does take place, I would say it's fair that the lead only mentions BEC as the operator, and that could even be done now. I'm not sure if the infoboxes have a field for "Parent", but Blackstone could be noted their. Grsz¹¹ 14:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I took a look at your talk page and it appears that you've been here a while, and like I said what you were doing wasn't hurting the article at all ... it was just jumping the gun a little. As to the possible "Parent" field, there is an "Owner" and "Operator" field in the amusement park infobox, but I don't know if this application would fit. If you take a look at Six Flags Over Texas and Six Flags Over Georgia, you'll see that these parks are actually owned by separate companies, but both are operated by Six Flags. The articles go into the nuts and bolts of these set-ups, if you're curious about it.

Since BEC owns these parks outright, the name should only appear once. Again, this is subject to discussion, but that's where I stand. You are correct, however, in noting that BEC should be mentioned in the lead paragraphs of each park in the chain ... I think it now is, but in case it isn't ... Thanks for getting back to me so quickly.

--McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Note - we'll need to update/modify/merge Incidents at Busch parks appropriately once the deal is completed (Incidents at Blackstone parks?). The philosophy: park info moves to the page representing the *current* owner, regardless of who owned the park at the time the incident occurred. The footnotes/datestamps contain info on when the event happened, and the park page itself should contain ownership timelines that would explain those items. SpikeJones (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - I'll recommend the format used for Incidents at Disney parks once I get into Incidents at Busch parks and get a look at it, then move forward after the deal with Blackstone is completed. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

nightmare

eh, I reverted it as a future item instead of current item (intention: don't list it until it's been released). My bad, as the whole article lists future items. never mind. SpikeJones (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Always go straight to the source. googling site:go.com +nightmare +3d gives you http://disney.go.com/partners/hauntedholidays/#nightmare SpikeJones (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Help!!!

Hi, I'm "Disneyfolly" and for a long time I can't log in into my account. It says that my password is wrong, I tried changing it but there is no use because it continues to tell me that is wrong. Please help me because I can't contribute with anything. Thank You for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.155.33.244 (talk)

I'm going to respond here in case your IP shifts between the time you posted this and the time you read it ... have you done the "E-mail new password" option on the login page? If you've provided Wikipedia with an e-mail address in the past, they could reset your password. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I've provided an email address and I have reset the passsword but when I tried to log in agagin it tells me that the password is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.155.33.244 (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This may be a dumb question, but does your password have any capital letters in it, or is CAPS LOCK on (something I doubt, because your messages are in mixed case)? If that doesn't solve it, you might want to try the options provided here. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you I will try that link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.155.33.244 (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

68.147

Having seen their edits before on the Disney 3-D related articles, it's similar editing style to what we see with BF101 and Dot... a few good edits surrounded by a plethora of bad ones. Generally speaking, when there's a new editor regularly adding bad info, I check their edit history to see if it there is a pattern in articles being edited and the type of edits being made. Usually there's enough info to determine if they are a habitual vandal or just making newbie mistakes. This one fell into the former category for me. SpikeJones (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Guess I'm an incurable optimist sometimes. This is a good trait; never apologize for it. I'm more cynical on a regular basis

Saw that ages ago. Dot is similar. Just saying. SpikeJones (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Leave it. No need to poke a sleeping bear, and if they act after the block is up then you'll have more material to go after (different topic regarding edit #320617335 here... "be wary"). SpikeJones (talk) 03:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Help with user and talk page

Hello I was wondering if you can help me to create my user page and my talk page. I don't know where to go to edit them and I don't understand some guidelines in the design center. ThanksDisneyfolly2 (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

At the top of the screen, above all the tabs, you should see a red link of your user name, followed by a probably red-linked "my talk" link. Click on these and start your editing. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Editor review archived

Since it has been well over 30 days since you requested to be reviewed, I've gone ahead and archived your request as part of my effort to cleanup Editor Review. You may view your review here. Thanks & happy editing. If you have any questions, please message me on my talk page. =D Netalarmtalk 23:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Adopt-a-user

Hey mc doob,I was wondering if you could help me with "Adopt a user" by explaining it to me.Because,I dont know when to like come on to the computer and talk to you about it.So anyway,could you please help me? Thanks! =D--Androllercoaster (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC) ==

When one user adopts another, the more experienced user (adopter) helps the novice user (adoptee) learn how to navigate around, how to edit more properly, how to research and add those citations to the articles, etc. It's not a permanent decision, and either party can end the "adoption" at any time for any reason. Sometimes the adopter will give the adoptee a couple of tasks (for example, finding a source for a statement or fixing a sentence based on the Manual of Style) to see how they handle them, then provide assistance if necessary. Sometimes the adoptee will ask the adopter to double-check some edits before they're made, or will ask the adopter to help them if something gets heated.

The goal is to help the adoptee become a better editor, which gives them the chance to be an even bigger part of the Wikipedia Project. Put simply, the adopter offers to be a teacher/mentor/guide for the adoptee. The interaction between the two is really no different than what we're doing now--leaving messages on talk pages. Hopefully this answers your questions. Let me know what you think ... if you'd like some help, I'd be glad to take you under my wing.

--McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism assist

Hello! Thanks for your message, and you're welcome. I simply noticed a series of changes to your userpage while looking at the recent changes. It seemed suspicious, so I took a look and voila, caught a vandal. I know that we should assume good faith, but I have a feeling that fellow will be looking at a longer block in the future, but we'll see. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "vandalism-only" is what I was thinking as well, and I am surprised he did not get a longer block. But, yes, keep an eye on him, and keep me informed. Happy hunting. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

re: your message

Hi, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 17:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the update to Standup roller coaster

Chang is indeed at Great America. It says so at the article for Chang. It says so at the article for Great America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.12.126 (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the two articles ... the cited source in the article for Chang (roller coaster) merely stated the attraction was being removed, which is indeed correct. In the article for Six Flags Great America, two sources are provided, but both are self-published blogs that do not meet the criteria for reliable sources. So I've revised the article to indicate that Chang is closed, which is true and verifiable. As to its future, when a reliable source is provided, it can be added. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The Rescuers

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Rescuers. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Owen× ☎ 19:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking this to the article's Talk page! I believe both you and Taran Wanderer take your editing work here seriously, and I'm sure this matter can be resolved by either discussing it with him or involving other editors familiar with the subject matter and the relevant policies. Feel free to solicit my help if things get out of hand. Owen× ☎ 20:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The talk page is where it belongs, and for the life of me I thought I had already brought it up there, but obviously I hadn't. There's been a lot of speculative BD/DVD releases posted to the various Disney movies lately, so I'm hoping we can start resolving them all soon, starting with this one. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted those bad edits on Beauty and the Beast (1991 film). Also, I think The Rescuers is also an excellent film and deserves a Diamound Edition. 70.146.212.249 (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately our opinions don't matter much with regard to what label Disney applies to a home-video release. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just when I thought the little freak had gone away...

...he's back doing the same idiocy. At least one of his ranges has been blocked for six months (thank the Lord above) and I'm handing out six-month blocks to any other IPs and protecting the articles. This is beyond crazy at this point. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

What's disturbing me (and making me worthy of being slapped) is that I fell for the first part of Bambifan's M.O. ... but I think I got wise to it the second time. Check the section above regarding The Rescuers and you'll see where I started smelling a rat. Thanks for fixing it so fast. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No, you deserve a Barnstar and not a slap, believe me. He's been quiet lately, but hoo boy, has he been back for more over the last day or two. Glad to have been of help. Slow night at work and I still don't have internet at my new place; I guess I was in the right place at the right time! Logging off...thanks for the tip and the help. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. JamieS93 18:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote of confidence. I'll do my best to live up to it. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ToyStoryMania Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ToyStoryMania Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

== will they stop? ==

I know that I have not ben around latley, but I heard you and PMDrive talking about that guy who is messing up articles(before I made this message).Anyway,please let me know how I can help.Oh,and I havent made up my mind about adopt a user.Sorry.I will think more about it.--Androllercoaster (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)'

Same guy...

Someone up in the high desert needs a nice, long timeout.  :) Sure enough, it was that same IP in Hesperia. I blocked it for three months, but if you see similar vandalism, please let me know. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, it's a pleasure to block sneaky, subtle vandalism like this. There is nothing worse than a plausible-looking edit which is completely bogus. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It's all about you, bro. I'm signing off.  :) Roll away! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)