User talk:McDoobAU93/Archive/2011

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q4 2010

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 3, No. 3 — 4th Quarter, 2010
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2010, the project has:

• 135 Featured Articles
• 41 Featured Lists
• 6 Featured Topics

• 37 A-Class Articles
• 456 Good Articles
• 9 Good Topics

---

Content

• Changes to Featured and Good content
• News items and announcements

• Feature: Writing a Featured list
• Featured editor: JimmyBlackwing

---

Project Navigation

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The Fox and the Hound

Hi, there is a request at the talk to put back an earlier and shorter version of plot. Would you oppose or support? Thanks. 68.17.110.122 (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Adoption request

Greetings McDeebAU93

My name is Michael Stever, and I'm hopeful you might consider adopting me. I am attempting to add my first wiki-article, which focuses on a documentary film I recently screened in NYC and am now marketing. We have gotten some excellent reviews, and as this film is a first on several fronts, it felt like an appropriate contender for Wikipedia. We seem to have numerous interests, as I worked for Disney World in several live production shows, and have been most fortunate to make a successful transition from 'working actor' to 'full time, freelance filmmaker, camera man & editor.' You can learn more about me, by visiting my site at www.michaelstever.net In the meantime, here is a copy and paste of the last two attempts I've made with regards to my new article about my film. As you can see, I have attempted to remove as many 'Puffy' terms as possible, as this was the major initial in the beginning. Hope you find my topic of interest, and thank you sincerely for the consideration.

Happy Holidays, Michael Stever

My 1st Attempt: During the weekend of March 29th, 2010 - actor turned filmmaker Michael Stever ("Super Force," "Broadway: The Golden Age") took to the legendary Landmark Loews Movie Palace in Jersey City, New Jersey with camera in hand, for the First Annual Saturday Nightmares Expo. The result, 'Saturday Nightmares: The Ultimate Horror Expo Of All Time!' is both fascinating and precedent setting on several fronts. The first being that until now, the 'Horror Expo' has remained an untapped wilderness in the arena of documentary films. Stever takes you behind the scenes of this epic George A. Romero family reunion and features some of the horror genre's biggest names including Adrienne Barbeau, Tom Savini, Ken Foree, Roy Frumkes, John Amplas, Joe Pilato, Henry Manfredini, Louise Robey, Romero himself & many more. Narrated by Stever in a style reminiscent of Michael Moore, the film effectively chronicles all the behind the scenes intrigue often missed by the fans from setup to break down, and offers a fresh, creative and uniquely "human" perspective, showcasing these icons of horror as more than just the fantastical creations we tend to put up on pedestals. 'Saturday Nightmares: The Movie' benefits from Stever's own enthusiasm and is every bit a project of love for the horror genre. Not content with merely wandering the aisles and interviewing a few celebrities, the film's best moments are when Stever actually explores the more forbidden areas of the breathtaking, palatial 1929 movie palace all the way up to its historic, Gothic 'St. George-slaying-the-dragon' rooftop statue! This film is definitely worth a look for completists of the horror genre. 72.88.221.143 (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mr. McDoobAU93, (or McDonald if that's okay?)

I have heard about the importance of having someone else include your article, and the truth of the matter is that even prior to contacting you, (and prior to including this article myself) my publicist attempted to add it himself, but was declined also. Honestly, even though my last attempt was rejected, It felt MOST encouraging to even make it to the 'In Review' status, once there, i continued to tweak it, change it, etc... and now have actually 'Re-submitted' it again, (which you might have already been able to tell if you checked out my actual present status.)

I know there are no guarantees for anything, and am still very interested in working with you. This Wiki-arena is a complex one, but actually one I'm glad I entered into personally, (even if there is a bit of a conflict of interest) as I have wanted to better understand its guidelines and such for some time now. YEARS ago, I became well versed with editing and manipulating HTML code creating my first web pages, (on the now defunct HOMETOWN AOL server) theses lessons were wonderful, and I have actually enjoyed the process of working with the codes for my article's inclusion... I welcome your assistance,

Michael

Hi again McDoob,

I will be honest, the criteria for knowing which actual 'fields' to communicate in on Wikipedia are rather vague, (hence why I suspect my attempts to communicate with you are showing up all over the place. Thank you sincerely for your patience. Am hopeful this latest epistle will be a more proper location. I will, without fail, "stamp" this specific correspondence as requested, and then will definitely check out your links. In the meantime, as my latest submission was yet again rejected, can you please confirm if you could possibly be at least an 'attempt' for submission, (meaning, can you possibly add the text yourself, thus increasing the possibility of it being accepted??? Or do I need to find somebody else to do it? And if I do need to find somebody else to do it, could I have them input basically what I've arrived at with my last and most recent attempt? I have been working tirelessly at this for upwards of a week now, and would love to see some possible light at the end of this tunnel, ESPECIALLY as it apparently does hold 'inclusion worthy marital'...

I know it's late, and am most grateful for your efforts,

Thank you,

Michael Stever Michaellee4 (talk) 07:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

In answer to the question, yes I'll be glad to work on your article and see what we can do. As I do, I'll leave you commentary discussing why I'm making the change. I'll copy your most recent posts to my "sandbox" and work on it there. You can access it from my user page or from this link. You have a sandbox too, and you can call it whatever you want, such as "Blank canvas", "Undeveloped film", whatever ... it's basically a sub-page to your user page. Let's be bold and get this published! --McDoobAU93 17:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

McDoob, I really can't stress enough how grateful I am for your assistance, as a matter of fact, I'm going to go out on a limb here and tell you that just this correspondence alone has hands down, been the best Christmas gift I could possibly receive. Honestly, The Wiki-Mystery has been a long-standing source of curiosity, and occasional frustration. Thank you again, I got the longer epistle you posted on my page itself, with the direct instructions on certain points of navigation, and I'm going to need to go back and re-read them a few times I think, which is fine. Thank you for taking the time to clarify. Cheers, and Happy Holidays! I will look forward to your continued input. Michael Michaellee4 (talk) 18:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Greertings McDoob, Hope the new year has been treating you well. Am happy to report I've been pretty busy with shoots and editing, so have unfortunately had little time to devote to Wiki. As I'm still seeing that 'Saturday Nightmares: The Ultimate Horror Expo Of All Time!' is still not listed on Wiki, I'm guessing you've either not had time to submit it, or start it on its way to hopefully being listed. No problem, I'm sure you're busy, however I'm still hopeful we can find a place here. Will you please give me a head's up when you have a few free minutes, and just give me an idea what the remainder of the process is, and if/when you think we might be fortunate enough to find ourselves listed officially? Thank you again sincerely for the correspondence, and your continued efforts where our film is concerned McDoob, and a tremendously happy, successful New Year for you and yours. Sincerely, Michael Stever Michaellee4 (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey there. As often happens, the real world intrudes from time and again. I'm still looking at how I can improve the article, make it neutral and make sure the notability is there so the article can stay. --McDoobAU93 14:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Angry Birds

Hi. I noticed that you nominated Angry Birds for A-class here. However, it has to be GA-class first. Sorry about that, I forgot to add that part to the instructions. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That was my mistake, actually. I don't think it's A-class (any version of it) just yet, but I'd like to think maybe it's getting there. I'd be surprised if it wasn't B-class by now, so I modified the request a bit to indicate that I think it's B but on the way to A. --McDoobAU93 20:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Ok. I'm glad that everything is in order now. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem; everyone makes mistakes. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Request_for_comment/Tenmei

Hi. If you are still acting as Tenmei's mentor you might want to look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tenmei. Taemyr (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hollywood Rip Ride Rocket

I just thought a link to a quality video of the coaster would be helpful for those looking it up on wiki, because I've noticed there are similar links on other roller coaster wiki pages. Why are such links appropiate for some and not for others? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbhawkins (talk • contribs) 21:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Well some possible concerns include potential copyright violations (has the film been released for such use under the Creative Commons License system?) and potential legal violations (many parks do not allow on-ride filming without explicit permission), among others. However, I will add it back and see what consensus has to say. I looked at the bot's reversion of your first attempt and saw that it's a bit over-sensitive to new users adding external links, so if you add it back, it's very likely to get reverted again. --McDoobAU93 04:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Tron: Legacy#Electronics and toys

I know Wikipedia is not a catalog, but the section looks really bare. What if the toys and electronics are listed but it says who made them and stuff like that. But, no prices. --WikiEditor44 (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

A couple of examples would be acceptable ... just tone down the marketing-speak. Again, keep in mind that this is mainly merchandise for the North American market, and that it need not be an exhaustive or comprehensive list. All the article needs to mention is that the film has been supported with the release of toys, games and such, and a few examples of each. If there's a notable example (say, if the toy version of Flynn's Light Cycle was very popular and hard-to-find), then it should be included, provided there's third-party information to back it up (such as a news article saying that Toy X from the movie is the hot toy for Christmas). --McDoobAU93 18:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Tron: Legacy Home Media Section

Hey, I noticed you have contributed a decent amount to the Tron: Legacy article, so I thought you might be a good resource for my inquiry. I'm trying to bring the home media section up to date, and I'm split between a "grid" option and full "all-text" explanation. Collider has posted a nice, easy-to-read grid of the different home media releases here. Alternatively, we could explain this grid in words, like I've done in a mock-up here. I'm open to your thoughts. Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm ... if it were solely up to me (which I know full well it isn't), I'd lean towards the prose option. The thing to remember is that we're not here to promote the release of Tron: Legacy, just to indicate that it will be released to home video in packages that include Blu-ray 2D, 3D, digital copy, etc. I think the prose option you've sketched up on your talk page is the preferable one, and is the more encyclopedic. --McDoobAU93 04:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I really appreciate it. I'm going to do a few more edits and then move forward from there. --TravisBernard (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

68.147.211.213's edits

Special note about 68.147.211.213:

The next time you need to block this user (this goes for any Wikipedian who has this ability who notices them) please block indefinitely. I'm tired of looking forward to unblocks so that the user can once again edit; they have already been blocked 3 times; all with an expiration. Georgia guy (talk) 00:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not an admin ... however I do agree, that if I was, it'd be time for a nice long block. I've had enough of this character. --McDoobAU93 00:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2011

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 4, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2011
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2011, the project has:

• 139 Featured Articles
• 43 Featured Lists
• 5 Featured Topics

• 36 A-Class Articles
• 482 Good Articles
• 10 Good Topics

---

Content

• Changes to Featured and Good content
• News items and announcements

• Feature: Reference Library
• Featured editor: GamerPro64

---

Project Navigation

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 02:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Always nice to hear from you, my friend. Thanks for the nice words. I don't plan on doing any real vandal-slaying for a long time if ever. That cross-wiki abuse I went through last August was one of my life's biggest nightmares and I'm still very leery about working on wikis as a result. Anyway, I'm both trying to help a friend who's the subject of an article that's been a real vandal target for a long time and to not burn my bridges over here if I want to do other things. I worked too doggoned hard to get the admin gig and I've contributed a lot of good content, so unretirement should help to legitimize that work.

You da man. Thanks again for being so thoughtful. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Incredibles

You're right, the original phrasing was better. Actually, I must have been confused when I diffed the edit, as I meant to restore the correct punctuation and the original wording (oops). Someone else has changed it since then, and I think the current version is even better than either of the previous ones, so problem solved. --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I Think You're Right.

Dear McDoobAU93,

I agree with what you told me about the edit I made on the Angry Birds page. For once someone made the right choice on deleting one of my edits. So, thankyou, and (not that I don't like you...) I hope we don't have to talk about this again, so next time I'll be more careful.

Sincerely, Sock7215 (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Sock7215

No Problem.

Dear McDoobAU93,

Again, thanks for telling me why. One person (not mentioning names) deleted an entire page I had, most likely because it wasn't completely finished, but never responded to tell me why! You know, everyone has to go to sleep sometime!

Thanks Again, Sock7215 (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Sock7215

No Problem.

Dear McDoobAU93,

Again, thanks for telling me why. One person (not mentioning names) deleted an entire page I had, most likely because it wasn't completely finished, but never responded to tell me why! You know, everyone has to go to sleep sometime!

Thanks Again, Sock7215 (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Sock7215

You're right

It would appear that our little friend managed to log onto one of the few computers he isn't banned from using, one of his rangeblocks expired or he slipped in under his parents' radar. In any event, the only way he's going to remain banned are rangeblocks for a good, long time. If the IP is from his school district, I can guarantee that they will take action. He's apparently not going to give up and we can't pussyfoot around the issue. It's long-term or permanent rangeblocks on any and all of his IPs or it really is going to be a long summer. I for one did not unretire only to have to dodge and parry with what turned out to be a ninth-grade boy with far too much time on his hands and no supervision. PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The anon IP that this latest Bambi sock was undoing to get his edit count up geolocated to Comcast in New Jersey. I'm looking forward to seeing the results of CheckUser on the registered (and now blocked) account. As to dealing with this cretin, remember that a lot of other editors have your back, so you're not waging this war alone. Hell, feel free to keep an eye on us grunts if you want, and let us do the dirty work. ;) --McDoobAU93 17:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Mac.  :) There's at least one other editor with global sysop rights keeping an eye out for him, so I'm not too worried. PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Clarifying exceptional pending-changes protection

Hi,

I saw you suggest at User talk:MuZemike#Latest Bambifan attack that semi-protection+PCPL2 would help against a particular sock attack. I am currently discussing this use of PC at Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011#Clarifying exceptional pending-changes protection. Someone is asking for an example so it would be helpful if you could join the conversation and talk about the case you were discussing at User talk:MuZemike#Latest Bambifan attack.

Regards,

Yaris678 (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

deletion discussion

You may want to voice an opinion, one way or the other, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incidents at independent parks SpikeJones (talk) 02:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

mind bender

I don't know how notifications work, i.e. if you are notified when i post on my own page, but at anyrate, I replied regarding mind bender. If you feel strongly that it shouldn't be catagorized as a terrain roller coaster, I'm cool with that, just want to explain my reasons for doing so. Imascrabblefreak (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Mass merge of Universal Studios Florida former attraction articles

Recently, a mass deletion discussion was closed with the consensus to merge and redirect all articles to List of former Universal Studios Florida attractions. If you would like to assist please visit the destination article's talk page to discuss what needs to be done. I have contacted you specifically because you are listed as a member of the Universal taskforce for the Amusement Parks WikiProject. Kind Regards Themeparkgc  Talk  23:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Angry Birds Rio should have it's own article

This article should have a whole article becuase I coundn't put my screenshot on Angry Birds Rio. Canihuan300 (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not much of a reason. The reason your photo was removed was per WP:NFCC and per WP:VGIMAGES. VGIMAGES suggests that the number of screenshots should be kept to a minimum. Since there is already a gameplay screenshot, and the discussion of Angry Birds Rio describes what's in the provided photo (and thus removes its necessity, since NFCC #1 says that if a non-free image can be replaced by a text description instead, it should be), there's really no need for another one. --McDoobAU93 01:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Never doing it again

Sorry I won't make Angry Birds Rio an article again. Canihuan300 (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2011

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 4, No. 2 — 2nd Quarter, 2011
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2011, the project has:

• 140 Featured Articles
• 44 Featured Lists
• 5 Featured Topics

• 36 A-Class Articles
• 498 Good Articles
• 11 Good Topics

---

Content

• Changes to Featured and Good content
• News items and announcements

• Feature: Developing Good and Featured Topics
• Featured editor: New Age Retro Hippie

---

Project Navigation

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

–MuZemike 14:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Virtual Console Manier Incomprehensible

Just FYI, our friend who was insisting on messing around with the spelling and grammar in Virtual Console has accused both you and me of not understanding plain English or knowing how to interpret Wikipedia policies. I basically said I don't think there's any good faith left to assume, so next time I see him perform another edit of that type, it'll be block time, IMO. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed ... he has been warned for the last time, as noted previously. If I see something, I'll let you know, and thanks for your assistance. --McDoobAU93 02:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest contacting an administrator, who can monitor the activities of that page to see if he continues his behaviour. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Kiefer is an admin, and is in the loop, fortunately. Both KS and I are trying to figure out why he's so insistent on his word usage, even when such words don't exist in standard English. He has received a final warning for his edits, and in truth he hasn't made any disruptive ones since that warning, so it leads me to believe he's finally gotten the message. --McDoobAU93 20:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

...or is simply trying to get a rise out of us, which I'd say he's succeeded in doing. I've been trying to word my responses very carefully so that I can make my point as effectively as possible (about bad faith and what not) without just downright calling him a troll. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Kinda failed in that regard. He dared me to file a report on him, and I said there was no need since he hasn't made any edits in that article since he was given his final warning. In that, I'm satisfied. He can do whatever he wants in other articles. He tries that stunt in an article I'm monitoring, however .... --McDoobAU93 15:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the admins at ANI kinda made it clear that they can't really be bothered to look into this issue, so I've closed my request there and am just going to let someone else deal with this issue from here on out. It's causing me too much frustration. Thanks for your help, though - I appreciate your input. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Assistance

Hello, McDoobAU93! I have observed that you are a prolific and hard-working Wikipedian! Not to mention a member of the Walt Disney World Task force, which I am also a part of. Therefore, I am posting this message on your talk space, because I would like for you to assist me in the cleanup of the article: List of mascots. The page is a mess of non-referenced, and littered with undoubtedly choppy original research. If you have any time on your hands to assist me on this venture, I would gladly appreciate it.

P.S. If you could be kind enough to contact other faithful users about this situation and ask for their contributions, I would utmost appreciate it. Thank You, ~ Jedi94 (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Disney Role Call

Hi, WikiProject Disney has been rather inactive recently. I saw that you are a member of the project. If you still consider yourself to be an active member, leave a response on the Project's talk page. Hopefully we can get the project up and running again. Thanks!--GroovySandwich 00:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Adopt a user

Hi i would like to learn more about wiki. I want to be a admin but something about a snowball would close mine.

Thanks

Bobherry talk -- Hi!! 21:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Bobherry talk -- Hi!!

21:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello McDoobAU93! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 02:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Kraken (roller coaster)

Thanks for the note. That came late in a session and I never got back to the keyboard to finish. Had to insert to make effort to make another user who reverted back to unsourced claims, weak language, reverted legitimate links that work was necessary. They seem to have got the message now so I can proceed minus the template later on. Regards PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Universal 360 closing

According to a recent post on Screamscape, the cinespheres for Universal 360: A Cinesphere Spectacular have been removed from the USF lagoon, and that another show is currently in the works to replace it. I was wondering if any reliable sources can be found to confirm the closure and, if so, it should be noted in the Universal 360 article as well as the List of former Universal Studios Florida attractions article.--Snowman Guy (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

As I recall, the Cinespheres were removed rather frequently, since the show doesn't run that often (summers and during the Christmas holidays). If there were an article embedded in that post on Screamscape (Lance usually posts where he found the info), that could work. But right now, I'd say we're speculating on both the show closing and Universal developing a replacement, although both are gonna happen at some point. --McDoobAU93 18:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring Tenmei

I want to thank you again for your mentoring.

I appreciated your efforts; and my participation the project was affected by your investments of time and thought. --Tenmei (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Roger Davies commented about here about "recognizing the very considerable efforts that went into mentorship" ....

In my opinion, each of us did everything we were asked to do. Those who volunteered to be mentors deserve repeated thanks and acknowledgement, nothing less. --Tenmei (talk) 03:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

One last note: Roger Davies now assesses mentorship in terms of whatever he means by the phrase "subsequent failure".

Shall I allow this phrase to pass unchallenged. No mentors failed, nor was mentorship a failure.

Whatever Roger Davies meant is only another example of moving the goalposts. Yes, ArbCom failed us all again.... And yes, if someone will explain it to me, I can try to understand how and why I failed again -- but not you. Please believe that you did all that anyone could have hoped for or expected. --Tenmei (talk) 03:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Help needed

I saw you've noticed an IP-user repeatedly adding Virtual Console information n various places where such info is both false and unsourced. I have reverted his edit 4 times or more over the past week or so at Mario Party 3 and I am unsure of how to proceed further, I'm kinda new and don't want an edit-war nor 3RR ban if he starts editing more often.... plus he doesn't respond (nor probably checks) talk pages. Thanks in advance for any assistance, I'm still learning. :) (Reply here or on MP3's talk, I'm watching anyways.) Salvidrim (talk) 01:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Greetings! I wanted to answer your more specific procedural questions here. OK, you're right in being cautious about edit-warring. However, in dealing with truly disruptive edits (such as what you've shown here), admins looking into the case will probably side with you, although you still may be admonished about it. It would be more along the lines of "when X happens, do Y instead of Z" than "you shouldn't do X, and if you do again you'll be blocked/banned", but it's still something you'd probably not want to hear. So how do you deal with this?

Well, sometimes the best way to handle it is to simply revert and warn the offending IP. That's usually enough for good-intentioned editors who aren't familiar with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and reliable sourcing. If the same IP gets to the point where they've been warned enough and still do it (i.e., you've issued a Level 4 warning and they do it again), then it's time to report the IP to the admins at WP:AIV. IP-hopping editors (both the unintentional types, such as this one, and those engaged in sock-puppetry) do get a bit tricky, so if things get to a point where one of the IPs gets blocked and yet another editor in the same IP range starts it up again, more drastic measures may be needed, including range-blocks; again, that's a decision for the admins. In the unlikely event this happens, let me know and I'll help shepherd you through the process.

By the way, if you want to learn more about warning templates, go here. Also, when you get more experienced, look at WP:TWINKLE, a powerful set of tools to automate maintenance tasks, such as posting user warnings and notifying admins of problems.

Now, WP:3RR comes into play if you revert three times in a 24-hour period. If the IP is getting persistent, don't revert a 3rd time and instead try to get an admin or more experienced user involved. This should also be when you consider page protection. Post a request there, following the instructions on the page (again, an experienced user can help if you get stuck) and an admin will take a look at it for you and let you know if protecting the article is indeed warranted. Don't panic about fixing things immediately. Let the system work, and you'll generally get the necessary results, then you can fix it up later.

Feel free to contact me again if you have any problems and I'll help out. Take care, and happy editing! --McDoobAU93 04:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the clarifications, I'll start using the warning templates when reverting! In this case, I think {uw-error} is the best. Should I go up one level with each revert? If and when it comes to that point (or when I'd breach 3RR) I'll let you know so you can assist me on the admin report. Salvidrim (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I've gone through the edit history at Mario Party 3 and found all the edits coming from that same IP range. They've hit a number of articles, and while there are one or two where things might have been right, the rest weren't and have been reverted. I've flagged each one I could locate with a Level 1 warning. No more warnings should be issued until he returns and tries again, then the next level up should be issued. I've only issued one warning per IP, even if the IP had a number of uncited edits. Let's give the warnings a chance to sink in (or give the editor a chance to log in with that IP again, and thus see the warnings), and let's hope they get the message. If they don't, we'll do what's necessary to try and reason with them and protect the project. --McDoobAU93 15:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, since I'm assuming good faith and that he's probably not seeing the talk pages at all, I might try putting an invisible comment where it happens. Is that a good idea? Thanks again for all your help. Salvidrim (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Aww shucks, I was actually typing up the warning but you sniped me. :( Salvidrim (talk) 02:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Told ya Twinkle was fast. ;) --McDoobAU93 02:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I need to look into that. I'm still getting used to some intricacies of the basic Wiki. ;) Salvidrim (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Definitely look at it, but don't start using it till you get more comfortable with how things work. I didn't start for a while after I started editing. --McDoobAU93 02:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've issued a Lv4 warning at User talk:166.147.120.29... Salvidrim (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

He's been a busy little beaver, based on his user contributions. I'm going to start cleaning up, but if he posts something in this vein anytime now, after you've given the level 4 warning (his changes before that we'll just fix), we'll take care of it. Also, when undoing work, be sure to check the article history. While you removed his adding VC info to the infobox, you missed a sentence in the lead paragraph saying the same thing. Don't worry, I fixed it, and your skills will get better in time, as well. :) --McDoobAU93 16:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yea I'm still not sure how to revert two edits to a previous one (other than making a new edit to remove the stuff). If it comes to reporting or something, I'd like you to do it while I observe and probably ask questions... and seen from how he is I doubt it'll go anywhere but there. Salvidrim (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

That's part of the rollback permission. It lets you undo all of a user's consecutive edits in one mouse click, basically. Again, this is a tool that's best used after you've had some experience, and it's only granted by an admin's approval of your request for the privilege. I'll be glad to keep you posted if/when I have to report this editor ... and frankly, after he added that the game show Nickelodeon GUTS was coming to Virtual Console, that was probably the last straw. The next malicious edit and he's getting reported. I'll keep you posted. --McDoobAU93 16:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Pwahahaha, I tried to assume he was a wishful thinker and genuinely believed the games were coming to VC and not just a big troll, but I admit that last one definitely shattered any little hope I had that it was (kinda) good faith. Salvidrim (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

OKay,so I just went and reverted today's batch of "I add VC release info to anything", and issued final warnings on both 166.147.120.20 and 166.147.120.19. I think the next thing to do is all kinds of clear. Salvidrim (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That puts three IPs at level 4 (.19, .20 and .29). They're all doing the same things, and I'm keeping track of them so that when the time comes, I can see about how we can take care of all these IPs at once, although I still want to try and see if we can get through to this person. --McDoobAU93 01:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2011

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 4, No. 3 — 3rd Quarter, 2011
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q3 2011, the project has:

• 144 Featured Articles
• 48 Featured Lists
• 6 Featured Topics

• 36 A-Class Articles
• 507 Good Articles
• 10 Good Topics

---

Content

• Changes to Featured and Good content
• News items and announcements

• Feature: Final Fantasy postmortem
• Featured editor: Jinnai

---

Project Navigation

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 07:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sock reporting

Hi McDoob. I wanted to let you know that you were right to go to ANI with your suspicions about the return of BambiFan. Heck the instructions at the long term abuse page telling us to do that are in red. I thought that I would let you know that you can also add suspected sock tags to help with the SPI investigation.

• {{sockpuppet|Bambifan101}} is used for editors who have a username
• {{ipsock|Bambifan101}} is used for IPs

Usually these are added to the "user page" rather than the "user talk page" though I have seen some editors do either. If you already knew about these my apologies for taking up your time. Many thanks for your vigilance in protecting WikiP from this and other problem editors. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 05:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

No you haven't taken up any time at all. I'm always on the lookout for new tools to combat this joker. I used to turn to PMDrive and to Collectonian/Anma, but since they're not here, I guess that makes us the next generation of BF101 hunters. :) --McDoobAU93 05:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I too miss the help that both of those admins provided. I forgot to mention that if any of the editors that we tag turns out to be a sock an admin will add confirmed to the tag like this {{sockpuppet|Bambifan101|confirmed}} so you will see this kind of thing from time to time. Happy editing and enjoy your weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 05:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I know that you are busy cleaning up the mess that could have been prevented if those with the mop and bucket had just trusted us. But, I wanted to leave ya a little funny that came to me while we were chasing his nonsense. "Woof woof" which translates as thanks for being a fellow hound in chasing down that pesky fox. Ugh, bad pun I know. I also get to say thanks as your use of this tag {{db-banned|1=Bambifan101}} taught me one that I had not seen before. Now back to our regularly scheduled editing. MarnetteD | Talk 20:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Dag nab it I knew I forgot something. This rigamarole makes me think that at his next appearance we might try AIV first as long as we give them a link to the long term report. I can't guarantee anything as my experience there is unless he is editing at the moment they might blow us off to but I just thought I would mention it. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 20:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to do an AfD

I think? Anyways, I believe Nintendo DS launch should be merged into Nintendo DS. There was an AfD that resulted in Keep back in 2007, so I won't just go ahead and merge it, but I'd like to know exactly what I can do. If you don't have the time to assist and guide me just let me know, I'll ask someone else. :) (reply here) Salvidrim (talk) 03:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay; real life can get in the way sometimes. I've proposed a merge of the launch article into the main article and tagged everything appropriately (I think). This should get things started. --McDoobAU93 15:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

No worries, RL comes first. Thanks. :) Salvidrim (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Corporate Social Responsibility

I understand that the language may have been at first a little biased on the side of favouring Disney. But I've since edited for that, but why are you not letting me put up the work that they have done in this field on a year by year basis with a bulleted list?-- (talk • contribs) 11:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll be glad to answer your question. First of all, I'm a bit concerned about this entire subject, since it's relatively new and thus hasn't established any sort of long-term notability. However, the broader subject, conservation, is indeed notable and has been part of the Company's culture for some time. So in that regard, the subject should stay for now.

That said, why is there a need to list more than one or two examples of their work? I'd be okay with one or two case examples, but no more, and certainly no need for a bulleted list. Why? Two reasons. First, any more examples and we're giving excess coverage to the subject. Second, Wikipedia is not meant to include every bit of information on a given subject.

I hope that answers your question, but if you need more information, please ask and I'll do what I can. --McDoobAU93 12:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but if not a year by year list, can at least put up a bulleted list about major achievements throughout the existence of the program? Or should I make another article highlighting the work done under the heading of 'Walt Disney: Corporate Social Responsibility', or some alternative of the title?--Jinchurikidan (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you still really haven't answered my questions. Why should the article contain more than one or two examples? What, in your opinion, is the perceived benefit of having that information there? How do you believe the article is irreparably harmed by the comprehensive list not being there? As to a separate article, that's right out ... read this section for why that is. --McDoobAU93 15:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

According to the content fork it is permissible to make new articles if the Source article has already been expanded to a sufficient degree. In this case, the source article has been thoroughly expanded. And I'm not giving undue importance to it by just putting up a a bulleted list of work done. Since I'm not going in to further explanation of the work done, there should be no objection to put up these points as a basic summary of what has occurred. Thus, it still follows the guideline that it is compact and gives due attention to the topic i.e. Corporate Social Responsibility of Disney, without taking up major space in the source article.--Jinchurikidan (talk) 05:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is an objection. We've moved into what's called WP:BRD, which stands for Bold, Revert and Discuss. You've been bold to propose something, someone who has issues with the addition has reverted it, and now it's time to discuss the subject on the article's talk page. If consensus is there to add all this extra data instead of merely citing one or two examples, I won't fight it. But please take the discussion there instead of here. You are invited to make your case there explaining why all of these examples must be included and what harm is created by their not being there. --McDoobAU93 15:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

"Non-notable publicity stunt" sounds like a POV opinion to me. My edit gave both sides of a story which was reported in the national media. Checking the article history shows that you often revert war IP edits that you don't approve of, which you admit to doing from a POV in your edit summaries. Could you please tell me where I can get permission to edit your article? 67.52.144.60 (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but any rational reader will understand that the United States Constitution was never intended to apply to animals. PETA is simply wasting the time of the court, and they know it. They got what they wanted, some ink/press/bandwidth, and that's all they were after. Feel free to add this to PETA's article if you want, however. For what it's worth, I have no problem with legitimate criticism of SeaWorld, since it does belong in the article ... this isn't legitimate. --McDoobAU93 18:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Re internet polls

Is metacritic an internet polling site? Not sure why an internet poll is not a valid source about a video game after all surely the public vote for what they like and that is what ratings are, are we supposed to be judging above what ordinary people vote for? I thought the idea of wiki was that sources had to be 'verifiable'...ie that they could be verified by another wiki editor. As you say the addition was made in good faith, Angry birds is the most popular game for iphone, this site simply confirms the popular vote, maybe it would be better as a ref? I welcome your view on internet polls Pamela Gardiner (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Metacritic is a review aggregator and not an Internet poll. From their About page: "Metacritic's proprietary Metascore distills the opinions of the most respected critics writing online and in print to a single number." Please note the phrase "respected critics". This means that the reviews presented are from notable critics whose job it is to review media.

An Internet poll is simply a way to let people click a link and register their opinion. Many such sites have no limit to the number of times one can vote for something, thus encouraging users to vote early and vote often. It's remarkably easy to game the system, through canvassing on social networking sites or tweets, etc. For example, it would be possible to produce a favorite movies poll that declares Plan 9 from Outer Space to be the greatest American movie of all time, above and beyond such true classics as Casablanca and Citizen Kane, simply by encouraging friends on Facebook and Twitter to vote for Plan 9 because it'd be cool to do so.

Verifiability is just one component of a good source for a Wikipedia article. The other is reliability, and an Internet poll certainly isn't very reliable, simply because of the number of ways the results can be twisted, either for or against what's being polled. I hope this answers your question, but I am open to additional comments/concerns as well.

--McDoobAU93 16:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for you help and clarification on this, I didnt realise metacritic was an aggregate score, but think you misunderstand the site I referred to. If you look at 'How it works you will see that it is not in that sense an internet poll as you have described, because it is a site where the lists are compiled by expert editors and where the vote is protected. People cannot vote more than once, registration is required.Pamela Gardiner (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, of course. The whole point of assume good faith is to explain that while what you were adding was intended to support the article, there was a reason it couldn't be used, hence these explanations. I did look at the page you provided, but unfortunately it still has a component where users can still vote and determine how things are listed. Even if registration is required, there would be nothing stopping me from creating one account using a Gmail address, one with a Yahoo! address, one with a Hotmail address, etc. Further, the notability of this site hasn't been established; the website itself says it's in beta form, whereas Metacritic has been around for years (relatively speaking). Here's another point: Metacritic does indeed allow users to voice their own opinions. However, the only component Wikipedia articles use is the aggregate critics' score, not the user scores, and Metacritic's site itself posts the scores separately. --McDoobAU93 16:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, you are right, the site does appear to be in beta testing! Not sure about your reasoning re public vote though, after all for all its faults in a democracy we are governed by it. Have you ever heard of The All Time Top 1000 Albums.. that was also based on the public vote, but is nonetheless widely regarded as definitive. Point taken re notability. Thanks for your help. Pamela Gardiner (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

No apologies necessary, Pamela. And while "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried", Wikipedia is not a democracy. That said, the book you cite would indeed potentially be a reliable source for music articles as it's published, which is a good (but not the only) criteria for a reliable source to have. Admittedly, the whole reliability and verifiability issue can be re-evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but the guidelines to both haven't changed much over the years. Again, you're quite welcome, and I hope you continue contributing to the project! :) --McDoobAU93 17:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help with the article. I was going off news in forums, so I just searched for a news article about it afterwards for the source. Thanks for the help. --Josh (Mephiles602) 18:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Mario Party 3 IP-vandal

It looks like he's back... 166.147.114.2 , within the same range as the previously banned ones (User talk:166.147.112.7#Cross-IP-range vandalism, has added VC-release info to Mario Party 3... Salvidrim (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Eustress has already indef-blocked it. She's quick! --McDoobAU93 05:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I also left her a message at the same time. :p Salvidrim (talk) 05:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Great job taking care of it so fast! That's what I get for having a life, not being here to see it ;) ... May need to see about getting you trained in spotting Bambifan101 socks. That monster's been the bane of way too many editors of Disney-themed articles. --McDoobAU93 05:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite a read. Salvidrim (talk) 05:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Ad [1]

Cool. Thanks, mate :). Sir Lothar (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Most welcome ... I'd seen enough of the revert war, so I did some digging and found the best reliable source that all but said the DS Lite remains in production. I figured that "continue to be offered on the U.S. market" would be sufficient proof for anyone. --McDoobAU93 19:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The Sword in the Stone

All other Disney articles have the year in it. CuriousWikian590 (talk) 11:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please look again ... some films do, such as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film), because there is also an article for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1955 film). Most do not, because of one of three reasons: first, the film is the only use of that name, therefore no disambiguation is needed (see The Rescuers Down Under); second, there is another work, but the Disney film is much more well-known (see The Fox and the Hound and The Fox and the Hound (novel)); or, the other work is the more well-known of the two (see The Sword in the Stone (film) and The Sword in the Stone, the latter of which links to the book upon which the former is based). The only reason the year would be needed in the article name would be if there is another article on another film whose title is The Sword in the Stone. As of right now, no such article exists. If an older film is found (and an article is produced for same) or a new film is announced for production, then the article would need to be moved to a name including the year it was produced.

So, saying "all other" articles have it isn't correct. On the contrary, the name now fits the convention of all other Wikipedia film articles, not just Disney articles. Please read this section on how film articles should be named, and feel free to contact me again if you have any other questions or concerns. --McDoobAU93 16:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not know any other Sleeping Beauty or Cinderella films and they say the year in it. CuriousWikian590 (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see Sleeping Beauty (2011 film) and Cinderella (1899 film), Cinderella (1914 film) and Cinderella (1994 film), among others. --McDoobAU93 15:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please take a look at Cinderella (disambiguation)#Film and television and Sleeping Beauty (disambiguation)#Film where you will see numerous films with the names that you mention. Since you have only been editing under your current username for just over a month you should be aware that there are a lot of ins and outs to page moves. They have effect on links and articles that you may not be aware of. I would suggest that you focus on other areas of editing while you learn how things work and if you have any pages that you think should be moved that you put in a request here Wikipedia:Requested moves and let more experienced editors check on the merits of your ideas. Hi Mcdoob you can see that I was typing this while you were making your reply. I thought that I would add it anyway in hopes that I have enhanced your reply. Have a great Turkey Day tomorrow. MarnetteD | Talk 15:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

CuriousWikian, Marnette brings up a good point (and usually does). Half the fun of Wikipedia is learning about things we didn't know existed. For instance, I didn't know there was an 1899 film version of Cinderella until I looked it up. When you added the year to the name of Sword in the Stone, I took a look and couldn't find any other film version, hence no need for the year in the article name. With more Wiki experience, you'll get to be an old hand at spotting appropriate and excessive page naming.

No worries, Marnette. That was a good expansion of thought. Your input is always welcome on my talk page. And a good "gobble, gobble" to you too :) --McDoobAU93 15:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi M. Sadly this CuriousWikian590 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) turned out to be another garden variety troll/vandal who was just messing around. The Disney page moves had me sniffing for Bambifan but then it branched off into zoo articles and when it returned as IP's 122.109.239.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) they geolocated to New South Wales. Now Bambifan is from the south but not that far south :-) Ah well our AGF was thrown back in our face which is why I like the phrase "AGF is not a suicide pact" but at least we did our bit. Cheers and back to normal editing. MarnetteD | Talk 19:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I did see that, and yeah, it was worth a shot. But such is life. Back to the grind, my friend. --McDoobAU93 19:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikia

Do you go too the Wikia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.17.131 (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

VC vandal is back

Under IP 66.153.221.194, has added VC release info to Mario Party 3 and other TV-based videogames. --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 18:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

MuZemike has already blocked the IP for 31 hours. I'm wondering if this is the same vandal on vacation and thus using another dynamic IP. --McDoobAU93 19:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I had notified MuZemike also, he protected Mario Party 3 for 3 months too, just thought I'd let you know. And from the pattern, I strongly believe there is no doubt it is the same IP. --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 19:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I concur ... targeting the same articles. Now, that said, there actually appears to be some possibility that The Simpsons Arcade Game may indeed be on the way to the various online services. The source cited even says it's speculating based on what's been submitted to Australia's variant of the ESRB. But, that info wasn't added by our friend here. --McDoobAU93 20:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I know nothing of that. But along with his other targets about South Park and Beavis & Butthead, it seems to fall in the same vein of american TV cartoons. --Salvidrim! ^T·_C 20:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Jaws closing

Hello. I am messaging you out of curiousity due to your recent message concerning the closing of "Jaws" on Talk:List of former Universal Studios Florida attractions. I was wondering if you could elaborate on how Universal would alter their plans concerning the closing before January 2nd. While I myself am disappointed to see the attraction go (own opinions), the past history seems to indicate Universal executives would most likely move forward with their plans for removing Jaws and Amity. In the past, much controversy and protest erupted over the closings of Kongfrontation and Back to the Future: The Ride, yet the park moved forward with closing them. I was simply curious why you believe the park may alter their plans before the closing of Jaws. Thanks!--Snowman Guy (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

My only point is that things might change. Not that they will or that I expect them to (considering they announced its closure 30 days in advance), but that they still could. Basically, nothing is set in stone with these things. --McDoobAU93 06:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Xbox 360 system software

Hey, just wanted to let you know that I undid your reversion on Xbox 360 system software and added a reference, just because I happened to see one. If you want to undo this, or it gets updated, please feel free. Just wanted to notify you so it didn't seem like I was trying to edit war with you or anything. - SudoGhost 21:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider adding a valid source as edit-warring. No harm done; if anything, you improved the article, so thanks! :) --McDoobAU93 21:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to cover all my bases. :) - SudoGhost 21:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Concerning that IP...

Since you seem to have noticed him, you might be interested in User:Salvidrim/Tailsman67, where I've tried to keep track of his IP-hopping, bans, cases, and such. :) Salvidrim! 20:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It fits within the IP range you've identified, as does the edit style. This is quacking quite loudly, so I just raised the stakes on the talk page of this new IP. --McDoobAU93 20:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The IP he is currently using is on the list, indeed. I however sincerely believe he does not intentionally change IPs, but nonetheless abuses the fact it changes frequently. And it does not excuse his behaviour anyways. Hopefully the warnings will have some impact... Salvidrim! 20:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, somewhere along one of my conversations with him, he bragged about how he could change his IP if he refreshed Firefox enough times, or something like that. Seemed to show bad intent, if you ask me.. Sergecross73 msg me 20:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I looked a bit deeper into the 98.71 address range. It does indeed locate to the Pensacola area. I know the Geolocate says Birmingham, but if you decode the "PNS ADSL CBB" bit, it's still located in Pensacola. It's our duck. --McDoobAU93 21:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

He indicated he lived in Pensacola, but I'm not ready to take his word for it. ;) Seems like it might be accurate. The only IPs I am confirming are one he claims to be his, or mentions Tailsman67 with. I am sure there are others. Salvidrim! 21:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thats because he does I been to his house. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.62.146 (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The key to a good SPI and/or rangeblock will be proving that the user has access to all the addresses from which they're editing. Since they're all in/near Pensacola, that's enough. --McDoobAU93 21:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Warning editors

Whilst I appreciate your efforts and good faith desire to stop disruption, comments like these with words like "violation" are only likely to inflame an editor (who already apologised when I nudged him more gently I might add). Don't get me wrong - the IP editor is currently verging on a block, but a deep breath and a little less all bold "you will be blocked" is likely to help at this time - and if it doesn't then we did our best. Pedro :  Chat  22:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is certainly noted. I do my best to assume good faith and work with editors who are becoming a handful, because I do want them to stay and contribute to the project. However, this particular editor has quite a history of late and is well beyond AGF. --McDoobAU93 22:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Per what you just wrote on my talk page, although being bad is a necessary characteristic of an edit to be called vandalism, it is not sufficient. Can you define a bad edit that is not vandalism?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I started to write a response, but took a look at his talk page, and saw that you already linked him to WP:GOODFAITH, and he's been warned/talked to up and down his talk page about his mis-use of the term, so I don't really know how to break it down any further than already has been... FYI Sergecross73 msg me 15:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism II

Look at the edit summary I made to a recent edit of List of Disney theatrical animated features. Georgia guy (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That is much better. If this IP editor were to make this edit again very shortly, I'd ask them to take it to the talk page before trying to change it again, because at that point it's starting to become disruptive. You explained why that wasn't appropriate instead of labeling it vandalism, so that's definitely moving in the right direction. --McDoobAU93 15:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Do I still need to be moved up further?? If so, please explain. Georgia guy (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "moved up further". As in the type of notice being issued to the IP, or something else? --McDoobAU93 16:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You say I'm "moving in the right direction"; do I still need to be moved even further?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I mean that your edit summaries are improving. Earlier, I suspect you would have labeled that edit as vandalism. This time, you were being constructive. --McDoobAU93 17:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, McDoobAU93/Archive. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Salvidrim! 18:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh, it's been taken care of -- until next time. Salvidrim! 20:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Tis the season

MarnetteD | Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec11}} to your friends' talk pages.

Many thanks for all your work here at WikiP. I hope that you have a Superb 2012. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 22:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Wishes

File:Wikisanta-no motto.png

McDoobAU93/Archive, I wish you a a Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and all the usual holiday wishes. Good food, good health and good times. :) Salvidrim! 05:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Where's My Water?

A Merry Christmas - and other winter festivities Victuallers (talk) 08:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)