User talk:McDoobAU93

The term "canon"

Sorry, I don't know how to speak to you but what is wrong with Canon? Why do you have the authority to control the Disney page may I ask McDoob? What is wrong with that term? That is what the films are collectively called. Why can't I change the Rapunzel page? It is the 50th film in the CANON. I did not write anything derogatory or wrong, I wanted to change it to reflect the canon. It has to be 'produced by the studio' because you wrote it like that right? It is the 50th film, from the official Disney Animation website. What is the difference? It is cited on the main List of Disney theatrical animated features, I have to cite the fact that it is a part of the canon? Maybe you can do that since you control everything? I may note that the official website does not state 'Official List' so it's just your own choice right? I remember before that it was Official Canon, which sounds better to me. Admit it, you control the wording of everything. You just don't want anyone else messing up your work. I apologize if I am being rude, but you are just hiding behind the fact that I didn't cite anything. Cite what? When I change one word from list to canon when you already wrote it is named the canon?

04:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

More fun...

Consider the IP blocked. It isn't Bambifan, but he's still being a pain. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again!

I really, really appreciate that you thought to watch my back regarding that stupidity on my user page. Owe you yet again. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, and while I'm at it:

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For genuine kindness and thoughtfulness in regards to the recent reversions of vandalism on my talk page, it is my pleasure to award this Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar to McDoobAU93. Thank you for your help. It is very much appreciated! Regards, PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship

I write because your name is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab. I wonder if you might consider joining others in sharing the burden of a mentorship committee for me?

Perhaps you might consider taking a look at an old edit at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences? In the search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I cite this as a plausible context for discussing what I have in mind.

Please contact me by e-mail or on my talk page. --Tenmei (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and consideration. As a gesture of appreciation, may I share a rhetorical question from the Analects of Confucius: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?"

Please contact me via Wikipedia's e-mail function. I would like to introduce myself in an off-wiki setting. --Tenmei (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Two rakan evoke a teachable moment, searching together for a focal point?

Thank you for your willingness to participate in a mentorship group. Please replace your username with your signature (four tildes ~~~~) in the list of "active mentors" at User talk:Tenmei/Sub-page Alerts. This is necessary step in a constructive direction.

You may find that what I'm asking for is probably less than you imagine in the short term, or perhaps more than you anticipate in the long term. --Tenmei (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Adoption

Hey McDoob. Sorry it has taken me so long to reply, but I've been busy and haven't been able to come on the site. Anyway, thank you very much for the offer, and I would like to accept. In terms of what I want to learn, I know the basics of writing pages, and I use correct grammar and stuff, but my work usually lack citations. I would like to learn about how to put them in properly (as I usually make some silly mistake) and what types of websites i can use as sources. For example, on my page Heathland School I did not use any citations. Would the school website be a reliable source, or would it be too biased? Is an Ofsted report reliable enough? These are the sorts of issues I would like to learn about. Thanks, Chindit96 (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your warm welcome. In response to your question, Ofstead is a government department that inspects schools, and the inspectors are approved by Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II. I think they inspect schools once every five or six years, though I'm not certain. Anyway, I think they are propably going to be as unbiased as it gets. In other news, I enjoy video games so I may probably be editing a bit on games for Playstation 3 (though forget my edit on Barbie Horse Adventures). Anyway, thanks again, and I hope you will be able to help me with any problems in the future. Chindit96 (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I had a feeling it was some official report, and that would indeed be a reliable source for information on your school. Incidentally, a source does not necessarily have to be on the web to be considered a reliable one. If you have a published book, or an article in your local newspaper, those can be cited as well. The formatting for each form of citation is very similar, and I'll be sure to go over that with you.

I looked at your edits on Barbie Horse Adventures and you by all means did the right thing, although, in fairness, these edits weren't necessarily pure vandalism. Yes, they were not constructive and did not help the article, and you were 100% correct in undoing/reverting them. However, one thing we try and do here is give new users the benefit of the doubt ... that is, we assume good faith. Most likely, the people who added that stuff there were just playing around, and didn't really mean any harm. In those cases, a quick undo and a short note on the editor's talk page is enough. Now, if they had just erased everything on the page for no reason, then that would be vandalism.

Patrolling for vandalism is something I do a lot ... I keep track of close to 500 articles and user pages, and fortunately the vast majority of edits made are done in good faith. I assume that you've discovered the Watchlist, which will help you see when an article you're monitoring has changed. That's a very valuable tool here, in my opinion.

Anyway, feel free to contact me here with any questions or problems. I'll try and respond as quickly as I can, either here or on your talk page.

--McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Running Man

I'll find some sources when I have the time. 76.189.162.7 (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't gonna add again until I found sources 76.189.162.7 (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Pixar film release dates

I see you changed Cars 2's release date. Is either The Bear and the Bow or Newt (film) on your watchlist?? Please check out the talk pages of these articles. Georgia guy (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

You are attacking me and taking off everything that I post. Example: The Kingdom Keepers Game is actually being made and is not a "controversial edit". I was just wondering what your problem was and why you keep deleting my posts and contributions. I take what you post on my talk page as if you are attacking me. You need to stop. Can you please tell me the place where I can file a report? Bellagio2 (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that you are not citing verifiable and reliable sources for your edits. Twitter, fan-blogs, unofficial sites and such do not count as reliable sources. Local newspapers, television stations, major news sites (like CNN or Fox News) are all reliable sources and should be cited when making such edits.

Honestly, I believe you're working in good faith, but uncited is still uncited. If you have proof of your edits, then I'll be glad to help keep them there. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If you visit the future game website, you will find that it leads to his website. Also, if you look at the top of the Kingdom Keepers Wiki site you will see that is says "As stated on his twitter account, there are rumors of a Kingdom Keepers attraction coming to Walt Disney World. It was also announced that there will be a Kingdom Keepers game." Why not get rid of that then?Bellagio2 (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I followed the link ... that's a Flash game to promote the book. There's nothing to indicate a separate, stand-alone game is being prepared. And yes, I will remove the info on the WDW attraction because there is no proof of it, either. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Um... what flash game. I'm talking about thekingdomkeepers.com. I have no clue what you are talking about. Bellagio2 (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, please post a link here on my talk page that leads directly to the mention of a game. I went to TheKingdomKeepers.com and it was a redirect to Pearson's website. I'll be glad to look at whatever you're trying to cite as a source. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well... Here is his twitter: http://twitter.com/RidleyPearson. I'll check his blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellagio2 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Like I said in the edit summary, Twitter is not considered a reliable source for an encyclopedia. The author's personal blog isn't going to be much better, I'm sorry to say. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

So what should you do if you are absolutely positive that it is true? Any suggestions?Bellagio2 (talk) 03:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If it is absolutely positively true, then you should have no trouble at all finding a verifiable and reliable source stating that. Look, I can gather you're a fan of Pearson's work, and probably Disney in general. You're making edits as a fan, not as an editor of an encyclopedia. I think you can become the latter without much trouble, because you are interested in the subject and want to share your knowledge about it. However, an encyclopedia is based on facts, not rumors, thoughts, musings, wishes, etc.

If Disney was actively designing a Kingdom Keepers attraction, then they missed a golden opportunity at the D23 Expo to discuss it. They may well be, but like so many attractions Disney has actively worked on, such as the Switzerland and Spanish World Showcase pavilions or Thunder Mesa in Frontierland or even Beastly Kingdom, they may never come to be. Similarly, if a game is being developed, it may well get to the beta stage before Disney decides it won't sell well and pulls the plug.

--McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. However, when you say "it may well get to the beta stage before Disney decides it won't sell well and pulls the plug." you are implying that the game won't come through. How do you know that? Bellagio2 (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it will or it won't, my friend. It was a hypothetical situation. Speaking purely on video games, history is loaded with vaporware, games that are heavily touted, but never materialize. People's tastes change, markets change. What I mean is that assuming that Disney (or someone working for them) is indeed preparing a game based on Kingdom Keepers, several things could happen:

• Everything could work out fine, Disney releases the game and makes money.
• The game may not be working out, but Disney still wants to release something, so they go back to the drawing board and start over. The next version works fine and is released and makes money.
• The game may not be working out, and Disney decides to cut its losses and cancel the game.

Again, any one of these things could happen during the development cycle, and could happen before the first published information hits the internet or a newspaper. That's why we don't post rumors or speculation, or even posts from a hopeful author eager to see his work take other forms.

--McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I am not exactly a fan of his or disney's work... I just finished reading his book. I looked him up and read his Twitter. I was surprised it wasn't on the Wikipedia site, so I decided to update it. Quick Question, is it against wiki's rules to talk against someone else's work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellagio2 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Bellagio2 (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, fair enough ... bad assumption on my part, but the core points remain. No worries. :) Anyway to your question. If you're saying "talk against someone else's work", what do you mean, specifically? Do you mean something critical of Mr. Pearson's books, or someone critical of your edits? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Just in general. Like if you just come back from a movie or something. Can you mention if it was a great movie or a horrible movie on your talk page? Bellagio2 (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC) (Sorry a little off topic)

Nothing is off-topic on my user page, my friend. Feel free to ask anything you like, and I'll answer it. I'm really not trying to be a killjoy, especially because I made the same sorts of edits here when I first started. I made edits based on stuff I knew 100% to be true ... but for Wikipedia, that doesn't necessarily make it so. Look at it this way, you're following one of Wikipedia's main rules: be bold! We'll help you work out the rest. :)

To answer the question, your user page is just that, yours. While there is nothing in the rules saying you can't post such things, be mindful that Wikipedia is not a social networking site or a blog site. But if you come back from seeing The Lightning Thief tomorrow (or this weekend) and wanna say how cool it was (or how much it sucked) on your user page, you can do so without fear of reprisal or getting it deleted or whatever. You just can't add such stuff to the movie's article here, or to its talk page (as that is using the article's talk page as a forum, something it shouldn't be used for).

--McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!!! Sorry about posting something off topic here though. Bellagio2 (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well the subheading is "Question", and that was a question, so I wouldn't call it off-topic. :) --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Haha thanks!!! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellagio2 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome ... and no hard feelings, I hope. None here, I promise you. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeh no hard feelings. Sorry about that post the other day. I really did not mean it because at first I thought it was an automated message and I was dealing with a computer. Bellagio2 (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Feel free to contact me anytime if you have questions or problems or whatever, and I'll do what I can. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I guess I'll talk to you later!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellagio2 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey... hows everything. After this conversation I became a fan of Pearson's work. Just wanted to say they have beta testers applications. Does that count yet? I would post the link.. but wiki wouldn't let me. Bellagio2 (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm, again it depends on who's saying it. Technically, Wikipedia is not a marketing company, so it's not our business to help the company attract beta testers. That said, if a gaming publication prints an article about the game, then perhaps it could be added. That's the third-party published report that makes for a good reliable source. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok.. Thanks!!! I'll keep my eyes open. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellagio2 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Found the actual site. http://kingstage.revereserviceportal.com/forum/ Bellagio2 (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice to be back...I think...

Yeah, I happened to see that idiocy from the sidelines. I was away last weekend and dropped by Collectonian's talk page and contribs on my cell phone. When I saw that idiot's latest attempt, I almost let out a litany of cursing that would have made a sailor blush. In any event, we've blocked four BellSouth ranges and his school IP. If he does pop up, odds are it'll be from the computer of some poor sap he managed to talk into letting him use. He is truly a sorry case; one can only hope he grows out of this. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Looks more like "lost newbie" than vandal. Based on what I saw, you're doing fine with helping to guide him. I don't have time to step in, but I'll sure do so when I have a moment. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback.

Hello, McDoobAU93. You have new messages at Eagles247's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Dueling Dragons closure

Hey there. I'd just thought I'd mention that a post on the IOA screamscape page stated that an insider found that Dueling Dragons would close on February 26 and would be replaced by Dragon Challenge when Wizarding World opens in Spring. Would it be possible to find a verifiable source which could be added to the article? Also, if the attraction is closed on Feb. 26, do you think it would be reasonable to have two seperate articles for Dueling Dragons and Dragon Challenge, in the vein of the Flying Unicorn and Flight of the Hippogriff articles? thanks. --Snowman Guy (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, there should only be one article for each. In each case, when the changeover is made and the attraction is operational, the bulk of the single article will be to discuss the current version of the attraction (i.e., the Potter version). A subheading under each should discuss what it was before (i.e., the Lost Continent version). The articles for both versions of Unicorn should be merged, since they're basically the same thing. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of re-themed versions, Aren't the Unicorn to Hippogriff and Dueling to Challenge versions similar to the Earthquake to Disaster and Hanna-Barbera to Jimmy Neutron versions at the Studios park? What is your opinion on these articles?--Snowman Guy (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If the physical ride structure and experience did not change and the only difference is themeing and a name change, then all information should remain in a single article. The article can be moved to the new name, but as long as there's nothing notably different that can't be handled in a "history" section, then there's no reason to split. Case in point: the Tower of Terror rides at WDW, DL, and TDL, are significantly different ride mechanics and storylines, but all three are included into a single article. Your USO examples above are different attractions that just happened to be housed in the same building as the previous incarnations. SpikeJones (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that ... I've done my best to keep Dueling Dragons from being cloned as Dragon Challenge, but I wasn't able to prevent the cloning of Flying Unicorn into Flight of the Hippogriff. I've tagged both with a merger proposal, but haven't had any comments yet. If you'd like to weigh in, feel free to do so. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom process

Is this something you need to know? Your name is included in a new posting at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks Noticeboard#Discussion/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Tang Dynasty? As for what happens next, we'll see? --Tenmei (talk) 08:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

As you know, ArbCom remedies in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty implied a multi-step process; however, no protocols for confirming mentors were suggested. In the absence of specifics, User:Mattisse/Plan was taken as an arguably relevant procedural model. Accordingly, a draft plan and list of mentors was e-mailed to each ArbCom member and redundantly posted at WP:AC/CN. This seems not to have worked.

I have now sought "approval" at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Tang Dynasty. This message is necessary because the standard template requires me to confirm notifying you. --Tenmei (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom member Coren has suggested, "It would be helpful if the editors put forward as proposed mentors would chime in here before any decision is made ...."

I will follow-up with an e-mail; and I'll explain that John Carter has been inexplicably off-wiki since late December. --Tenmei (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll be glad to assist any way I can. I looked at the ArbCom page and don't see much I can really respond to yet. If I'm missing something, please let me know. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

In this confirmation/approval procedure, I simply don't know what is expected or wanted. For example, I wondered if what I wrote about John Carter was too much or just enough?

It is probably true that the members of ArbCom haven't really thought it through. My optimistic guess is that it probably doesn't matter what you write as long as you write something.

Consider this: American expatriate Gertrude Stein grew up in Oakland, California; and she famously quipped about her hometown, "there's no there there."

"What was the use of my having come from Oakland it was not natural to have come from there yes write about if I like or anything if I like but not there, there is no there there." – Everybody's Autobiography (1937), chapter 4.

It could be that Coren thinks it will help his peers to read anything which reveals that for each of my proposed mentors there is something "there there"?

Perhaps it will help to read what Jmh649 and Kraftlos posted at WP:A/R/C#Tang Dynasty/Statement by other user? --Tenmei (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

diz villains

FYI - facilier will probably need to be added to the list at some point, as he is a featured character in an upcoming cruise stage show; depends on the implementation and longevity, perhaps. but it's still a future item, if at all. SpikeJones (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering the relative success of the movie, I'm sure Facilier would fit right into the program. I'll keep my eyes out for anything on it, so thanks for the heads-up. You been following the kerfuffle over at Tangled, er, Rapunzel? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Oy. Planned to stay out of it. My opinion: it was in Variety, so it counts as a citable source. Bigger issue is that the page probably shouldn't have even been created yet per FILM:MOS, but there does seem to be enough info to warrant a page anyway.SpikeJones (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That was my thought, but everyone's still wigging out about it appearing on Facebook first. For what it's worth Disney's marketing department hasn't caught up yet, which is making matters worse, really. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep throwing back that Twitter, Facebook, and other self-published blogs are not valid references for WP. Variety, on the other hand, is. Doesn't matter to me that Variety is referencing FB as their source - that's Variety's issue, not WP's. (oh, and see the note above on the dragons, too) SpikeJones (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

How mentoring will work

As you know, Roger Davies seeks more information from the mentors about how mentoring will work.

I hope these words will help "prime" the pump. I believe that what can be done in pre-planning has been accomplished. We will be figuring it out together as the future unfolds. A restatement is straightforward:

• An initial editing strategy based on a theory of wiki-pacifism was suggested by the userpage of Leujohn in Hong Kong.
• Fasten in Germany suggested that I tentatively adopt pacifist tactics as an experiment derived from salutary premises which I posted at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unanticipated Consequences, especially the words of a famous German:

We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. — Albert Einstein

In the absence of any better alternative, I agreed; however, a willingness to experiment with a novel tactic represents only a superficial change. This is useful as an exploratory gambit, but not transformative. I am not persuaded that pacifist action is workable even in this experimental approach, but we'll see.

The Latin axiom qui tacet consentire videtur is mirrored in WP:Silence + WP:Consensus. In our wiki-context, I would like to find a way to construe pacifist non-confrontation ≠ WP:Silence. In resolving these seeming contradictions, the mentors' points-of-view are essential. Together we will discover otherwise unrecognized alternatives.

In the context of this specific issue, Xavexgoem has agreed to be a non-public mentor. "Finding of facts" in the decision at Tang Dynasty encompassed User talk:Xavexgoem/archive5#Seeking help in presenting thoughts clearly. Xavexgoem's experience in mediation will help remedy an arguable deficit in the composition of our small group. Core policies are the tools at hand; and Xavexgoem agreed to help connect the dots in hopes that it could benefit more than me.

Does this help you make better guesses about how mentorship will work? --Tenmei (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

SeaWorld incident

I appreciate you following my advice and taking this to the talk page. That said, adding the information back into the article, then discussing whether it should be kept or not is not the best form possible. However, I am willing to go on good faith and will not undo the change. Instead, I will register my vote on the talk page and go from there. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I also appreciate your advice, however, how can we "discuss" anything without the statement being in the article. Additionally this is how is supposed to be done. I would suggest that you read Wikipedia:Dispute#Focus_on_content "When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral." If the item is under dispute is should be kept in until a concusses is reached, not arbitrarily deleted.ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm an adherent of WP:BRD, which while not an official policy, is a pretty solid guideline for controversial edits. You were bold in making the change to the article, an editor reverted your change for a reason, at which point the article remains in its original pre-edit state (the status quo) during the discussion to add the item. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

We obvouldy disagee. I do not agree that added the statement I did was bold. I would suggest you read Wikipedia:3RR#Reverting, "Reverting throws away proposed changes by the other editor (even those made in good faith and for well intentioned reasons), rather than improving upon them or working with the editor to resolve any differences of opinion. Therefore reverting is not to be undertaken without good reason.ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The good reason is that the information is not related to the context of this particular article, per WP:IINFO. As to 3RR, that's why I stopped reverting and went to discussion. You, on the other hand, continue editing with abandon to keep your point of view in the article *tsk, tsk*. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The only editing I have done has been done in an attempt to find a compromise. Something you have been unwilling to do. You have used the revert function to "editing with abandon to keep your point of view in the article *tsk, tsk*". According to your own WP:BRD "BRD is most useful for pages where seeking consensus would be difficult, perhaps because it is not clear which other editors are watching or sufficiently interested in the page, though there are other suitable methods." At no point have you attempted in any fashion to find a consensus. It comes down to I think it is relevant and should be included and you don't. That is why I have request third party discussion.ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The consensus on the article is "SeaWorld Parks only," hence the heading Incidents at SeaWorld parks. Further discussion is fine ... I've requested full page protection and revert to pre-dispute status in order to force additional discussion, as well. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Good, I already request third party discussion. That's what I wanted, someone else opinion.ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I know other editors who follow these articles will be on later today or this evening, so we'll get additional input. Whatever consensus decides, I'll defend. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That's all I have been asking for. Also, your statment "Discussion was started, but conflicting editor then continues modifying article despite a "cease fire" is blatantly false. The only editing done has been done in an attempt to find a compromise with you which was to move it to the reference section. I started the discussion,not you, and the only "cease fire" was made by myself when I requested third party discussion, No modifications have been made since then.ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, timetable doesn't work out that way. Request for discussion was made in edit summary here at 15:35 UTC. Discussion began here at 16:18. After that, instead of remaining on the talk page, you proceed to restore your edits here at 16:20. You then added your "third-party opinion" tag here at 17:13. Between 15:35 and 17:13, the only edits I made were: here, to fix an unrelated terminology problem, at 15:40; and here, to remove the individual's name per previous consensus, again unrelated to your change, at 16:37. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You never requested any discussion when you deleted what I added at 15:35 UTC. Look at the talk page I started it. You are trying to distort the fact to make this appear the way you want. The only changes I made (other then correcting my crappy spelling) was to put back what you deleted (as it's supposed to be done per Wikipedia:Dispute#Focus_on_content), move the statement to the reflist in an attempt to make you happy, and add the box asking to third party opinion, nothing more. Do a comparison between them. You have never asked for discussion or offered any kind of compromise. You arbitrarily have made your own decision for everyone else. I have counted a lot more people who believe that the name of the person who was killed should be in there then don't. Yet you insist on removing it. Consensus means more then what you think in right. I hope that they do protect the page so other is allowed to contribute. ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Please review the edit summary at 15:35 and get back to me. Now, the methodology for discussion of controversial edits is to work from the status quo and discuss that, which is not what you did. Every edit is retained, so anyone could review the changes to see the differences and then make an opinion. Nothing has been distorted, and I never said that you didn't start it. The link specifically shows that you did make the edit initiating your point of view on the discussion. Then, two minutes later, you add your point-of-view right back without consensus being reached, followed by a request for third-opinion an hour later, which, by point of the discussion being present on the talk page, had already been initiated ... I requested it, you started the talk discussion. Again, the consensus at the start is that the article discusses SeaWorld Parks only, so I am not acting unilaterally; you are attempting to change consensus to state that incidents at other parks should be included. Well, the page is locked down now, and other editors will start appearing and leave their comments. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"Consensus" - An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole." If the group as a whole says the name goes in (ironically I don't think it should but for a different reason) then why is it not there, only because you keep taking it out. Just because you use the words “It’s a "consensus" doesn’t make it so. I asked for a Consensus by asking for the opinion or position to be reached by the group as a whole. Then you accuse me of "modifying article despite a "cease fire"" because I add that box asking for that opinion. Just because you decided that something shouldn't go in doesn’t mean it's a consensus. Wikipedia:Dispute#Focus_on_content clearly says the deleting the way you did is wrong. Since it is protected, now someone else gets a chance to put in there opinion instead of someone like you dictating to everyone what you want. I'm done with you.

Recent Vandalism To SeaWorld

I just wanted to let you know you shouldn't remove information without checking to see if its factual first. I have not seen any rule about this anywhere on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SeaWorld&action=historysubmit&diff=346223778&oldid=346223491 97.96.2.74 (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing, but that removal is policy, not vandalism. If you need more info, please see the discussion on that related INCIDENTS' TALK page. SpikeJones (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Mentoring task force

McDoobAU93 -- This text could be added to my statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification?

Doing nothing is an option; but what is best? My deference and patience during the six months in which ArbCom dawdled was unrewarded; and silence appears to have defined me as a dupe. Now I have endured an further three months in limbo. ArbCom radicalizes when its mission should have been to encourage quite opposite goals. --Tenmei (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Supplementary statement

In Afghanistan, an American mentor watches a graduation ceremony for women who learned to raise bees and chickens as part of a women's empowerment program

A task force is established to work on a single defined task or activity. Drawing lessons from the photo at the right: If wiki-"mentoring" is at all like teaching Afghan women to raise bees and chickens, delay produces neither honey nor eggs.

A "mentoring task Force" (MTF) for me is a more topical or timely name than "mentorship committee." The word "task" emphasises our short- and long-term objectives; and the identified volunteers have been waiting too long to begin addressing specific tasks-at-hand.

The most widely publicized examples of on-going mentoring are linked with the phrase "task force." For example, NATO's Operational Mentor and Liaison Teams (OMLTs) are an important part of its contribution towards stabilizing Afghanistan. Australia's military programme in Afghanistan has been re-named Mentoring Task Force (MTF) concurrent with deployments in 2010. The Canadian mentoring programme in Afghanistan appears controversial precisely because of allegations that the Harper governent is waiting too long to get started — see Matthew Fisher, "Canada may have painted itself into corner in Afghanistan," The Gazette (Montreal). March 12, 2010.

A Google search for the phrase "mentoring task force" produces a range non-military hits, including an American Anthropological Association report in 2009 which ends with the words "Don't Drop the ball."

I do recognize that this is a pivotal time for ArbCom as Wikipedia's future development unfolds; nevertheless, my role requires me to reiterate: "Don't drop the ball."

Editing advice

McDoobAU93 -- You may not know that PMDrive1061 agreed to be a non-public mentor.

With regret, I have to report that today's attempt to reach out for help was unclear:

A. I intended to ask for comments here about the use of formatting as a device (a) to focus my comments and (b) to limit the number of words.

B. Also, I wanted to invite PMDrive1061 to consider posting a comment at the active ArbCom thread.

Instead, my words were construed as puzzling. I tried to restate my purpose and questions here.

Do you have the time to take a look at this? Can you offer suggestions about what I might have done differently? Can you propose plausible modifications in the formatting or in the wording?

BTW, I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Please notice my revised "2nd try" message at User talk:PMDrive1061#Mentorship — only 8 sentences + 2 quotes? It is shorter and thus better? It seems to me that I've not explained enough.

Your reasoning is a variant of less is more; but in this context of initiating a working relationship, I would have thought that less is simply less. In other words, less would seem to be too little?

Like my "1st try" message, this is also puzzling but in a different way.--Tenmei (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering the Millhouse 'joke'.

I didn't mean it as a joke edit. It was meant to be purely informative because there are enough people who are stumped about the Millhouse meme who would like to know more of it. It does not damage the article if there is a slight reference to Millhouse in 'popular culture'. It takes two braincells to understand that. I hope you see my point.

Greetings, Silven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.213.19.118 (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Monsters, Inc. 2 Rumour..

Greetings to you too. Thanks for helping me on my user page, I will edit it later on, but now on to the point, I've have been doing research about future Pixar films and I saw heaps of sites about possibilities of the Studios releasing more sequels.

One of the biggest stories was Pete Docter saying that he is strongly interested about making a sequel to Monsters, Inc. which I am very surprised about because John Lasseter's famous quote is “If we have a great story, we’ll do a sequel.” and if they are talking about a Monsters, Inc. 2, then they must really mean it.

But I'm still not 100% sure just as much as you are, but do a bit of research on Monsters, Inc. 2 on Google and you will be surprised of how many articles there are.

If you need some links to websites please reply. CaptainMario16 (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you're not the first person to add info regarding Monsters, Inc. 2. That's the reason I mentioned reliable sources in my extended comment on your talk page. Most of these sites you refer to are blogs published by Pixar fans and the like. Blogs, with rare exceptions, are not considered reliable enough for an encyclopedia. Being interested in making a Monsters, Inc. sequel is not the same as actually doing it, unfortunately. Further, there have been a number of rumors that Newt has been canceled; again, nothing reliable, so as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the film is still on. I hope this answers your question. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well actually I wasn't looking at blogs, I was looking more at news sites, and so on. But yes you are right, Pixar haven't announced that there will be a Monsters, Inc. 2, their just considering it (as by what the site says). If Pixar do announced they will release a Monsters, Inc. 2 then yes that is the perfect time to post the Article. Thanks for helping out. CaptainMario16 (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If I may suggest, if you have news sources discussing Monsters, Inc. 2, that you might consider adding a subheading to the Monsters, Inc. article that mentions discussions of a sequel. A number of movie articles have subheadings discussing putative or aborted sequels/remakes/etc., so it could be used there. However, check the article's talk page to see if this has been discussed before; it's not an article I frequent, so I don't know if the editors there have decided to exclude that talk or what. Maybe that'll help ... --McDoobAU93 (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There is currently no official word from Pixar (or the staff) confirming any sequel. JHM has mentioned it, but as his is a self-published blog that doesn't cite sources, it cannot be used as a reference. Yes, it has been mentioned in passing, but every single article out there all refer to the same "we're interested" quote. Not enough to make any page edit for. SpikeJones (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Completely right there, Spike. No blogs or such, but an actual news story about them discussing it could be notable. That said, I haven't seen one. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If you guys need me to give you a good link that I've seen, please say so. CaptainMario16 (talk) 04:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Post it here, if you'd like ... we'll get a look at it and let you know if it can work and why/why not. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

http://www.newsinfilm.com/2010/02/25/pixar-planning-monsters-inc-2/ There it is, go check it out. CaptainMario16 (talk) 05:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well your first problem occurs pretty quickly when the article you linked to cites one source which itself cited Jim Hill Media. JHM is notorious for posting rumors and speculation regarding Disney projects. Second, the reliability of the main article and the "middle-man" source aren't very clear, either ... we just got done arguing this over at the article for Tangled, the new name for Disney's Rapunzel project. Disney posted something on Facebook about it, which in and of itself wasn't too reliable. Then Variety ran the story, which bolstered the reliability with its own. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 05:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I just thought that I would have been interesting to have a rumour on a Wikipedia page, but I didn't know that I couldn't post rumours. So I learned a good lesson, I will only post infomation to Wikipedia, if it's at it's TBA stage or higher. CaptainMario16 (talk) 05:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to chime in, but does imdb.com count as a source? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1453405/ Bellagio2 (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries, as opinions and questions are always welcome. The IMDB listing says the film is "in development," which in Hollywood is a very vague term. It can mean that people are discussing it, or a couple of writers may be fleshing out a script, or it could be waiting for another studio to pick it up because the originating studio has changed its mind. Put simply, IMDB is going on what it heard, not what's been announced. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Pixar Template

I keep undoing anonymous IP user changes to the template that are not explained, while the version that I revert to has been explained. Any reason why the template should reflect the reversion as opposed to the latest update? Pejorative.majeure (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

At this point, you're having a disagreement with another editor on the format. From what I can see, you're both working in good faith, but neither of you are taking this to the talk page where it belongs. Again, if the IP was vandalizing the template, adding nonsense and such, then you'd be right in reverting it. However, that's not the case here, because ultimately neither of you is right or wrong, since you're just changing format and not what's physically in it. Instead of endlessly reverting, ask them to take it to the talk page, even if that means leaving it in a format you don't like. As of right now, let me put it this way: if you yourself were to report the IP for violating 3RR, you'd be just as guilty. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Some More Questions

Hey, this is bellagio2 again. One of my photos that I added http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ToyStory3Totoro.png, is up for speedy deletion and says that I need a rationale. Can you help me come up with one for that photo? Bellagio2 (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

When using a non-free image, such as this one, there has to be a clear reason why the image should appear in the article. Take a look at this page first, and specifically this section, then answer this question: How does this image's presence help the article? Put another way, what is your intent in adding the image to the article? I'll help with the rationale after that. Fortunately, it's not a speedy delete request; the tag says it may be deleted after March 29, which is a week from now. At worst, you can upload it again with the proper rationale at the start. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 05:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok... Thanks. I added this, is this enough?

• This is a screenshot of the character Totoro hidden within the Toy Story 3 movie Trailer.
• The screenshot shows only a portion of the actual frame. This will help limit the amount the viewer can see of the actual frame.
• The screenshot does not limit the copyright owner's right to distribute the film in any way.
• The screenshot is being used for informational purposes only, and it is not considered to detract from the film in any way.
• This screenshot is not used for commercial purposes.
• This screenshot is also not to be used for commercial purposes.
• Image is only to be used for the article, My Neighbor Totoro.
• There is no "free" version and the image is not replaceable.
• The image is needed to help show the readers how Totoro is used in Toy Story 3.
• The image meets general Wikipedia content requirements and is encyclopedic.
• The image meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy.

Bellagio2 (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It was approved!!! Thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellagio2 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You did all the work, so congratulations! You came up with a good reason to add the image to the article for My Neighbor Totoro, showing that the character is still known and beloved enough to be included (subtly) in Toy Story 3. Good work! --McDoobAU93 (talk) 05:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...

I know what you mean re. good faith; I'm trying to reason with him as I write. If this comes back as one of his socks, he's finished and I'm going to tell him so. Thanks for the heads-up. PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Tenmei mentorship

Your input is desired at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Tang Dynasty. Arbitrator Risker has posed a number of questions relevant to the mentors, and members of the committee would like to see them answered. Thank you, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Delayed but well-deserved recognition

I just figured out how these awards worked, (I thought they were given by some committee or something) and I though of you when I saw this Barnstar.--ARTEST4ECHO^talk 17:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Awarded for not holding a grudge after the end of an edit skirmish.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 17:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I was a bit shocked at how quickly you became friendly after our short little edit skirmish. I don't call it an edit war since I wasn't as bad as the ones you sent me links to (and I'm still reading a laughing about them). I'm a very wary person, so after we came to an agreement, you immediately started talking to me like I was just one of the WP guys. Unlike a lot of people, you didn't hold a grudge for a second. To be honest, I was suspicious, so it took me a little bit to overcome that. So when I saw this Barnstar, I immediately I though how our little skirmish ended.--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 16:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

New question

Hello. I know I havent been around lately,ive been busy.This does not really have to do with anything but I just wanted to say hi.Not to be mean, but ive decided not to go with adopt a user for now.I just want to work my way up.Oh and did i mention i am a weather guy too? If any other users are too,There is an article about weatherscan,but I can not find that channel on TV.Also, is there going to be a new weatherstar system newer than intelliSTAR comming out soon.Because the graphics are getting old in my opinion.Is weatherstar hd used in florida? Please answer back.Mc doob,if you happen to be a weather guy and a coaster guy too,can you help? Thanks.=DDDDDDDD--Androllercoaster (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not mean at all, and taking initiative to grow on your own as an editor is to be admired and commended. I don't know much about weather systems, so unfortunately I can't help you out there. Perhaps this WikiProject can give you some guidance. Keep in touch! --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Making use of your well-deserved recognition

Funny that you should just got a barnstar of diplomacy, as I was coming here to congratulate you on this rather nicely worded message to Hooon (talk · contribs). And as your userpage shows you're a fan of theme park related things, I wonder have you been/are you able to check his contributions to see how many are good ones? For someone like me, in the wrong part of the world, I don't have a clue if edits he's making to ride lists etc. are good and valid or pure vandalism (or somewhere in between). It's annoying that he keeps blanking his talk page without responding in any way, but I don't suppose we should do much more about it if his edits are good. If they are not, then obviously we should... Peter 11:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Peter. Truth be told, he's making so many edits across so many articles (attractions, "lands," etc.) that it's been tough to keep track of them all. I usually look at them and, up until recently, things have been OK. However, it's the page-blanking episode at Innoventions (Epcot) that has me concerned now. Speaking purely on that article, I don't know if I would be opposed to merging the two Innoventions articles into one, with subheads for Epcot and Disneyland; but, how Hooon did it is wrong, that much is certain. You are also correct in pointing out that blanking one's talk page whenever people leave messages isn't terribly reassuring. I think I'm at the point where the articles he frequents need some closer inspection, just to see what all has been done. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Replied on my talk. Peter 15:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hooon

No problem. I saw the name and immediately remembered that has some negative connotations Down Under, and it turned out I was right. So I had grounds for a username block as well, and that can only be indefinite.

I suppose we should add it and homoglyphs to the bot blacklist. Daniel Case (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, users are allowed to remove block notices. The only two things that cannot be removed unilaterally from user talk pages are:

• declined unblock requests while the block is active, and
• SPI notifications.

Daniel Case (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like the SPI notification may be necessary ... Cirt blocked this IP for 24 hours and it's making the same sorts of edits that Hooon did. Looks like a block evasion to me. Do you think an SPI is warranted now? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

By all means. Daniel Case (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Kumba

--Androllercoaster (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Thank you a lot for understanding that I want to work my way up.I bet i can find some help with the weather stuff. Anyway, i was asking because there is this new weatherstar HD system that i want. Oh and mc doob, in your opinion do you like the kumba at busch gardens, just asking. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Androllercoaster (talk • contribs) 14:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. Kumba is one of my favorite coasters, that's for sure. I find it interesting that Kraken over at SeaWorld Orlando is so similar to Kumba (they share 6 of 7 elements) yet still very different. I think Montu is probably my favorite all-time inverted coaster, and I've ridden the big ones—Raptor and Alpengeist—as well. By the by, when you leave a note on my talk page, it might help to use the "+" tab at the top, to start a new section. That makes it easier for me to find your message, and allows me to keep the responses separate from others. And don't forget to sign your posts with the four tildes! :) --McDoobAU93 (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

In toto

Please have a look at In toto before calling my edit on Six Flags a test edit. The term is a widely and traditionally used one in legal contracts, which I take to be the meaning in this case. If the edit had been changed with an edit summary that the term is unlikely to be understood by casual readers, then okay no problem and I'd probably change it to completely. However I must object to being basically called on my talk page a vandal.KTo288 (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

While I will grant that the term is legitimate, you are correct in pointing out that the average reader won't know what that means, and that a more common synonym should be used. And if I thought it was vandalism, I would have said so. The Level-1 warning assumes good-faith, and I didn't believe you did anything inherently wrong. That said, why change it to such an obscure term in the first place? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If the term is legitimate then the edit summary I would use would be "revert good faith edit by [so and so], because of" and not "test edit", and having on occassion used them myself, I know enough as to know what the warning templates are and how they are used.

As to why I used "in toto" the words "in whole" as they are used in the article does not makes sense. To have the semantic sense intended as in the sentence it is usually encountered as in part or in whole which is not what is wanted here. I took it that the author wanted to introduce a flourish in his writing and took it upon myself to oblige (actually on re-reading, the sentence woukd read better without either flourish).

ce is shorthand for copy edit.KTo288 (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I grant that the term is legitimate now, after looking at the wikilink you provided here instead of in the article ... but since no reason was given as to why that term was substituted into the article (i.e., this phrase makes better sense, this is a more appropriate term, etc.) in the edit summary, well. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I really should leave it now save for a friendly note. Two examples don't a pattern make, but I can't but help notice the first thread still extant on this page. It seems to me that you didn't understand the meaning of the word canon in the sense that that editor used it, in that it not only means that the film is officially released by the studio and that it is be endorsed but also that it will be incorporated into the identity of what Disney is. A more apt word in the context it was used in than official. Words can have multiple meanings depending on where and how they are used and just because they are unfamiliar to you in that usage does not make that use illegitimate.KTo288 (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I smell a duck...

Sounds to me as if you have a legitimate case for a sockpuppet investigation with a checkuser request. I would absolutely move forward with one based on what you're telling me. Good luck; let me know how it turns out. PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Assuming for now this is what you mentioned to me earlier to keep an eye out. If not, then I'm still keeping an eye out. Thx for the headsup. SpikeJones (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this what you were remembering? User_talk:74.163.223.240? SpikeJones (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If so, please watch Category:Visitor_attractions_in_Greater_Orlando as well. SpikeJones (talk) 04:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes you're on the right track. Has that IP been making any edits recently? Also, the cited category really should be deleted; I've removed WDW from it, and Splendid China of course isn't open anymore, so should it even be listed there? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to join the complicated discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_20#Category:Visitor_attractions_in_Orlando.2C_Florida. SpikeJones (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I got him...

...and while I have refrained from contacting Jimbo until now, rest assured that this is going to be the final nail in this little freak's coffin. Thank you for alerting me. I've fixed his "Tigger Movie" redirect crap and rolled back everything else. PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for being available and for handling it so quickly. Admin NuclearWarfare just move-protected the article, too, and I think I rolled back everything else, but of course I may have missed earlier good-faith edits in between. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I neglected to lock down the talk page and sure enough, I got yet another one of his stock responses. This little putz definitely rides the short yellow bus to school. I figure he has to be pushing 16 by now. All I could think about at 16 were cars and girls. This moron watches "Charlotte's Web." This stops here and now. If Jimbo doesn't stop it, I may well leave this project. I didn't work my tail off to improve this site only to babysit some attention-starved, growth-stunted freakzoid like Bambifan. PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think at this point Jimbo will do something and escalate it with BellSouth/AT&T. But it's not worth leaving over. You do too much good work here to let one little freak run you out. If you or Collectonian were to leave, then he'd win, and I know that's the last thing you want to do--give him the satisfaction of beating you. Keep in mind, you've got other users who are helping you control him until such time as the hammer is finally dropped and AT&T reads his folks the riot act. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right...but damn, I am frustrated. You'll be glad to know that I did make good my promise. I just e-mailed Jimbo with the links to my final offer of mentorship, the admin noticeboard thread and links to his most recent socks. All the most recent happy hoo-haa. We have all done what we can do; it's up to the man who pays the bills to put a stop to this once and for freaking all. Thanks for putting my head back on straight.  :) PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, bro. Glad to see you here. This monkey is undoubtedly running a bot and one has to wonder about the sanity about someone like this. God help me, this site is starting to drive me nuts right along with them. Just took me a full ten minutes to revert those edits and I'm still not done. PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I went through the user contributions, and I think between the two of us we got them all (I know a few times my rollback was stopped by your rollback). Now the fun work begins ... going through the articles Hooon targets to see if we can weed out all his edits, be it via named account, sock, or IP. The SPI archives have the IP addresses he's used recently, if you need them. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

RE:Miamiboyzinhere SPI

No problem, thanks for filing the case. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I almost sound like the boy who cried "wolf," coming to you with yet another SPI. At the same time, the level of disruption has gotten to the point where there are two competing CfDs running involving this issue that Averette/Miamiboyz seems so set on. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

  Hey,one more coaster thing,have you been on sheikra or the hulk, cause ive been on all the ones you talked about exept alpengeist,kraken,and raptor. The hulk is awesome, very forceful,i found the cobra roll very interesting at the top, because of the ouick view of the HRRR's double take.What is your favorite coaster element? Thanks.--Androllercoaster (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)