This is an archive of past discussions with User:McDoobAU93. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I thought I left comments on your talk page and we had a discussion about the changes I made, which you undid, on the Wii U "Reception" section. I have looked for these comments and I cannot find them, nor can I find archived evidence of the changes I made. Am I doing something wrong or have these since been scrubbed. Thanks.
With all due respect, your beliefs are not germane to the project. My beliefs are not germane to the project, either, so I'm holding myself to the same standards as you. Provide reliable sourcing and everything will be fine. --McDoobAU9317:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) - Please read up on WP:BURDEN. You shouldn't take offense when McDoob asks you to find the proof/sources for the information you want to add. It's a very commonly believed/enforced concept. It's how things work here on Wikipedia, nothing personal. Sergecross73msg me18:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Another (talk page stalker) - It would also help if you didn't make obviously wrong edits like Seaworld -> Oatmeal (just prior to your latest), which have a tendency to undermine your credibility and assumption of good faith. After such an edit, many of us with less patience than McDoob are likely to just revert on sight and call it vandalism. Also, it was not difficult to find that, although changes are afoot (SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment has filed for IPO), Blackstone will be retaining a controlling interest for now (drat! Now I have to go update the SW P&A article). Finally, any information on sales of the company will probably belong in the SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment article, not in the SeaWorld Article. Don Lammers (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, McDoobAU93. You have new messages at Dom497's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Admittedly I'm not that good at them. I'm reading through the syntax and code and not finding any errors in usage. I'll keep trying, though. If I try something that doesn't work, I'll revert it immediately. --McDoobAU9300:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Not a thing ... I was about to ask if you had done anything, because whatever usage/syntax was modified, it works. --McDoobAU9320:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
You mentioned in a recent edit that per consensus, it was decided not to include victims' names. I'm just curious if this is the consensus you're referring to. Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't look like that RFC was ever officially closed? Also, it appears there were 17 in favor of including the names as opposed to 12 against. Seems like consensus was leaning the other way, no? --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Consensus is found in two ways. One is by discussion. The other is by editing. Per regular contributors to the various theme park incident articles, it was determined that the inclusion of victim names in summary articles neither improved the article with their inclusion nor irreparably harmed the article by their exclusion, since the incident itself is still fully described and detailed per the reliable sources attached to them. Again, this is in a summary description of the incident. If there was a separate article, say a May 1984 Cedar Creek Mine Train accident, then the names would potentially be appropriate; however, in the case of people who are injured but otherwise survive, WP:BLP1E has been interpreted to suggest these names can be left out. For a good parallel (technically this would be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), take a look at Incidents on the Washington Metro (a summary article) and June 2009 Washington Metro train collision (an individual incident article). The former includes only a description of the numerous casualties, while the latter names them.
The discussion to which you link has been a common one over the years when a theme park incident makes the national news, bringing in tons of new editors who decide to do things a new way. Discussion starts and continues, sometimes heatedly, then when the news cycle moves on to another subject, almost all of those editors who came in go on to other things themselves, leaving the regulars who set things back the way we'd been discussing them all along. --McDoobAU9322:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I had assumed there was more to it than the discussion I linked to above. It's hard to keep track of consensus when a heated discussion like this keeps getting renewed migrating to new articles over time! Thanks for the clarification. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome, and thank you for asking. I'm not flawless, and consensus can change, but this methodology seems to work. --McDoobAU9301:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Sigh.
Hey, thanks for reverting my edits to the Lion King page. Rafiki does in fact refer to himself as a baboon, albeit in a roundabout sort of way. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffgnK-imS0k at 1:06.) He also has the physical characteristics of both a baboon and a mandrill, so the page unambiguously calling him a mandrill is not technically correct. But whatever. That's not important.
What bothered me is that you then proceeded to place a welcome message on my talk page like I'm some sort of newbie idiot. Did you look at my contributions list before you did that? I've been a Wikipedia user for quite a bit longer than you, assuming you didn't have an account before this one. I'm just not nearly as infatuated by it as you seem to be. Perhaps you should check their backgrounds before you go slapping welcome messages on established users. kthxbai. Forteblast (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
If you have been here as long as you say (and I have no reason to doubt it), then you should know about Wikipedia's policies on original analysis and reliable sourcing. So that is actually the more important part of the post, because I had no doubt you meant well in your edit, but it was still inappropriate. Lastly, if you truly do feel as you do about the project and your fellow editors as your edit summary here and your update here suggest ... with all due respect, this may not be the best venue for you. Take care. --McDoobAU9319:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Please, tell me the names of the notable flat rides that does not have a article. WindSeeker which 2 incidents that occured on the Knotts Berry Farm model and SkyScreamer which is found at Six Flags amusement parks already has a article. Any notable flat rides that DOES NOT have a article yet? If yes, please tell me the rides that DOES NOT have a article yet. Please leave a note on my talk page if you have anything to tell me? --Starship9000 (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Flight Deck and Manta edits
Do you think I am being more specific for the 2 articles I edited, Flight Deck about "it is the only suspended roller coaster that remains at Kings Island" and for Manta "it is the only flying roller coaster in the world to feature a lagoon splashdown and the only one to have a waterfall where riders nearly miss" or is there any ways I can be more specific about these 2 roller coasters? And is there any other way I can say for those 2 articles? You can leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks! --Starship9000 (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Let me see if I can explain what original research means. Let's take your edit at Manta. You look through RCDB and don't find another flying roller coaster that has a splash effect, so you edit the article to say "Manta is the only flying roller coaster with a splash effect". That's wrong because you're the one making that statement. Now, if you find a news article, say from the Orlando Sentinel, where the writer said "Manta is currently the only roller coaster of its kind to use this splash effect" then you can add it to the article, and you provide the link to the Sentinel article as proof that someone else said it. --McDoobAU9321:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Dom is exactly right. I love a good rumor and fan forum site as much as the next coaster geek, but unfortunately rumors and speculation do not belong in an encyclopedia. --McDoobAU9300:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm interesting as Bluray.com is also used for Peter Pan and Cinderella and their release date is correct, Peter Pan is scheduled for an February 5th release and Cinderella was released October 2, 2012. I doubt they are giving "placeholder" or "estimated" dates as they do not seem to have two wrong. 184.58.0.27 (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Your argument would be more convincing if other sources, reliable ones, gave the same date. Can you find any other websites that back it up? Or maybe like a press release by Disney or something? Sergecross73msg me17:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I am a Disney fan as well, though my all time favorite has and always will be The Little Mermaid it will be released as a Diamond Edition that much is sure a trailer has been released today by Disney.com for the Diamond Edition and DVDizzy.com made an announcement on January 23 that The Little Mermaid is set for a fall release as a Diamond Edition and that The Jungle Book is set for a Spring 2014 release. 184.58.0.27 (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, no. "Masterpiece" in that context indicates significance of the work, not a feature set like the Diamond Editions. --McDoobAU9320:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I am thinking Davy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier/Davy Crockett and the River Pirates and Halloweentown/Halloweentown II: Kalabar's Revenge should not be on there but I added them just incase as they really are not part of the 2 Movie Collection as advertised by the ones added on there. 184.58.0.27 (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Congrats... You gave an awesome answer in the Teahouse!
Article creation is often tough for new editors (and even for old ones), but you made it seem a lot more doable by thoughtful explaining the need for inline citations to a Teahouse guest who came over from AfC. Thanks for doing that!
A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pinball FX 2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Star Wars: The Clone Wars (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Experienced editors with this badge have committed to welcoming guests, helping new editors, and upholding the standards of the Teahouse by giving friendly and patient guidance—at least for a time.
Hosts illuminate the path for new Wikipedians, like Tōrō in a Teahouse garden.
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here
1 year statistics for Teahouse visitors compared to invited non-visitors from the pilot:
Metric
Control group
Teahouse group
Contrast
Average retention (weeks with at least 1 edit)
5.02 weeks
8.57 weeks
1.7x retention
Average number of articles edited
58.7 articles
116.9 edits
2.0x articles edited
Average talk page edits
36.5 edits
85.6 edits
2.4x talk page edits
Average article space edits
129.6 edits
360.4 edits
2.8x article edits
Average total edits (all namespaces)
182.1 edits
532.4 edits
2.9x total edits
Over the past year almost 2000 questions have been asked and answered, 669 editors have introduced themselves, 1670 guests have been served, 867 experienced Wikipedians have participated in the project, and 137 have served as hosts. Read more project analysis in our CSCW 2013 paper
Last month January was our most active month so far! 78 profiles were created, 46 active hosts answered 263 questions, and 11 new hosts joined the project.
Come by the Teahouse to share a cup of tea and enjoy a Birthday Cupcake! Happy Birthday to the Teahouse and thank you for a year's worth of interest and support :-)
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To add or remove yourself for receiving future newsletters, please update the list here
The Teahouse Turns One!
It's been an exciting year for the Teahouse and you were a part of it. Thanks so much for visiting, asking questions, sharing answers, being friendly and helpful, and just keeping Teahouse an awesome place. You can read more about the impact we're having and the reflections of other guests and hosts like you. Please come by the Teahouse to celebrate with us, and enjoy this sparkly cupcake badge as our way of saying thank you. And, Happy Birthday!
Awarded to everyone who participated in the Wikipedia Teahouse during its first year!
To celebrate the many hosts and guests we've met and the nearly 2000 questions asked and answered during this excellent first year, we're giving out this tasty cupcake badge.
From the first months, through its first birthday, you have stuck with the Teahouse, nurtured its community, learned and helped, shared and improved. Simply put, the Teahouse would not be what it is without you. Stick around, because we need your lovely attitudes, sincere dedication, sharp minds, crafty design, caring reform, technical wits, and good humor. Display this delicious badge with honor, for you are a Teahouse Founder.
Awarded to editors who participated in the Wikipedia Teahouse during its first months and are still participating a year later.
To celebrate the editors who have been with Teahouse from the beginning through its first year, we've made you this extra special birthday badge! Teahouse continues to be awesome because you are still here all these months later, so thank you. You are the Foundation of this awesome project.
(talk page stalker) Please don't leave comments like this unless you know what you're talking about. McDoob has done nothing remotely close to be worthy of a block, let alone a ban. I'd recommend you take some more time learning about Wikipedia before you dole out warnings. Thanks. Sergecross73msg me17:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi McDoobAU93, I provided a source for the voice actor in the Mickey Mouse article but some other user keeps removing my source and doesn't want to accept it. Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you for you reply message and thank you for understanding what's going on. By the way, just a little while ago today Smartie went to my talk page and he called me "His Worst Enemy" because I was doing some editing on the Dan Green (voice actor) article and I was trying to find some sources and he just left me that rude message. That made me a little not happy, because I don't liked being picked on. Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Thank you for teaching me how to use Templates for sources.
You're welcome. Some of the coding here can get tricky, that's for sure. One of the ways I learn is to simply take a look at what's been done before and try and mimic it. Take a look at it using the Show Preview button before saving your changes and see if it works. If it doesn't work, step back and don't change it just yet; there is no rush, and the edit can take place whenever it's ready. --McDoobAU9323:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Uh, request granted? Not sure why you'd need my permission to archive your talk page. You can delete my message to you whenever you wish. If anything, it indicates to me that you've seen it and acknowledged it. The question is, did you get anything out of it? --McDoobAU9323:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing the Mickey Mouse article. I didn't know there was a link to the article of all the shorts he was in. Thank you. Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. I try and leave descriptive edit summaries explaining my reasoning for doing things that I do. I still can make mistakes, which is why someone can look at my summary and at least see what I was thinking when I did it. In the case of what you were adding, the article appeared to focus on some major releases in the "Selected" subheading, and then provide a link to the full filmography so that readers could see everything Mickey has appeared in.
I hope you reconsider and decide to stick around for a bit. There is a lot to learn, but keep in mind that the vast majority of editors will help you if you run into trouble. Don't worry about Smartie ... he got his hand smacked (figuratively) for that bit of cyber-bullying on your talk page, as well he should have. That post was WAY out of line. I disagree with editors here, and there are editors who disagree with me; however, none of them are enemies, and even if I might think that in the heat of a discussion, it would never ever not ever be posted. --McDoobAU9315:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Message
I see you left a message on Smarties talk page about he should take a break from each other. But I have to be honest, I doubt that he's not going to listen. But thanks for steping in and helping me. Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
That's fine if he doesn't. He's been warned, and if he does it again, especially in an article where he has no real history editing it, it will be dealt with. Similarly, don't revert his stuff, either. If the edit is not appropriate, someone else will take care of it. Just focus on the things you want to edit, making sure to include sources as needed (which is basically all the time) when you make the edit. For a good example, take a look at the article for Dumbo, where a user requested an edit change and I made the change, but not in the way they intended. --McDoobAU9317:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try not to revert his stuff either. And I am providing sources as well, I just hope Smartie will stop what he's doing against me. We should also let him know that wikipedia is not just his website. It's everyone's website, he can't just have every article the way he want's it. The right thing to do is discussing the problems on the "Talk Pages." That's the right thing to do instead of undoing edits over and over again. peace! Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Who Framed Roger Rabbit#RfC: Is listing every speaking character actor in the cast section relevant?
On 11 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sky Zone, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the first location of the Sky Zone chain of trampoline parks was originally intended as an arena for a professional sport involving trampolines and rotating goals? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sky Zone. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
SkyScreamer at Six Flags Over Georgia has been "operating" even though the Official opening date has not come upon. The soft opening for the attraction was May 9, 2013, and the attraction has been opened since then for season pass holders until opening on the 24 of May. Season Pass Holders can be the first to ride our all-new SkyScreamer. Just flash your Gold Pass to ride all day on May 11, 12 and any Season Pass on May 18, 19. So SkyScreamer at Over Georgia is complete and operating!--Jpp858 (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Per consensus on other theme park attractions, "operating" means that the attraction has had its grand official opening. Preview days, media days and soft openings do not change the ride's status from "under construction" to "operating". Similarly, if the attraction was to experience some temporary downtime during the season (or even during the ride's off-season), the status would not change to SBNO from "operating".
Supporting the fact that the ride is not operating officially is your own statement that only season passholders can experience the ride. An officially open ride would have no such restriction on who can and can't ride it during a normal operating day.
Well thanks for telling what everyone agrees upon as I did not know. By using common sense SkyScreamer should not be listed as under construction as it is fully built and complete and since operating doesn't fit the bill, how about Testing? As I only know of Under Construction, SBNO, Testing, Operating, and Closed, that goes in the the status and Testing works best then, unless there is another term. --Jpp858 (talk) 04:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I do see that "Testing" is available in that field, but it should be generally understood that when a ride is being built, it will undergo testing, so I'm not sure why it needs a separate entry in that field. Further, since Wikipedia is not meant to give up-to-the-minute status updates for attractions, "Testing" strikes me as very temporary and unnecessary, in my opinion. --McDoobAU9304:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Was in the process of writing a report myself. I'll add additional details to flesh things out and give the admins more information to work with. --McDoobAU9319:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Really?
Your comment in the RfC is unconstructive. Would you care to remove it? Where we have a content dispute with a discussion going nowhere, I see it as more productive to seek outside input, hence the RfC. Some guy (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
When you fling a three-hour old discussion to RFC without waiting for other regular editors of the article to voice their opinions, that strikes me as overkill. But I will remove it. I've said all I plan to say in the comments, and will honor whatever consensus appears. --McDoobAU9315:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
Thanks, I was just about to give RCDB as a reference as per a discusson on my talk page, but you got there first! Have a cookie :) Osarius - Want a chat?17:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! The added footnote works for me, although there is a link to the ride's RCDB page at the bottom of the infobox, too. :) --McDoobAU9318:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi thanks for notifying me of your edit. Unfortunately, I'm from the church of Wikipedia:Be bold. So I do something, and expect that others that came upon it, improve on it. You can easily find sources for my edits. Please add them yourself. I'm not your monkey. Thank you. Norrk (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
You are a liar.
All my additions are sourced.
Do not delete sourced additions again.
Stop your filthy lying, claiming that there were unsourced additions:
criticism
Critics argue that the xbox one kinect sensor will be able to scan your room including your heartbeat 24 hours of the day. Due to the requirement of updates every 24 hours, most active gamers won't disconnnect their kinect due to the hassle of manually updating if the xbox one is not connected to the internet for several days.[1] The xbox one can scan through clothes to gain information about your muscle tension and reflexes regardless of a bulky sweater you might be wearing, just like airport security scanners. [2] The kinect sensor knows when you are smiling, crying, angry, or bored. Every detail of your face is recorded to gain an insight into your likely mood. [1]
DO NOT DELETE MY ADDITIONS.
14:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
You are being unnecessarily combative
Time for a tone check. With regards to this edit, I think you're letting the debate over the Genesis/Mega Drive title get under your skin, and as a result you're becoming combative and offensive. (In particular, I take offense at "(and anyone else who chooses to support their arguments)", since I happen to agree with the IP editor and am independently making many of the same arguments as he/she is).
Please tone it down. You can make your points and still be civil about it. Calling someone out on the floor and basically daring them to "prove themselves" is not the way to have a civilized debate. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary, I would say it is the way, per WP:BURDEN. The editor wants to make a change based on a set of points. Per WP:BRD, their proposal/rationale has been challenged. I think it is entirely reasonable to expect an editor to provide proof of their points, if only to provide fellow editors who are debating the subject the information needed to understand their point of view and to agree/disagree with those points.
As to tone, I did have other terminology in mind that I concur would have come across as combative, but it looks like my final word choice still raised a few hackles, so I will pay better attention in future. I still stand by my thought process, however. If an editor can prove their points properly, they'll carry the day in a discussion/debate. Making statements with no backup isn't going to cut it, in my opinion.
The problem is, you're asking for proof about a topic that doesn't have good, published, reliably-sourced information. Your demand falls outside of WP:BURDEN because it's unreasonable to expect an IP editor to know every little nuance of Wikipedia policy when it comes to dealing with ambiguous issues such as this one. Further, as near as I can tell, you're treading dangerously close to WP:SYNTH and WP:OR yourself in the way you're arguing your own points, most particularly with regard to the origin and designation of the name "Mega Drive" (a point I eventually called irrelevant to the discussion since it doesn't actually matter what the console was called in its home territory before it was released worldwide). I actually haven't seen much in the way of proof from you either, and when I asked you to clarify, I just saw you repeat the argument you'd made earlier, prompting me to go into detail about why I felt it was irrelevant.
And as for tone: I'm taking more issue with the attitude you're portraying when you say things like "The time for proof is at hand!". As I said, I'm one of those "(and anyone else who chooses to support [the IP user's] arguments)", and I interpreted the way you phrased that whole challenge as coming dangerously close to a personal attack. I'm not looking for an apology or anything - I just think you should be mindful of how such challenges come across to those who disagree with your opinion. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
You bring up a very good point actually, if we're bringing SYNTH and OR into the equation. If there's no proof to support the IP's position, then the entire RfC is flawed per SYNTH and OR. Why can the IP—who I would argue is no newcomer if they know how to launch an RfC and solicit input from potentially-sympathetic editors that they would have never known if they were new—get away with it and I can't? --McDoobAU9301:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Here's further support to my issues with this RfC: this edit. The IP continues to harangue editors who are defending consensus by saying that the FAQ is flawed without providing proof that it is, just their opinion that it is. This is the behavior I'm tired of in this case. This is the reason that I asked for proof of their position, and it would appear you've reached that point, as well. In all honesty, this is not the hill I want to die on, so I'm stepping out of the debate for now. --McDoobAU9301:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, McDoobAU93. The reason I didn't specify the issues with the FAQ in that particular section was because I had already listed them several times over during the course of the debate. After being specifically asked by KieferSkunk to list issues with the FAQ I promptly gave two prominent examples [1], [2]. I also felt that these blatant falsehoods were so obvious given we'd all discussed these points during the course of the debate, that they would be obvious to anyone who re-read the FAQ and thus didn't require pointing out. I'll go into more detail on the issues in the FAQ when I have time, but frankly I'm not all that bothered and a number of people seem to be against the proposal that we temporarily remove it anyway. The reason I suggested such a removal was because I felt there wouldn't be any real issue with anyone from it, but if others want to keep it, I don't really mind. My only motivation was to improve clarity from people's arguments on both side, and prevent debate being stifled. Ultimately though I think the inclusion of the flawed FAQ only hurts the arguments on those wishing to keep "Genesis" as the article title for the reasons I mentioned in that section. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
McDoob, I guess I owe you an apology for at least part of my "warning" above. While I still feel that the way you demanded proof from 85.211 was inappropriate, the act of asking for proof of his claims is not in and of itself inappropriate. I think the problem I had with your action was more about the way you reacted, but honestly I'm starting to get a little tired of this too - it has shades of many similar contentious debates I've been a part of in the past. Yes, the FAQ has flaws, but they are not irreparable flaws and they don't constitute the level of "blatant falsehood" that he believes they do. I've given him an AGF warning and a particular note about using my note to you as a shield - that is definitely out of line in my book.
Basically, don't let him (or me, for that matter) get under your skin. That's all I'm asking. But otherwise, I'm no longer concerned about WP:OR/WP:SYNTH with respect to this discussion - there are plenty of other policies coming into play here that give more solid footing for the discussion. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
No worries, Keifer. Your notice/warning was appropriate under the circumstances. I have no problem or ill will towards someone who is making a good-faith effort to make sure things don't get out of hand. I've seen your work on the project and believe you have its best interests at heart. Sounds like it's time for some hot tea and a sit-down. :). --McDoobAU9318:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
If you are really here to improve Wikipedia, you should try helping me and reword it instead of deleting the cited informations. Thank you .Shrine Maiden 17:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:Tyros1972 has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Most SPAMMERS use anon IP addresses, if you don't know that by now you must on another wikipedia. Don't warn me over silly nonsense again.Tyros1972Talk18:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Amusement Parks for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
You're quite welcome. Glad to be of assistance. Someone must really not like you, based on this edit as well ... yes that was cleaned up, too. --McDoobAU9319:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you beat me to that one too.
Seem's he's very disappointing about the ride being closed all the time!
And I can't say I blame him... Alton Towers have handled the situation appallingly. The ride has been so frequently closed, but they keep running TV ads for the ride as if its open. Their twitter hasn't been warning people the rides shut either. It's £46 to get into the Alton Towers + £8 just to park your car... there's been quite a lot of unhappy people who've paid a lot of money and have been turning up to find the ride shut. Alton Towers can't control the problems the ride's been having but they need to tell people its closed!
So his vandalism seems to be venting that anger. And using "gay" as if its an insult... he's obviously not very old.
Please stop using user talk templates as an argument device
You're issuing everyone that disagrees with your position on the Sega Genesis article with that warning, even when no bad faith is assumed. Whilst failing to do so for those who agree with your position, when their comments are similarly worded. It's entirely transparent. --92.40.211.252 (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I've looked over the edits, and I see no problem. You certainly don't seem to be assuming good faith on the Sega Genesis talk page. And your edit history is extremely short, so coupling those 2 things together, he had no reason to think you were aware of the policy... Sergecross73msg me20:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I believe 92.40 is feeling that I'm not templating other editors who they feel are assuming bad faith. If you look at the current attempt to resurrect the dead horse that is the name at Sega Genesis, you'll see that most everyone's comments have been civil and not insulting, with the exception of 92.40's in my opinion. --McDoobAU9320:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
He is threatening to ban me and accusing me of not assuming good faith without cause while he goes and edit wars... and just fyi I have been very active on the Sega Mega Drive talk page for many years but my ip changes from time to time62.252.234.27 (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Just a note to say that there has been no official confirmation of report of Dr Luke's appointment from Eonline. Many articles also added that appointment of Jennifer Lopez as a judge has not been confirmed. While it is likely that they are the new judges, and this would probably be announced in a few days, it would perhaps be better to wait for a few days before adding this as fact. Hzh (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
No worries ... I'll yield to consensus on this. I stepped AFK for a bit and should have not performed my second edit until checking to see if the first one was accepted by other editors. :) --McDoobAU9315:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Edit-a-thon for Ramona Park
Hello -
I am working with the East Grand Rapids MI Public Library as they embark on a GLAM project. I'm a mid-newbie, which is why I'm reaching out....
East Grand Rapids was the home to Ramona Park and to the Jack Rabbit Derby Racer [3]. As a kick-off project they would like to expand Ramona Park during an edit-a-thon. The Library is home to a local history room - a room filled to the ceiling with memorabilia, photos and artifacts from Ramona Park.
The plan is to upload much of this material via Commons (hopefully before the edit-a-thon on October 19, 2013 - coincidentally during Wikipedia Loves Libraries month).
One problem - there are few locally evident Wikipedia editors to actually show up at the library for an edit-a-thon.
Do you think if we set up a Google hangout, you might be interested enough to remote in? There is a possibility of a cool tee-shirt [4] donated by the library for some, too!
I might be able to provide you/this project with a preview of the historical materials - it seems to me there might be more than one article to create.
Also I've come up with a DYK candidate: Did you know that President Gerald Ford worked at Ramona Park, home to one of three derby racers in the US? (The Ford part is true, not quite sure of the derby racer stat, though!)
There is a deletion discussion about the article The Pixar Theory and the topic seems to have met the GNG though a lot of (recent) coverage.... BUT my own research indicates the the base concept of "The Pixar Universe" has been recognized in media at least as early as 2003, making this later "theory" notable only in it making enough recent waves to be considered a "viral meme". Toward addressing the earlier concept, I began work on User:MichaelQSchmidt/The Pixar Universe, but upon further reflection, perhaps best that my little sourced article might best be folded into the main topic Pixar so that we'd have a suitable redirect target for The Pixar Theory? Think it worth doing? And would you care to assist? Thanks, Schmidt,Michael Q.22:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
The page Super B-Daman was created in 2006, and since then, no one changed the main Wikipedia title. Today, user Magicperson suddenly redirected (killed) that page and created this page and added that merge thing. I'm not sure if this is the correct way of editing. First of all the main title is OK, but even if it was not OK, why not rename it only? Why create a new page, etcs, giving unecessary trouble to other editors? I have a bad feeling about this MP contribution. Regards. --31.22.237.194 (talk) 07:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
About someone
Despite the coversation on my talk page, there is someone who I think may be trouble in the future (ex. I changed the name "Super B-Daman" to Burst Ball Bararge!! Super B-Daman" because it was the official name and there were no english releases of it). I know I've done some things, but I'm afraid that you will get the wrong idea. Magicperson6969 (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
There actually is a policy that covers this ... WP:COMMONNAME. If more people know the subject as Super B-Daman, and there are more reliable sources that refer to it as such, then that indeed would be the better name for the article instead of Burst Ball Barrage!! Super B-Daman. If you believe an article name should be changed, you should definitely open a move request discussion on the article talk page. The only time you should move a page unilaterally is if there would be absolutely no question from any editor that it should be moved ... unfortunately, this doesn't appear to be one of those times. I know you mean well, but there are some particulars about Wikipedia that you really need to grasp before making significant, potentially controversial changes. This all can come in time. --McDoobAU9300:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
OK.... if you do a little research, you will clearly see that Super B-Daman is the better name (the most common), that's why no one touched the main title since the article was created seven years ago. But now "suddenly" comes someone (MP) who is changing many stuff without discussing it first. If no one watch MagicPersona edits, sooner or later he will flood this site with nonsense edits. Try searching for "Burst Ball Barrage!! Super B-Daman" on google (basically there's nothing except the Wikipedia page), and then try "Super B-Daman"... Once again, this MagicPerson is wasting other people's time...
@Mcdoob This is the first time that there has been question about a page move. Just thought that using official names would be good, since that's what USUALLY occurs, or from what I've seen. Magicperson6969 (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
This would have been a good time to propose a move. Please read this section before making any more page moves. As for 46.50, please be careful about hurling around the word "vandalism". You might get farther if you politely explain what's wrong. --McDoobAU9304:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm looking for adoption and notice that we have some similar interests and that you haven't adopted anyone. I'm really sorry if I messed up your page, I'm still learning the ropes! Anyway, I'd be real happy if you considered adopting me. Thanks :)A_cardboard_microwave R.E.D (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for replying to my request for adoption! I would really like to start editing articles about things I know a lot about, like Greek/Roman mythology, TV shows/movies/Books that I've experienced,and biology-ish stuff. As for what type of adopter I'd like, just someone who would guide me trough all the policies and coding parts of Wikipedia. I don't know if I need "homework", but what ever helps me learn fastest is what I'll do! Thanks Again! A cardboard microwave R.E.D (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
That's a good place to start, in articles in which you already have an interest. The biggest thing to keep in mind, however, is just because you know about it doesn't necessarily make it a basis for an edit to an article. You must be able to back up the edit with a reliable source, one that can be verified by other editors, if need be. I'll take a look at your edit history in the next day or so and see what you've done so far. Then I'll provide some suggestions based on that. :) --McDoobAU9313:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
^ abRL Waterman (2013-05-24). "Report:big brother?". xboxexperts. Retrieved 2013-05-26. Cite error: The named reference "XboxOneMay2013Mashable" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
.svg){kind=small}
