User talk:SpikeJones/Archive

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Casino hotel summary
Yes, I think a standard table would be an excellent idea. I'm not sure of the best place to develop one, but on a casino page might not be the best choice. Maybe a temp page for a casino, stating out on the discussion page. There is a lot of information that can be considered and the hotel information needs to be kept out of the casino data. That begs the question of should hotels have a table also, again the answer is likely yes. Pick a casino that you want to start with and I'll help you get the discussion started. You may also want to do a little research to see if there is a policy for tables. I seem to recall something, especially if you want to reserve a color scheme. Vegaswikian 20:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll look at that when I can. Right now I just created Las Vegas Boulevard and if you want to look at it and fill in missing information feel fre.  I have to review all of the links and then I'll be finished for tonight. Vegaswikian 02:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well if you can't get feedback, then introducing it into several articles would be the bold step. Go ahead and see what happens.  Vegaswikian 6 July 2005 19:04 (UTC)
 * If you noticed, I have been cleaning up some of them. Italics for the attractions and restaurants.  Links for the owners and previous hotels.  In at least one case, someone changed the width of the table.  The biggest problem I have is the website at the top of the box.  It seems too large.  Also, including website tends to make this run to two lines for a lot of casinos.  Moving to the bottom and using a smaller font or dropping the website might be better, or maybe just including this within the box itself?  Vegaswikian 22:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * What I have done is simply edit Template:Casino hotel infobox or choose another name. Then cut and paste the source in and make all of the paramaters variables with a name.  Once you get it created, I can help you finish the setup.  Vegaswikian 17:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

MindPlay article
I see you created this article, and linked to it from Blackjack. Can I ask what your interest/source is for this information? The article seems to be more of an advertisment for MindPlay than an encyclopedia article on it, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. I've marked the article with template:bias, but I've refrained from editing it, or nominating it for deletion until I've had your side of the argument. I've posted a similar statement on Talk:MindPlay as well. --me_and 20:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

My erroneous edit of Wedding Crashers
Interesting. The iamchazz.com site just looked really unprofessional, and I read somewhere in there that the site is apparently involved in some sort of legal battle with the company that made Wedding Crashers. I just thought that the site was the work of some entrepreneur trying to capitalize on the movie's popularity, and removed the link. Ikusawa 05:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

FASTPASS/Single Rider Logo
I noticed in some attractions facts "FASTPASS Availablity: Yes" or "Single Rider Availablity: Yes" started to appear, I thought just having a simple FP Logo or Single Rider logo would be easier to see if the Attraction has a FASTPASS option, I thought it would be a neat idea. If people don't like it, it's easy to find and remove LordBleen 05:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I gotcha! I added redirects for both the FASTPASS and Single Rider logos, so if you click on them it sends you straight to the article.LordBleen 00:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Rio All Suite Hotel and Casino
A lot of your edits on this page were inaccurate. The reason that clubs where Notable Attractions where because Voodoo Lounge is the tallest club in Vegas, also it is a very popular club. The reason Club Rio was on the list because it is one of the longest running dance clubs in Vegas. The Orleans is Mardi Gras themed but the Rio also has a lot of aspects of Mardi Gras, though it is not as strong as it once was it still is officially themed as both Mardi Gras and Carnival. Both Masquerade Show in the Sky and Masquerade After Hours are shows, they are attractions and shows all in one. They are choreographed and use props and sets so they are shows. Also the reason the WSOP was moved to the Rio was because Harrah's only bought Binions because is was in deep trouble. The company only kept the property for six months before agreeing to sell it (though they ran it for a time after.) So in conclusion I am reversing your edits. --Ben 17:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your work too. I thought it would be best to reverse the edit because of the nature of the edits, they where very large so it was hard to break it down. But I think they is a very healthy comprimse. I understand what you are saying about the major attractions, but I think we both need to work on removing club and other things from the other info box's because your right I don't think a club is a major attraction though they there are a few resorts in town that people go to just go to the club. Pure, Light are famous clubs. There are other in town that are. I think we need to treat this on a case by case basis, because every resort is different. When we go to remove some clubs I think we need to put a comment on the talk page of that page. As far as the theme goes I think we need to go by what the hotel says its theme is. Harrah's says the Rio is Mardi Gras and Carnival and I think that is what we should go by. I think the big thing is just making sure discuss the major edits on the talk page with other Wikipedians because some of us have more insight on some resorts, since a lot of us out there work for the resorts. Thanks again and for the hard work. --Ben 00:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

John Trivers
Your comment about me copying something verbatim from another bio is incorrect. Though certain factual elements are definitely the same, and there may be a phrase here and there that was incorporated, the two biographies are substantially different. A list of all the different locations from which I pulled information are clearly labeled on the page. --Elonka 04:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing the roller coaster link
I see that you seem to have your heart set on removing my link in the roller coaster article. Might I remind you that the subsection of "external links" that I placed that particular link in was called "Fan sites, photo galleries, and forums." The link goes to the site www.xtremecoastin.com, which is indeed a fan site about roller coasters, and has numerous photo galleries as well as a forum. I am not a member of this site nor am I affiliated with it in any way, and I am simply placing it there to contribute. I never intended to "exchange" links with Wikipedia. If you are going to be rude enough to delete my link, then you might as well delete every other link in the external link section, because they are virtually the same in terms of content. I am placing the relevant link back on the article, and if you remove it again, I will notify an administrator. --Dunlevyd 08:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Additions to coaster infobox require article updating, need help
I've made several large additions to the Infobox roller coaster template, which will require updating of EVERY article using it. These additions are automatic unit conversion for the statistics and automatic categorization. I have also provided full documentation of every parameter on the template page, which I strongly encourage you to read. Every article will need the following changes:


 * These parameters must be delinked: location, section, manufacturer, and type. They will be automatically linked, and will (except for section) be used for automatic categorization.
 * The type parameter must be Steel or Wood.
 * The secondary type (Inverted, Floorless, Duelling etc.) should be moved to the type2 parameter. If a second secondary type is necessary, it goes in type3. In either case, don't link them, it will be done automatically.
 * height, drop, length, speed, and restriction must have all non-numeric characters removed. height, drop, and length must be expressed in feet (using decimals instead of inches if necessary), speed must be expressed in miles per hour, and restriction must be expressed in inches. All of these parameters will automatically be converted to metric and displayed in both forms.

Also, the rcdb_number parameter should be added to every coaster article that doesn't have it yet.

If the article is about a widely-cloned coaster such as Batman: The Ride where the template covers multiple installations of the same coaster, the redesigned template will not be appropriate. For these articles, simply change the template to "Infobox roller coaster simplified". This is the old version, without all the automation.

I've already updated over 50 articles myself, but I can't do this all day and I'll need your help to get it done quickly. The list of pages using the template can be found here. I'm sending this message to all listed participants of WikiProject Roller Coasters. Dusso Janladde 07:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:Misc Disney Page?
I like/prefer the park specifc. Having a list of all the Attractions of the Walt Disney World Resort or even the Disneyland Resort just creates a huge list. Hope this helps! LordBleen 06:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Misc Disney Page
I may be the wrong person to ask, because I deem both pages as unnecessary in an encyclopedia. Many people forget it isn't a comprehensive fan site. Just an encyclopedia. Sorry I couldn't help. :( --Speedway 17:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I totally agree with you. Far better on it's own page then clogging up the main page. I just disagree with the information being there anywhere in Wikipedia. But if we have to have it, I'd rather it be on it's own page. --Speedway 18:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)--Speedway 18:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

RE: See also
I removed it because they are not the same park. Simple as that. --Lyght 10:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Parades and Fireworks
Well, I thought it would be ok to include all of the parades and fireworks shows in the past attractions page, is there anywhere for previous shows like that? I think that it is important to the park's history. --blm07 04:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Brain Teaser AfD
To all WikiProject Roller coasters participants: Brain Teaser, a kiddie coaster at Six Flags Darien Lake is up for deletion via WP:AFD. This isn't my article, but if it's deleted, it sets the prescident for many small coasters to be deleted, such as Mild Thing, which runs counter to the Coaster Wikiproject and also will make a lot of park templates look dumb since they can't include all coasters. Dusso Janladde 20:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Magic Kingdom entertainment history
I've created Magic Kingdom entertainment history using List of current Magic Kingdom attractions as a template. I saw Disney's California Adventure entertainment history so I thought it would be fine to make one for the Magic Kingdom. Also, check Talk:List of past Epcot attractions for more information about the park's past. --blm07 10:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorcery in the Sky
Just a note to say that when you have moved Sorcery in the Sky to a new page you should have fixed the redirect (I have done so). Also, please search for Sorcery in the Sky and fix what will now be broken links - there are several. You will also need to check for the other section you moved. Let me know, here, if I can help further. BlueValour 15:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

inversion succession box
I will make edits so that is clear. Honestly I had thought about making a succession box on that topic for a while, but the issue that you brought up kept me from doing it. I saw that someone else started the succession box though and it was a huge mess, so I decided to fix it and move it back all the way to Corkscrew (Cedar Point) (before corkscrew RCDB makes the identity of the first coaster with two inversions very unclear). Best, Irongargoyle 21:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Tarzan's Treehouse
Hi Spike, you are correct that Tarzan's Treehouse is at Disneyland and not at WDW, but there is a tradition of using the same article to describe attractions that are based on the same concept, so Tarzan's Treehouse and Swiss Family Treehouse share a common page. Maybe we should have a page for Swiss Family Treehouse that redirects to Tarzan's Treehouse, but I accomplished the same thing by displaying "Swiss Family Treehouse" while directing the link to "Tarzan's Treehouse". Oh, and cool name... one of my favorite musicians. Bytebear 19:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ratatouille
Can I ask where it is specified? the image on the right says "rat-a-too-ee" not "rat-a-TOO-ee". The latter implies that the accent is on the "TOO" whereas normally the accent would be on the "ee" (well, the "oo" wouldn't really be a separate syllable normally). Esn 01:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Independent/Other
I saw the title on Special:Newpages, and just thought "wait...other?" and got confused for a moment. I think Independent works much better, and I think it'll be a lot better when people are doing searches for incidents. I'm glad I was able to help :) --Адам12901 Talk 05:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

WALL-E
I know there still isn't an official announcement directly from Pixar yet, but wouldn't the fact that Bob Iger, Disney CEO, announced the existence of WALL-E in this letter to stockholders be enough to substantiate its inclusion on Wikipedia, and references on other Pixar pages? RMS Oceanic 00:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree; we were waiting for official beyond doubt, which this is.jj 07:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

well, when we've got Shrek 4 when shrek 3 isn't released, and given the trend of Pixar to be secretive about these things, you'd say we have to wait for a trailer or something in essence, which is not a rulejj 15:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Look at how little info we have on Ratatouille, or had even 6 months ago. it is a stub, sure, but it obviously is Pixar and is going to happen, thus it is relevant.15:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, leaving that unnanounced thing on Ratatouille won't work even if we delete wall-e, it has been announced —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JasonJack (talk • contribs) 15:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Finding Nemo stuff
Spike, thanks for the headsup. Marlin was the one page I wasn't actively watching (fixed that). I dropped the other editor a note as well, so she will hopefully understand about the merge. I'm doing all I can to make that a good article ;). Thanks again! -- Snicker undefined°€ 05:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Movie infobox timelines?

 * Was I wrong in my assumption?

Yep; they're for film series. But that's what the "edit this page" links are for, so it's not too much of a problem. :)

If you're interested in linking things like that, though, you should check out the succession box template. If the Disney theatrical animated features template didn't exist, I could easily see succession boxes being used to connect the films. &mdash;tregoweth (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, no problem. Just think of this as a relatively painless learning experience. :) &mdash;tregoweth (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Aaaah, my eyes! &mdash;tregoweth (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Dates
My guideline is that years shouldn't be linked unless there is some reason for linking to it -- something like "In the historic year of 1991..." makes sense, but "The film was re-released in 1987, 1992, and 1998" is just gratuitous.

Linking fuller dates is helpful, so that users' date display preferences will work. Compare how the dates below are rendered with how they look when you edit the page: &mdash;tregoweth (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * January 1 -- January 1
 * 1 January -- 1 January
 * 2001-01-01 -- 2001-01-01

Disney lists
What do you think should be done about it? I really don't like the idea of every attraction / show being put onto one big page. Maybe each park should only have one page for open and closed attractions. Can you come up with an example of say Epcot? -- blm07 18:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've come up with one here: User:Blm07/Epcot example. -- blm07 18:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I started the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disney. -- blm07 18:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Disney edits
This article is already full of superfluous junk and is undergoing some pretty stiff criticism about its content which I think is holding it back from where it should be. Like those final lists: Disney in fiction, Disney in Music. And all that unreferenced stuff about the parks development in the 90s. My cursory parousal of this article leaves me wondering about the innovations Dusneyland has brought to theme park entertainment and which don't need to take up that much space.--Magi Media 13:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

OK! I looked at this link-to series of articles, and that works for me. What I did was add a little more description at the point where these links first appear without being wordy or redundant.--Magi Media 02:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Magic Castle....?!
What the hell was up with reverting my edit regarding 'Sleeping Beauty's Magic Castle'? Where on earth are you getting the idea that that's what it's called? SergioGeorgini 12:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I know it's called Sleeping Beauty Castle. I removed the "Magic Castle" thing, I didn't put it there. You put it back! Read before you edit. SergioGeorgini 13:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry I started all this. We boomers growing up used to refer to it as the magic castle, and there was a subtitle of Magic Castle at one time. But it's nothing that ever stuck to the books, so in or out, I don't care.--Magi Media 14:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

List of notable Pixar employees
Would you start this page because i don't have much time to do so. I could help in between when i do have time. Here's my argument as seen on Template talk:Pixar Animation Studios: I think that making this list and adding it right next to the most notable of Pixar employees on the template (john lasseter|pete docter|andrew stanton|brad bird|List of notable Pixar employees) would be a great idea and the people section would be ultimately fixed. Martini833 00:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I oppose to the list of animators how about a list of notable Pixar employees. There are 700 animators (per film) so i dont see how tht is possible. The page could have directors, ceo types, animators, notable voice actors, storyboard articts, notable dead employees, short film directors, producers etc. Martini833 00:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

List of notable Pixar staff
could u help with this? Martini833 01:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Re.:My removal of ToT sim?
I just thought it was link spam. People have been just putting in random links to their sites on Disney articles recently and I did it automatically not even thinking. Sorry for that, I should have looked closer before I reverted. It seems pretty encyclopedic and if you add it back into the article I won't object. Phydend 14:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

71.114.232.137/PixarIs
In regards to your question, I think something really needs to be done. This editor clearly has no regard for sourcing, and treats the Pixar pages like a personal fan site. He/she/it has clearly violated 3RR on MANY occasions, including today. Report away. TheRealFennShysa 04:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Shrek 4
I noticed that Shrek 4 is receiving a lot of speculative edits. Spider-Man 4 is undergoing the same thing, and there is an AfD underway to redirect to Spider-Man film series until there is actual production. This should be done for the Shrek 4 - go to Talk:Shrek (series) and support the motion to merge temporarily. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Tagging of 1906 (film)
I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on 1906 (film). I do not think that 1906 (film) fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because Crystal ballign is not a speedy deletion reason -- I have used proposed deletion instead. I request that you consider not re-tagging 1906 (film) for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I quite understand -- over-eager fans can be very frustrating. DES (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If there are WP:3RR violations, plese do list them on the 3RR noticeboard or call an admins atentuion to them, and blocking should result. Are any recent? Stale violations (more than a day or two old, with no ongoing reverts) are not generally blocked for. DES (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Guns N' Roses (pinball)
I moved the page because i felt the title was more appropriate, i didn't know the "(pinball)" tag was used on other pages. I'll move the page back if 'Guns N' Roses (pinball)' is correct. Bucketheader 10:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've moved it back now, sorry for any inconvenience. Bucketheader 11:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Links
'Ello Spike Jones, I checked the links, and they were copyright protected. Didn't see the small print...because I didn't look for it (I figured the hyper link took care of the intellectual property, and that should be enough). Anyway, thanks for your info on the coaster wikiproject, I already started using the template. Minus the details in the American system; I will not even start the discussion why the metric system should be abandoned. But besides that, an excellent template.
 * and I saw that the template converts automatically. Signing off correctly, I hope Magafuzula 18:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Video games
That is a good point; nobody in the debate appears to have thought of pinball machines (although one might argue that they do contain a computer chip, I suppose). I note the existence of Category:Pinball games, and would suggest moving articles on individual pinball machines in there.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ratatouille.......bless you
I removed them. The one in the plot (currently) really doesn't, but maybe if we just shrink the size it will be better until the film comes out in a couple weeks. My main concern was the dozen images in the cast, as they would never hold water in a fair use review.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh gee, thanks..lol I left them a message. If that Pixar guy (who may be the uploader of all those others.....nope, just checked) returns to Ratatouille, I'd point him to the talk page. I don't have it on my watchlist, nor the "Cars" film, but if a discussion gets out of hand just send me a message and I'll come over and see what's being said.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, but that falls under WP:OR. Alientraveller 18:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The Princess and the Frog
I removed perceived out of the controversy section in The Princess and the Frog article. Perceived seemed rather an inappropriate word to be used for that section, but you added it back. I was just wondering your standing on this because of course to some Maddy is short for Madison etc., but to a lot more others it is considered a stereotypical name for black/African-American young females so therefore it is not perceived to be and saying that it is seems inappropriate.--Sugarcubez 05:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

merge and delete
If you merge the information and then delete it, you lose the edit history of where the information comes from. That's a copyright violation under GFDL. Corvus cornix 05:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Incidents at SF parks
I don't think the views you expressed at User talk:Cyde are unreasonable, and the changes in practice may not be evident to everyone because individual edits to articles are not often widely announced. There has been more focus on the importance of privacy in BLP articles lately, which is why issues like this incident draw more attention now than they would have a few months ago. My personal opinion is that it's worth a small loss of information in a few articles compared to the potential benefits to the human beings we cover. You are of course free to disagree. I think that the chance of changing practice to be more inclusive of personal information is low, since the arbitration committee has recently made several findings about the BLP policy that support a stricter reading than many editors expect. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I also disagree with your related revert of the material I added to Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom about the recent accident. The text that you returned to is far too vague. I believe that the park article should have more of a mention of this incident, especially given the widespread media coverage of it. I did not revert my edit, as I await a more detailed explanation from you and didn't want to get into an edit war, especially since my feelings aren't that strong about it. Realkyhick 05:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I see your point, particularly in regard to maintenance issues. I think we may need something a little more demonstrative in the link from the ride listing to the incident report, like: Note: This ride was involved in a heavily-publicized accident on (whatever date it was); see List of incidents at Six Flags Parks. Realkyhick 21:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. I'm also putting a similar link up in the chart about the Starchaser incident. (I didn't realize that ride came from Beech Bend Park. Heck, I lived 25 miles from it there.) Realkyhick 22:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you some sort of apologist for Six Flags? There is nothing at all wrong with mentioning that the investigation is ongoing. I'm reverting to my last edit. Realkyhick 15:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your Friend the Rat
Thanks for reminding me. I meant to continue editing that page to redirect to Ratatouille (where I think it would be an appropriate place for a short blurb about the short). -- John Reaves 03:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think a redirect is more likely to prevent recreation before November (or at least it might give someone the hint that it shouldn't be an article just yet). -- John Reaves 05:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject roller coasters
Hi there, just to let you know that WP:ROCO has been given an overhaul. As you are listed as a participant, I just thought I'd let you know that there's a new to-do section and much clearer guidelines for roller coaster articles. Hope to see you over there! Sea serpent 85Talk 09:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

WALL-E
Got a link to that press release? I'm interested in reading it. Alientraveller 16:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Neuroscience of Twats
Spikamine is relased whenever people visualise a typical twat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.244.180 (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Six Flags over Georgia Incident
I did a Google News Archives search and found the following |DN&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB2969DE9AAA2B3&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM news article. Although I didn't purchase the full article, the summary has the name of the coaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.95.231 (talk) 06:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Burnlounge
Thanks for explaining the reversions on the Burnlounge article. I will look for a better source for the recent rumors of a lay-off. (Frankly, that source is the only one that I could find reporting it, so it's probably best to delete it for now). I'm obviously new to Wiki and I appreciate your guidance.

74.185.105.135 19:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I worked there and was laid off. I would rather remain anonymous, but all you need to know is that it's TRUE and that all employees as of oct 2007 are still waiting to get paid for their last 2 weeks of work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.89.141 (talk) 02:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Scarne
If you read Scarne's New Complete Guide to Gambling's original and revised editions, you will see that they state exactly what I said they stated. In the first edition he claimed card counting was a fraud. In the revised edition, he claimed to have invented it. You deleted a reference to words by the author himself and replaced it with a link to an opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you used HT as a researcher that explains the errors. The references are poor. Scarne finally realized that card counting was legitimate. To cover his rather embarrassing error, he then made up this story and claimed that his older statements against counting were merely cover so he could count himself. This is nonsense. There is no evidence that his discussion with Benjamin Siegal ever took place and it is self-serving. Objective3000 14:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Table Games in Vegas
I see you have reverted several sections on blackjack and other table games in Vegas. These sections are Wikipedia-worthy and very relevant to the table game environment in Vegas. Any discussion of Harrah's or Caesar's must include the changes they have made and effects they have had on the casino community. There are literally hundreds of articles on this issue and it is at the top of the mind of most experts. So please stop deleting all of these references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgtd (talk • contribs) 19:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

And yet again you reverted a correction of mine to the Casino Royale page for no reason whatsoever. I corrected a false statement (unsourced) that they no longer offer blackjack. They do! Also they only have 1 100x odds craps table now. Don't just revert edits without reading or knowing what you are doing. Bgtd 01:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * DO NOT REVERT EDITS WITHOUT READING THEM FIRST, idiot.
 * The material I changed was wrong. I fixed it. It was a simple change. And you keep mindlessly posting that Wikipedia is not a travel guide but the PREVIOUS version had information about the table games that was plainly wrong, and I fixed it. It said that Casino Royale does not have blackjack. That is ridiculous. They have had blackjack every day they have ever been open, ever. Not a single day without it, and still there today.  21:31, 11 November 2007 Bgtd

Casino Royale
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Vegaswikian 01:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not know about the other problems. If this shows up again, report it on one of the admin lists like Administrator intervention against vandalism. Now matter how high the need, users should not violate the 3RR rule. Let an admin decide that the id is a vandal and take action. Cleanup can happen later. Also users can add any of the user warning templates to a users talk page. A much better act then getting involved in an edit war. Vegaswikian 06:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

WALL-E
I point out the last paragraph where it was confirmed at the DVD launch of Ratatouille that John hasn't recorded his cameo yet, but he will have one. Alientraveller 14:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Spike Jones
Are you, by any chance, a fan of Spike Jones? Or is this just a coincidence? I have been meaning to add to his article, and if you know anything about him, I would love to contribute with someone such as yourself. talk me back if you're interested, mysekurity 6 July 2005 17:50 (UTC)

New Wikiproject Las Vegas
I have noted your interest in Las Vegas, Nevada and surrounding area. I extend the offer to join us on the Wikiproject Las Vegas. &hellip; G u y M &hellip; (soapbox) 12:28, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Your Goal of removing Links
Like the User above me you are hell Bent on deleting links to other sites that have more info on the same thing. You Posted a Comment that the Everest Page on this site Everest Page was full of wrong info. How would you know this. I know for a fact 9/10 of this site info comes direct from Disney itself so not sure what is incorrect about it. Do you go around all day finding external links and Deleting them? No ones trying to spam Wikipedia or atleast I'm not. But if I find a site that Kicks but has photos and Videos of the ride and also includes ride audio whats wrong with that. And if you feel the need to kick the links off that is not to a commercial site than the linking feature needs to be turned off

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:RatatouillePCgame.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:RatatouillePCgame.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Roller Coasters Newsletter, December 2007
Sea serpent 85 23:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:References in Enchanted
I realize that the information in the current list comes from a central, static source document. However, I believe that it is not Wikipedia's job to reproduce that document here (copyvio concerns notwithstanding). I believe that a sourced section documenting the most important of those references and the director's feelings about those references would be much more beneficial than a raw list of the "official" references from said document, which would be more appropriate for a fansite. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, thanks for talking first instead of taking offense to the tag and removing it immediately. Wikipedia is built by editors like you. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say the best way to discourage anon editors from adding their own items is by not making it easy for them. In list form, it's easy to just add another bullet point. In a paragraph, it's much harder and a revert is more justified by simply saying "doesn't flow with rest of paragraph" or something. As for which are "most important", it's up to consensus or whatever illustrates the point best. For example, if in an interview, the director said he spent a lot of time setting up a certain reference, include that one. At any rate, I really like the film so I'll probably try to do some dedicated improvement of the article myself at some point when the media dust settles. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Spike -- before I revert your revert, I am curious as to why you removed the comment about the rats helping out in the dress shop. There is a scene (be it ever so brief) where the rats, mice and pigeons are working on a dress. I didn't write the comment, but I don't understand it's removal. Swango (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Roller Coasters Newsletter, January 2008
Sea serpent 85 14:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: enchanted commentary
Actually, User:Criminally Vulgar turned the list into the prose (in the article's talk page) so he/she did most of the hard work. I just split it into sections and removed material that I couldn't find in the sources I used as citation. The editing took longer than expected so I wasn't able to remove most of "appears like" phrases that were already there; I thought I removed them all, oh well. :) I'm glad you read through it because I might have also made typos as well. Ladida (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008
I'm not going to argue with you anymore because all I was trying to do was match up the Disney articles. It does the same exact thing in Epcot's article. Mike41691 (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Policy doesn't actually prohibit users from deleting warnings. It's just a generally accepted thing not to do. Apart from that I don't see why you'd request his case be reviewed. Reagrds, Rudget . 17:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Rudget . 17:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Rollercoaster Movie Poster.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Rollercoaster Movie Poster.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Pixar blog guy
I don't think we need to do anything out of the ordinary -- just keep reverting and warning, and report the IP at WP:AIV if it violates 3RR or keeps adding the blog link after warnings. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Roller Coasters Newsletter, February 2008
Sea serpent 85 20:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Visitor attractions in Orlando, Florida
Well, this time it was split out. That is something that is reasonable. The Bay Lake stuff probably needs to be added as a subcat in Category:Visitor attractions in Orlando, Florida. I did clean up the introduction to make its coverage clearer. Fell free to improve the introduction. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep it was fun. I would have rather spent my time pulling out my hair over sorting though a bunch of articles that needed to be subcategroized after a few cat merges. I can't wait to see if the CfD resolves anything.  Vegaswikian (talk) 06:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ratz and Up
You've read the article and saw that there wasn't any Ratz info in it, so you asked if we had any that was mysteriously being withheld. I suggested that you ask your question on a fan site as info is not entered into WP without proper citations (especially for future films that are still being developed). Since you expressed curiousity as to how fansite cites could be handled, I directed you to a related article with the exact same topic in its history (the inclusion of Ratz in Ratatouille) so you could see how the question of whether Ratz was in that film or not that was handled historically before the official announcment came out. If you want the short answer, *all* mentions of Ratz's involvement in UP will be deleted until official word comes directly from Pixar. If you want the long answer, I've pointed you in the directions you need to gather more info on the topic. If you have specific questions about the article content itself, then add to the discussion on the UP page. If you would like to discuss this specific aspect of the topic, feel free to add to my talk page instead. Cheers!SpikeJones (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you ascribe to me a level of... well, I'm not really sure what, but suffice it to say that you assume from me statements that I've not made, and thoughts that I've not had. I don't believe that info is being withheld, "mysteriously" or otherwise.  I simply meant to point editors toward research on the topic that might not otherwise be explored for reasons that are really quite innocent.


 * Up (film) is still a relatively new and short article... though now that I look at the article history, I see you've been kept rather busy reverting premature edits. And rightly so:  Having just helped to stave off the masses from prematurely declaring Fidel Castro not only succeeded but dead, believe me, you have my sympathies!  And perhaps my apologies as well; I should have looked at that edit history before asking my question in talk.  Hmmm.  Well, anyway, that rather blows holes in what I was about to say.  I was about to say that it was reasonable to presume that there are research avenues that have yet to be explored, but it looks like we've been down that road, haven't we?  Oh, well.  In light of all this, I guess I'll just ask you to assume that I have a belly button and move on.  Happy editing! -- JeffBillman (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Disney edit war
Hey Spike. I agree that leaving it as "near Orlando" should be fine, and that the Walt Disney World resort article does have the info on Bay Lake and on Lake Buena Vista. What I'm wondering is if this previous editor (the one who added a nearly 900-character link) is yet another sock puppet. I was trying to include something that included both bits of info and would stop the war. It's cool either way, to me. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As to the response you left on my talk page: I completely agree ... "near Orlando, Florida" should suffice, especially when the Walt Disney World Resort has the property's entire history. It should be noted, and I think you see it this way too, that the park articles are subsidiary to the main resort article. Thus, all the location details should be in the main resort article.


 * As to whether the user is yet another sock puppet, I'm keeping an eye on the SeaWorld articles, because those got changed at the same time. No changes yet, so that part of the puppeteer's M.O. hasn't surfaced yet.


 * McDoobAU93 (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * He's at it again ... at least 2-3 new sock puppets started today alone. Now he's attacking the individual attraction articles. This needs to stop NOW. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Semi-protect ... Doesn't that protect articles from edits by anonymous or new accounts? For this form of vandalism, that seems like the ideal defensive action. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We've got another sock operating ... I'll add it to the case. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Be aware of two separate discussions taking place on WP:AN/I regarding this user: here and here. At this point, I think reverting his or her edits and category changes again and again is adding to the perceptions of some administrators that this is a petty content dispute or edit war—and that all users involved are equally at fault. It might be more effective to explain your position in those discussions and hope an administrator will understand and take action. &#151;Whoville (talk) 01:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I just now read what you were talking about in the above-referenced discussion. On the first read, it made perfect sense. If someone wants more info, they can go to the main Walt Disney World article. Where's Peter Venkman when I need him? "I like this plan. I'm excited to be a part of it ... let's do it!" --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Your contradictory edits
Having the article say "near Orlando" and having the category say "in Orlando" is a contradiction and UNENCYLOPEDIC VANDALISM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.51.206 (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * He's at it again, using his original name. Check out Splendid China (Florida), which was one of the pages protected last night. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 21:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I alerted Whoville and Jayron32, one of the admins who helped out last night. I asked the user at the Splendid China article to back off and let the system work. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: blocked for two weeks for disruption. With the semi-protects in place, he can't do any more harm. At least we tried, and I know we'll try again. The rest is up to him. Thanks. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Here we go again ... new sock puppet up and running using anonymous IP in Epcot article, whose protection has dropped. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * He's back again, but I'm trying a different tack. Instead of reverting, I'm following what we discussed above, and removed the city information from each article, leaving just the link back to the main park articles. Since the attractions are children to the park articles, which are children to the resort articles, city info really is redundant. What better way to fight a fire than to remove the fuel? ;) --McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Seaworld is not IN Orlando
It is southwest of it 72.153.223.172 (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

John Scarne
The only reference in the deleted citation to Scarne was that he criticized Thorp's system. Since this is already covered in Scarne's books, and in the "The History of Card Counting" web site in a later reference, I do not believe the citation is still required. Isaac Lin (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

off-topic: speed count
SC is advertised as having up to 95% the power of "professional level strategies." In fact, it has 35% of the SCORE of KO. Henry stands up in the classes with a slide making this claim. He has been told many times that the claims are false. I told him this in person at a party. The ads claim independent sims have proved their claims. In fact, three independent people using three different simulators all show the ads to be wrong. Yet they continue with these false claims. IMO, SC can actually be worse than basic strategy for recreational players - the players they target. BTW, it is hardly "revolutionary" as it is so obvious it has been invented five times.:) But that's just marketing hype. Objective3000 (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * On the old third-base player question, see http://blackjackincolor.com/useless6.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I may have moved the wrong one.
I created the category Roller coaters Orlando area because I noticed there was one that said Tampa Bay area, but I see that the Tampa one might be moved to just Tampa instead of vice-versa. Is the convention just going to be the closest big city? I seem to remember Busch Gardens being in Temple Terrace. Marc Averette (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Your florida category renames
These were moved to WP:CFD which is the proper place for category moves and renames. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Category move requests
I have removed your move request templates from both Category talk:Visitor attractions in Greater Miami and Category talk:Visitor attractions in the Tampa Bay Area as category moves are not handled by WP:RM. To move a category, please complete the process as explained at WP:CFR. Thanks. JPG-GR (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do the Las Vegas are casinos say they're in Paradise, Nevada?
If that is the guidline then why don't the Orlando resorts say the specific city they are in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.224.123 (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This appears to be another Miamiboyzinhere sock evading his block. Momusufan (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: WALL-E
Ratzenberger was confirmed to play a character called "John" (lol), so one issue is sorted. There's also a reason I noted Burtt as sound designer: it's his voice that's been thrown into the sound mix for the robots. Alientraveller (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have other suggestions as to how to include him in the infobox? Alientraveller (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Enchanted OR
SpikeJones, thanks for the responses on the Disney movie homage issues at Enchanted. I think the article is well written and interesting, except for two things: the undue space devoted to all of the Disney references, and the original research issues that it not only invites, but guarantees. My impression is that you are not a complete supporter of the section as it stands. As for me, I'm disappointed that the article &mdash; its excellent qualities aside &mdash; was promoted to GA with so many sourcing issues unanswered or ambiguous. (I'm not just picking on Enchanted: I've been much more frustrated with the "quality" of some recent FAs.)

Before you left the info today prompted by my Fact tag, I had planned to make a proposal on the film's Talk page that the Official References section be split off to a separate article, retaining a form of the first two paragraphs in the parent article. This would not only improve the parent article quality immediately, but would mitigate the inevitable onanistic fan additions to come. Those interested in listing every reference could do so on an article completely focused on the subject. You have much more history with this article's development than I so I thought best to fly this balloon with you first. Jim Dunning | talk  17:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk  18:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Be bold or propose on Talk page?

Jim Dunning | talk  12:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ladida did an excellent job in splitting off the section. It looks great, and quality has been improved all around. Thanks for your hard work you put into the article(s).

Re:Enchanted costume info
I don't know. I put it there because it was in the news article. Would you mind editing or re-wording it and take out parts you don't think should be there? I know it's in need of editing but I don't think I can look at it again. Regards, Ladida (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
Do you wish to be granted rollback, I've seen you do some good work and be glad to add it to your account. Rudget . 08:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Rollback has been granted. Go on to a page history (example WP:SAND) and see what it does. With regards to the Pinball article, have the sourcing issues been resolved? Rudget . 12:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've requested the protecting admin to review the case, per your comments. Rudget . 13:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Presto
To be honest I'd be glad to leave you to it. My interest in these articles stems from a persistent vandal (see my talk page) who writes ridiculous hoaxes. His targets are usually kids shows/films where citations are few and far between, and he was hacking Pixar articles today. Even the weakest of citations (ie blogs) lets other editors know that what he's writing is rubbish, but I'm glad you've removed that short films list from Pixar (which was weakly-cited, so an easy target for him). Look out for 172.x (AOL) hoax edits in future, he's very persistent once he's hit a page once, and will almost certainly cross your path again now. I watchlist his targets and WP:RBI him where I can.

BTW if you're looking after the Pixar stuff, I assume you've seen User:Gabypixar appear today? I was planning to keep an eye on edits from that account, but you'd probably be better at auditing those edits than me, for me Pixar is just collateral damage. Cheers, Bazzargh (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I took a closer look and got the source of the Cartoon Brew article, so there is a non-blog source for this now. A bit flimsy still, but better. Bazzargh (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Last thing - edits by Special:Contributions/68.147.218.23 need looked at by someone familiar with Disney/Pixar. I started looking when they deleted most of the King of the Elves article (which was sourced). The edits are odd; some of it may be correct, but mostly they're making the articles incoherent, whoever this is has a poor grasp of English. They appear to be a continuation of Special:Contributions/68.147.169.100. They've deleted chunks from several articles but KoTE was the only one I could see where they deleted referenced material. I'd hesitate to call it vandalism without a second opinion. Bazzargh (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Improving Pixar to Featured Article status
Hey, I noticed that you are a major contributor to Pixar and I was wondering if you are interested in helping me make the article a Featured Article? Cheers! Gary King (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Could we please discuss your recent re-addition at Talk:Pixar? Cheers! Gary King (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Past Tense
Typo? - restored a future tense, not past. Those three sentences look confused to me - since this is reported speech, all 3 'will's should be 'would's, eg "The conditions are that X will..." becomes "The conditions were that X would..." etc. See eg, (I'm sure you knew this already and its just a typo, but I'm wary in case there's a US English difference here) Bazzargh (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, no. I agree that 'is' was wrong, but my point was, 'will' is not any past tense, and is incorrect here too. What you're calling past future tense is more commonly called reported speech. The past tense of:


 * Some of those conditions are that Pixar HR policies will remain intact, including the lack of employment contracts. Also, the Pixar name is guaranteed to continue, and the studio will remain in its current Emeryville, California location with the "Pixar" sign. Finally, branding of films made post-merger will be "Disney•Pixar" (beginning with Cars).
 * is:


 * Some of those conditions were that Pixar HR policies would remain intact, including the lack of employment contracts. Also, the Pixar name was guaranteed to continue, and the studio would remain in its current Emeryville, California location with the "Pixar" sign. Finally, branding of films made post-merger would be "Disney•Pixar" (beginning with Cars).
 * Note that the entirely present tense version is also correct, since it the statement "remains true"; but mixing 'were' and 'will' is incorrect. BTW - if you remain unconvinced by references for reported speech, a reference for 'would' being the correct past future tense form of 'will' Bazzargh (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit to History of the roller coaster
I reverted the last edit you made to this article. My reasoning for the revert is here if you would like to discuss. -- Skylights76 (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Epcot Timeline
Hello, do you have a problem with the links in the subject titles for the decade subsections in the timeline, or the decade subsections themselves? I'm happy to follow the MOS and not have links, but I don't see the purpose of not having the decade subsections. Spinach Monster (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok...Your reply didn't answer my question: will you revert the decade subsections without the links? Also, if you could, please use the on my talk page and continue the conversation here from here on. Thanks! Spinach Monster (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I Think You Misunderstood Me

 * Please read what I said again, excuse me for not being clearer. Let me try again below.


 * 1) Links In The Subsection Titles = You're right. It's the MOS. No argument. (do you have a problem with the links in the subject titles for the decade subsections in the timeline)
 * 2) The Subsections Themselves = Will you revert them again without the links in the title lines? (or the decade subsections themselves?)


 * And, is your revert due to #1 or #2 or both? (I'm happy to follow the MOS and not have links, but I don't see the purpose of not having the decade subsections.)

Spinach Monster (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Timelines

 * Timelines In MOS. Also, this was the only thing I could find regarding timelines in the MOS, but that applies to articles on times themselves, not in context within an article like the situation here. Spinach Monster (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Apology Accepted For Gruffness. Moving Forward...
Ok....

I don't understand why you're still not reading what I initially said, but let's ignore #1 altogether. Maybe that'll help.

What's your problem with splitting that section up into decades? Or do you have a problem with splitting that section up into decades? If you cited a problem with subsections there per WP:HEAD, let me know what it is and why.

Also please note I have come to the talk pages here to avoid gaming the system. If I wanted, I could have gotten you into a situation where you couldn't have changed it again, but instead we are here.

If you are running out of patience, please give me an answer to #2 so we can either find a middle ground or move on. I am also running out of patience on this matter, I posed you a very simple question and still cannot get an answer, but I will aim and have aimed my best to remain civil so in return for your gruffness apology, please accept my apology if you construed me as gruff. Spinach Monster (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok Then
I'll put the decades back in then now. And i'll do so without the links in the subject headers, per WP:HEAD. Happy editing. Spinach Monster (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

monorail
look at the pics. it is red monorail, if you even look at the history and info of the monorail it is red in the accident. the pics show it as red with balck border. so common sense isout the window here in wiki[ppedia world. how stupid is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ok i didnt call any editor stupid. the idea of not using common sense is stupid. there is a difference. also, the track this was one goes clock wise which meane the purple monorail was coming back from epcot. which is the one where the driver was at and killed. also i put the drivers name in the article and someone keeps deleting that. so once again people who are the first to do this dont like crtisicm wont allow the facts to come a light.
 * it was the pruple train that hit the red tain at the ttc. i do know what i am talking about. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * you undid my last one because why. i was agreeing with someone else who was against you. so you deleted it why?

and called me a malformed editor because?
 * you seem to have alot of knowledge of nothing. so good job there. thank youFord1206 (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I modified your comment due to bad editing, your content is there and reason was posted in the edit summary. As for your second comment, I recall you mistakenly insisting above that it was the red monorail and not pink. So thank you for your "good job" comment. You're welcome, always trying to help. SpikeJones (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * no spike jones, you deleted a comment i made toward someone else. congratulating them against you. you deleted that. so the good job was to jimmy i recall, not to you. if you would not be so hasten in deleting specailly in the discussion page you would understand. so thank you for your not so good help. i read your talk page here. it seems like you are opinated and not stating facts, and people are mad because you delete thiers. so i would just stick to what you know. go back to other comments above. thank you have a nice day. Ford1206 (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * just because it was an editing error doesn not mean it is malformed. i am very well informed. and if it is an editing error, just fix and shut up, quit calling others here names. so i just put a space here and there. so what. didnt you question me about calling it stupid for not using common sense. you misinformed editor.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ford1206 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The statement was that it was a "malformed edit". The word "editor" was never used. Please stop preceding your edits with a space, as it makes them hard to read by misformatting them. I never called anyone stupid. I did not delete any comment of yours. Check the edit history and show me exactly which edits you are talking about. The "jimmy" comment is still present on the page over there, so I have no idea what you are refering to.  Happy editing! SpikeJones (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * dude you did delete one of my statements. i undid your deletion. that is why it is there. not saying you called any one stupid. you my dear sir are malformed and like alot of others you are not reading what is being said.Ford1206 (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You bore me with this conversation that is leading nowhere. Either provide the compare link to the specific edit you are referring to where I deleted your comment, or drop the conversation entirely. You have shown to be mistaken in the past ("look at the pics. it is red monorail"), so until you provide proof of what you are talking about, I will no longer participate in this discussion. SpikeJones (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

you bore me. end of conversation. thank you.oh so i was wrong but i was going by pictures which are lets say can be used in a court of law...lol but its not a big deal in conversation, which is my point. like this conversation. and this conversation is done. thank you again. Ford1206 (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Piper?
OK, Now I see that you've taken the time to undo all of the work I've done today, not just on the Piper Reese article. Please take a few seconds to explain what I'm doing wrong if that's the case. J2K (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Robert Irvine
I re-added the scheduled air dates and here's why...the last line of the article which is about Irvine (not Irving) states that the new episodes starring Irvine will begin airing in March 2009. See here: Irvine Article

"Disney theatrical animated features" box rewrite
Hey, i think you're the right guy to talk to about this

I suggest that the "Disney theatrical animated features" footer box should be organised much the same as the box used for "X Factor (UK)" or *Big Brother (UK)":
 * Organsised by decade i.e. 1960-1969, 1970 - 1979
 * Films yet to be released are in italics, including the release year
 * I realise this is now a very long list, but for being such a comprehensive piece of data spawning 9 decades, it is to be expected
 * The layout is much easier on the yeys and much more professional looking, and easy to search through
 * Minimal editing from this is now needed, to remove errounious · 's and creating spaces where additional · 's are

I beleive the footer box shoud look similar to this: