![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
It's better to captilize it because it makes it look better and it's proper English. Mike41691 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike41691 ( talk • contribs) 15:38, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Hello, recently you posted a message about not linking to photo collections. I don't quite agree with it since Wikepedia says "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." and this IS meaningful relevant content. But I guess since somebody commented so quickly it is not allowed.
By the way, do you know if there is a way to post a collection to be reviewed (I have lots of nice photos there and if people find it useful they can put it on wikepedia or some other sites)? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adznet ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You have taken off an external link related to the Pirates of the Caribbean. Please explain why? I am not link Spamming. It is an informative relevant site which has been around since 2001. It has 1000's of visitors. IMDB is listed. The site has filming locations for 1000's of movies. Please advise. Is there a way to submit a site to appear on each movie page similar to IMDB. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.194.152 ( talk) 08:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I posted this on Vegaswikian's page. Thought you'd be interested too: (sigh). I see that you restored the CFD on Category:Visitor attractions in Bay Lake, Florida. thank you for that. If we're going through cleanup, then we may also want to do CFD on Category:Visitor attractions in Orange County, Florida and on Category:Roller coasters in Greater Orlando, and merge items as necessary into Category:Amusement parks in Orlando, Florida, remove the page List of amusement parks in Greater Orlando as redundant to the category. It's like a giant game of 52-card pickup over there on the Orlando pages. SpikeJones ( talk) 13:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. I've added some additional supporting information, indicating this is definitely a pattern with this user. I'm also trying to determine if the puppeteer (Miamiboyzinhere) is actually a puppet itself of another user. Until I know for sure, or at least have enough evidence to back up my claim, I won't start a case into that. -- McDoobAU93 ( talk) 02:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
68.191.179.217 continues to do vandalism, he completely doesn't care. He did vandalism in the List of Happy Tree Friends characters again. He realy should get blocked.
Here's his last change
-- Mr Alex ( talk) 00:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Please take a look at the edit I did today. I have done spam edits in the past before I fully understood how this site worked and I apologize for that. But if you look at my edits this time around you will wee that the addition of the site Original D is a fair addition because it contains organize videos of almost EVERY attraction available at the Disneyland Park. I would consider this a big addition to the article as if you are interested in Disneyland then videos are something you would have a rather large desire to see! Again, I apologize for my actions in the past, but please look at the edit I made today (5/14/08) as I clearly added official Disney Links for official information as well as Non-Disney sites that contain more information or things that the Wikipedia Article will not. Thank you. 71.116.162.179 ( talk) 01:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Whoville: Just in a brief aside about your comment on my reply that the user may want to create a page on their website. I am rather certain that the article would not be permitted -- but if in-need it was vetted against policy, and it was discovered that this website was notable from reliable third party sources, then their would not necessary be a violation of COI/COS. And if that was the case, then including his links may be appropriate to the other Disney related articles. However, said that, I agree that it really wouldn't get past the other editors. Yet, this process may help bring to light, for himself, the non-notability of his own site. Tiggerjay ( talk) 15:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Whoville, please read my comment on
this page. Thanks! -
Dewdrinker19 (
talk)
01:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Please stop. Catalano does not have a Wikipedia article and is not sufficiently notable to justify adding his name to multiple articles. —Whoville (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
<with a sarcastic grin> Sure, just go ahead an make my talk comment regarding the name properly wikified and linked --- See if I don't notice it. heh! No, seriously, thanks for taking the time I didn't. Tiggerjay ( talk) 01:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Whoville, I have a question. I had seen other people refer to each user effectively being responsible for managing his/her talk page, thus my blanking mine when I had absorbed the issues on it. It was my hope that it would be easier to manage new issues that way. Apparently that is incorrect (per Mannafredo). What is the correct way to remove things from my talk page? Thanks Bradrussell ( talk) 14:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for picking up the mistake - I was following a cross wiki trail! Cheers -- Herby talk thyme 11:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for watching out for me... :) Have a great week! Tiggerjay ( talk) 04:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
Since we have no special Disney barnstar -- yet -- I award you this Special Barnstar for your contribution to Disney related articles! Your work is appreciated! Tiggerjay ( talk) 07:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks for reporting the vandalism, I took one look at the WP:AIV page instructions and my mind went blank!! BigThunderMtn ( talk) 23:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Whoville;
I think there is some mistake, I just revert a vandalism in
Camden, NJ
[3], please take a look again in the diffs. Regards;
Caiaffa (
talk)
23:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I've posted a message on his page - this doesn't appear to be a lawsuit with legitimate facts and controversy. After you had reverted Disneysuit's edits on the Pirates of the Caribbean article, he had re-added the edits. I have left him a very lengthy message on his page about the legitimacy and supposed importance of this supposed lawsuit on his page, as well as a level 2 vandalism warning. It seems this guy is really persistent and will continue doing this. What do you suppose we should do? Aparna BlackPearl14 16:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, looks like Hesperian protected the article again. I'll keep a look out on the other articles. Happy editing to you. Keegan talk 20:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
And, curiously, Miamiboyzinhere blanked his talk page earlier today... — C.Fred ( talk) 21:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Add List of Disney villains to your watchlist, then take a look at the history through at least May 2007. A week or two ago, after having asked for citations and general cleanup back in May, I said "screw it" and found an official citable listing. On the bright side, the page is certainly clean and fits WP policy/formatting now, but "being bold" has caused some wailing and nashing of teeth by those who liked the willy-nilly feel of the messy, uncited, longer version. Just wanted to have another set of eyes (and perhaps an opinion or two) to assist if necessary. Hey, if the other way was better, I'll trust your opinion on that over others. Cheers! SpikeJones ( talk) 17:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your support on the Admin Notice-board, two users presenting a case/situation is better than one! Hope I can work together with you on a different article soon ;) BlackPearl14 Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean 22:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear Wikinews, Wikipedia and "WHOVILLE" since “conflict of interest” “neutral” is an important subject since “conflict of interest” is being herald by wikinews / wikipedia staff and volunteers, including being used by wikipedia/wikinews administrators and editors with which to have an article /story be deleted, and is grounds for action against a contributor, then please immediately provide documentation that editors, administrators and people providing articles and information to wikipedia and wikinews have no conflict of interest to the articles and stories they create, edit, supervise and/or contribute. For example, did any editor have sexual relationship with a porn star or purchase movies or magazines of a porn star whose bio is listed on wikipedia? This is a conflict of interest. Another example, does any administrator, editor or volunteer of Wikinews and Wikipedia including “BlackPearl14", “SVTCobra”, “Chris Mann” and “Whoville” own Disney stock, have gone to any Disney theme park, watch Disney movies and/or buy Disney products? Then “BlackPearl14", “SVTCobra” and “Whoville” and all of these editors and administrators are in conflict of interest. Does the people involved with the wikinews articles about fossilized fish found in Canada, or with scientific discoveries or with lawsuits, have any connection to these products, places or businesses? Then this is a conflict of interest. What kind of verification did Wikinews and Wikipedia use to determine that volunteers including “BlackPearl14", “SVTCobra” and “Whoville” don’t sell Disney products and have no business with the Walt Disney Company and their affiliates? As documented volunteers including “BlackPearl14", “SVTCobra” and “Whoville” together claim “conflict of interest” and delete any contribution in regards to Pirates of the Caribbean for either wikinews or wikipedia, and control it by upholding double standards. Thus first we must verify wikinews / wikipedia enforcement of their policy of “conflict of interest” and “neutral”.
Wikipedia and Wikinews editors don't follow Wikinews' own written polices... “Do you know of an issue that has been forgotten?”. Then you generate and justify reason after reason to state that the above article is not newsworthy, and that wiki does not write old news. You even say one thing, and then later change that to be different claims to justify deletion. You keep throwing different claims at an article you have targeted because someone had shown the charges to be untrue. Wikinews and Wikipedia continues to uphold double standards, and then make statements with which to justify it. Incredible, you ignore any details provided to your counter your claims, and then accuse the person of not acknowledging your control and your new set of claims. Are you aware that Wikinews editors and wikipedia are in conflict of interest as well? They proven that they have a network of supporting friends, using double standards, without following Wikinews and wikipedia's own written polices, and such.
Wikinews and wikipedia allows editors “fans” to be bias, controlling whatever they choose to write even placing things like porn stars penis size, (copies of that have been documented as well) and to write articles that are one sided, promotional and links to various sites that further promote their cause, yet the editors delete anything that is added that they don’t approve from other people, and then justify reason after reason, such as claiming other people as being a conflict of interest, not being neutral and such if they write or contribute. It's against wikinews and wikipedia policies to simple delete "when in doubt don't delete" and not to show respect when communicating. Yet you simply deleted the entire talk and all related pages and justify various statements calling it whatever you want to get your friends to sign off on your control. If you don’t abide by wikinews and wikipedia’s own written policies, then remove all of the polices and stop telling the public to follow standards which are double standards and more.. Does the owner of the company know you are doing stuff like this?
"Whoville" and “Blackpearl14" do you, your friends and family or any contributors, editors, administrators or Mr. Wales or their friends and family own stock within the Walt Disney Company? The Walt Disney Company page is not neutral, it is a series of promotional pages including links to products and causes of the Walt Disney Company. Many of the other statements on the Walt Disney Company page don’t follow your so-called neutral definition. Following your own claim of “neutral”, the entire page would have to be deleted per your own standards. Furthermore, the lawsuit sentence that was placed on it, was exactly as the other statements of “criticism” within the Walt Disney Company page, yet you claim it’s not neutral. Clearly you enforce double standards and don’t adhere to wikipedia’s own written polices. They have deleted this section
Then years later, as the lawsuit details, via Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio, the Walt Disney Company, had incorporated various homages from their Pirates of the Caribbean theme park ride attraction into Royce Mathew’s supernatural pirate story, and are selling it as Walt Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl movie franchise. The Walt Disney Company states that Royce Mathew’s claims and lawsuits have no merit.
During legal proceedings, the Walt Disney Company, Jerry Bruckheimer (films/Inc.), Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio “The Defendants” were all represented by the same team of attorneys headed by Sanford “Sandy” Litvack, who is a close associate of the Walt Disney Company ( Michael Eisner), who also was the Walt Disney Company’s attorney in the noted lawsuit of Jeffrey Katzenberg vs the Walt Disney Company.
YET through WIKIPEDIA editors and administrators - continue to uphold double standards and violate their own written policies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.4.182 ( talk • contribs) 30 August 2008
As can be seen, Royce Mathew is once again going against several WPs.
A little assistance would be greatly appreciated here: [5] as he is personally attacking myself and others once again. Thank you very much! BlackPearl14 Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean 20:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Well it has quite a few BRITISH actors and people seem to think Harry Potter is an american film because it has a few american actors, so why should this be any different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hithere2008 ( talk • contribs) 15:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
He has written comments of harassment against you, so I removed them ;) If you want them for reference in the sock puppetry report, it's in your history. I didn't think you'd want to read the rude comments against you that I had to endure against myself ;) BlackPearl14 Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean 20:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I was a little worried about the signature! Now I'm going to try to work on my coloring correctly ;) [[User:BlackPearl14|BlackPearl14]]<sup>[[User Talk:BlackPearl14|talkies!]] [[Special:Contributions/BlackPearl14|contribs!]]</sup> ( talk) 01:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for backing me up on removing the urban legend from the article. I had heard one a few years back about WDW's lagoon, that the reason the lagoon sat for so long was because it had become infested with poisonous snakes that no divers wanted to go near. No proof of that, either. -- McDoobAU93 ( talk) 00:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Meg Crofton, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Meg Crofton seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the
criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please
see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Meg Crofton, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the
bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click
here
CSDWarnBot (
talk)
20:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I know you don't often wander to character pages, but feel free to watch Disney Villains for a little bit. The page has recently been changed from a POV listing of "bad" characters into a page that is more in line with content on Disney Princess or Disney Fairies, and there is still some desire by some to add uncited material. Just trying to maintain article integrity, dontcha know. Hope all is well with you. SpikeJones ( talk) 16:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
as somebody who has edited The Walt Disney Company page in the past, please bookmark (if you would like) the now-separated Timeline of The Walt Disney Company page. SpikeJones ( talk) 19:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
It's better to captilize it because it makes it look better and it's proper English. Mike41691 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike41691 ( talk • contribs) 15:38, 12 Jan 2008 (UTC)
Hello, recently you posted a message about not linking to photo collections. I don't quite agree with it since Wikepedia says "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." and this IS meaningful relevant content. But I guess since somebody commented so quickly it is not allowed.
By the way, do you know if there is a way to post a collection to be reviewed (I have lots of nice photos there and if people find it useful they can put it on wikepedia or some other sites)? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adznet ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You have taken off an external link related to the Pirates of the Caribbean. Please explain why? I am not link Spamming. It is an informative relevant site which has been around since 2001. It has 1000's of visitors. IMDB is listed. The site has filming locations for 1000's of movies. Please advise. Is there a way to submit a site to appear on each movie page similar to IMDB. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.194.152 ( talk) 08:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I posted this on Vegaswikian's page. Thought you'd be interested too: (sigh). I see that you restored the CFD on Category:Visitor attractions in Bay Lake, Florida. thank you for that. If we're going through cleanup, then we may also want to do CFD on Category:Visitor attractions in Orange County, Florida and on Category:Roller coasters in Greater Orlando, and merge items as necessary into Category:Amusement parks in Orlando, Florida, remove the page List of amusement parks in Greater Orlando as redundant to the category. It's like a giant game of 52-card pickup over there on the Orlando pages. SpikeJones ( talk) 13:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. I've added some additional supporting information, indicating this is definitely a pattern with this user. I'm also trying to determine if the puppeteer (Miamiboyzinhere) is actually a puppet itself of another user. Until I know for sure, or at least have enough evidence to back up my claim, I won't start a case into that. -- McDoobAU93 ( talk) 02:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
68.191.179.217 continues to do vandalism, he completely doesn't care. He did vandalism in the List of Happy Tree Friends characters again. He realy should get blocked.
Here's his last change
-- Mr Alex ( talk) 00:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Please take a look at the edit I did today. I have done spam edits in the past before I fully understood how this site worked and I apologize for that. But if you look at my edits this time around you will wee that the addition of the site Original D is a fair addition because it contains organize videos of almost EVERY attraction available at the Disneyland Park. I would consider this a big addition to the article as if you are interested in Disneyland then videos are something you would have a rather large desire to see! Again, I apologize for my actions in the past, but please look at the edit I made today (5/14/08) as I clearly added official Disney Links for official information as well as Non-Disney sites that contain more information or things that the Wikipedia Article will not. Thank you. 71.116.162.179 ( talk) 01:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Whoville: Just in a brief aside about your comment on my reply that the user may want to create a page on their website. I am rather certain that the article would not be permitted -- but if in-need it was vetted against policy, and it was discovered that this website was notable from reliable third party sources, then their would not necessary be a violation of COI/COS. And if that was the case, then including his links may be appropriate to the other Disney related articles. However, said that, I agree that it really wouldn't get past the other editors. Yet, this process may help bring to light, for himself, the non-notability of his own site. Tiggerjay ( talk) 15:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Whoville, please read my comment on
this page. Thanks! -
Dewdrinker19 (
talk)
01:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Please stop. Catalano does not have a Wikipedia article and is not sufficiently notable to justify adding his name to multiple articles. —Whoville (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
<with a sarcastic grin> Sure, just go ahead an make my talk comment regarding the name properly wikified and linked --- See if I don't notice it. heh! No, seriously, thanks for taking the time I didn't. Tiggerjay ( talk) 01:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Whoville, I have a question. I had seen other people refer to each user effectively being responsible for managing his/her talk page, thus my blanking mine when I had absorbed the issues on it. It was my hope that it would be easier to manage new issues that way. Apparently that is incorrect (per Mannafredo). What is the correct way to remove things from my talk page? Thanks Bradrussell ( talk) 14:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for picking up the mistake - I was following a cross wiki trail! Cheers -- Herby talk thyme 11:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for watching out for me... :) Have a great week! Tiggerjay ( talk) 04:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
Since we have no special Disney barnstar -- yet -- I award you this Special Barnstar for your contribution to Disney related articles! Your work is appreciated! Tiggerjay ( talk) 07:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks for reporting the vandalism, I took one look at the WP:AIV page instructions and my mind went blank!! BigThunderMtn ( talk) 23:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Whoville;
I think there is some mistake, I just revert a vandalism in
Camden, NJ
[3], please take a look again in the diffs. Regards;
Caiaffa (
talk)
23:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I've posted a message on his page - this doesn't appear to be a lawsuit with legitimate facts and controversy. After you had reverted Disneysuit's edits on the Pirates of the Caribbean article, he had re-added the edits. I have left him a very lengthy message on his page about the legitimacy and supposed importance of this supposed lawsuit on his page, as well as a level 2 vandalism warning. It seems this guy is really persistent and will continue doing this. What do you suppose we should do? Aparna BlackPearl14 16:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, looks like Hesperian protected the article again. I'll keep a look out on the other articles. Happy editing to you. Keegan talk 20:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
And, curiously, Miamiboyzinhere blanked his talk page earlier today... — C.Fred ( talk) 21:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Add List of Disney villains to your watchlist, then take a look at the history through at least May 2007. A week or two ago, after having asked for citations and general cleanup back in May, I said "screw it" and found an official citable listing. On the bright side, the page is certainly clean and fits WP policy/formatting now, but "being bold" has caused some wailing and nashing of teeth by those who liked the willy-nilly feel of the messy, uncited, longer version. Just wanted to have another set of eyes (and perhaps an opinion or two) to assist if necessary. Hey, if the other way was better, I'll trust your opinion on that over others. Cheers! SpikeJones ( talk) 17:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your support on the Admin Notice-board, two users presenting a case/situation is better than one! Hope I can work together with you on a different article soon ;) BlackPearl14 Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean 22:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear Wikinews, Wikipedia and "WHOVILLE" since “conflict of interest” “neutral” is an important subject since “conflict of interest” is being herald by wikinews / wikipedia staff and volunteers, including being used by wikipedia/wikinews administrators and editors with which to have an article /story be deleted, and is grounds for action against a contributor, then please immediately provide documentation that editors, administrators and people providing articles and information to wikipedia and wikinews have no conflict of interest to the articles and stories they create, edit, supervise and/or contribute. For example, did any editor have sexual relationship with a porn star or purchase movies or magazines of a porn star whose bio is listed on wikipedia? This is a conflict of interest. Another example, does any administrator, editor or volunteer of Wikinews and Wikipedia including “BlackPearl14", “SVTCobra”, “Chris Mann” and “Whoville” own Disney stock, have gone to any Disney theme park, watch Disney movies and/or buy Disney products? Then “BlackPearl14", “SVTCobra” and “Whoville” and all of these editors and administrators are in conflict of interest. Does the people involved with the wikinews articles about fossilized fish found in Canada, or with scientific discoveries or with lawsuits, have any connection to these products, places or businesses? Then this is a conflict of interest. What kind of verification did Wikinews and Wikipedia use to determine that volunteers including “BlackPearl14", “SVTCobra” and “Whoville” don’t sell Disney products and have no business with the Walt Disney Company and their affiliates? As documented volunteers including “BlackPearl14", “SVTCobra” and “Whoville” together claim “conflict of interest” and delete any contribution in regards to Pirates of the Caribbean for either wikinews or wikipedia, and control it by upholding double standards. Thus first we must verify wikinews / wikipedia enforcement of their policy of “conflict of interest” and “neutral”.
Wikipedia and Wikinews editors don't follow Wikinews' own written polices... “Do you know of an issue that has been forgotten?”. Then you generate and justify reason after reason to state that the above article is not newsworthy, and that wiki does not write old news. You even say one thing, and then later change that to be different claims to justify deletion. You keep throwing different claims at an article you have targeted because someone had shown the charges to be untrue. Wikinews and Wikipedia continues to uphold double standards, and then make statements with which to justify it. Incredible, you ignore any details provided to your counter your claims, and then accuse the person of not acknowledging your control and your new set of claims. Are you aware that Wikinews editors and wikipedia are in conflict of interest as well? They proven that they have a network of supporting friends, using double standards, without following Wikinews and wikipedia's own written polices, and such.
Wikinews and wikipedia allows editors “fans” to be bias, controlling whatever they choose to write even placing things like porn stars penis size, (copies of that have been documented as well) and to write articles that are one sided, promotional and links to various sites that further promote their cause, yet the editors delete anything that is added that they don’t approve from other people, and then justify reason after reason, such as claiming other people as being a conflict of interest, not being neutral and such if they write or contribute. It's against wikinews and wikipedia policies to simple delete "when in doubt don't delete" and not to show respect when communicating. Yet you simply deleted the entire talk and all related pages and justify various statements calling it whatever you want to get your friends to sign off on your control. If you don’t abide by wikinews and wikipedia’s own written policies, then remove all of the polices and stop telling the public to follow standards which are double standards and more.. Does the owner of the company know you are doing stuff like this?
"Whoville" and “Blackpearl14" do you, your friends and family or any contributors, editors, administrators or Mr. Wales or their friends and family own stock within the Walt Disney Company? The Walt Disney Company page is not neutral, it is a series of promotional pages including links to products and causes of the Walt Disney Company. Many of the other statements on the Walt Disney Company page don’t follow your so-called neutral definition. Following your own claim of “neutral”, the entire page would have to be deleted per your own standards. Furthermore, the lawsuit sentence that was placed on it, was exactly as the other statements of “criticism” within the Walt Disney Company page, yet you claim it’s not neutral. Clearly you enforce double standards and don’t adhere to wikipedia’s own written polices. They have deleted this section
Then years later, as the lawsuit details, via Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio, the Walt Disney Company, had incorporated various homages from their Pirates of the Caribbean theme park ride attraction into Royce Mathew’s supernatural pirate story, and are selling it as Walt Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl movie franchise. The Walt Disney Company states that Royce Mathew’s claims and lawsuits have no merit.
During legal proceedings, the Walt Disney Company, Jerry Bruckheimer (films/Inc.), Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio “The Defendants” were all represented by the same team of attorneys headed by Sanford “Sandy” Litvack, who is a close associate of the Walt Disney Company ( Michael Eisner), who also was the Walt Disney Company’s attorney in the noted lawsuit of Jeffrey Katzenberg vs the Walt Disney Company.
YET through WIKIPEDIA editors and administrators - continue to uphold double standards and violate their own written policies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.4.182 ( talk • contribs) 30 August 2008
As can be seen, Royce Mathew is once again going against several WPs.
A little assistance would be greatly appreciated here: [5] as he is personally attacking myself and others once again. Thank you very much! BlackPearl14 Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean 20:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Well it has quite a few BRITISH actors and people seem to think Harry Potter is an american film because it has a few american actors, so why should this be any different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hithere2008 ( talk • contribs) 15:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
He has written comments of harassment against you, so I removed them ;) If you want them for reference in the sock puppetry report, it's in your history. I didn't think you'd want to read the rude comments against you that I had to endure against myself ;) BlackPearl14 Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean 20:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I was a little worried about the signature! Now I'm going to try to work on my coloring correctly ;) [[User:BlackPearl14|BlackPearl14]]<sup>[[User Talk:BlackPearl14|talkies!]] [[Special:Contributions/BlackPearl14|contribs!]]</sup> ( talk) 01:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for backing me up on removing the urban legend from the article. I had heard one a few years back about WDW's lagoon, that the reason the lagoon sat for so long was because it had become infested with poisonous snakes that no divers wanted to go near. No proof of that, either. -- McDoobAU93 ( talk) 00:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Meg Crofton, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Meg Crofton seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the
criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please
see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Meg Crofton, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the
bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click
here
CSDWarnBot (
talk)
20:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I know you don't often wander to character pages, but feel free to watch Disney Villains for a little bit. The page has recently been changed from a POV listing of "bad" characters into a page that is more in line with content on Disney Princess or Disney Fairies, and there is still some desire by some to add uncited material. Just trying to maintain article integrity, dontcha know. Hope all is well with you. SpikeJones ( talk) 16:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
as somebody who has edited The Walt Disney Company page in the past, please bookmark (if you would like) the now-separated Timeline of The Walt Disney Company page. SpikeJones ( talk) 19:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)