User talk:Snowman Guy

Note: Like other users on this site, I absolutely hate Image and Article Bots and Users obsessed with deleting Images and Articles for no reason. Anything like that on this talk page will be deleted by me.--Snowman Guy (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What did i do?

On the Back To The Future: The Ride page, you said that i am vandalizing it? Um, exactly what am i vandalizing? - 9allenride9 (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly with me. I didn't vandalise Nickelodeon Studios. The time capsule isn't at the Nick Hotel. You think that it's there? Well show me a picture. Stitchon (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome and move to userspace

Welcome!

Hello, Snowman Guy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Lectonar (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinstated the article here for you to work upon. Please take your time and read the links provided withe the welcome. Give me a wink when you're finished, and, if you don't mind, I will look the draft over and provide help. if necessary. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have you kept waiting, but I was kind of unavailable...I say: you did a very good job there, sir...so just move the article back into mainspace (I'll leave the honour to you, as you did the work) and you should be fine. Just drop me a note when you're done, and I'll delete the subpage for you. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons Ride

this source is not a reliable source and it says that the president said this without using an exact quote. If it really was going to open within a month, then it would say so on the official website. If the California version is expected to open in June, then find a source that says it. And just because the previous ride had that height requirement, it does not mean the new one will. Things can easily change. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Screamscape's reporting of Universal's team preview of The Simpsons Ride ... the only official verifiable source I could think of would be an employee newsletter or website that we could link to. I doubt we'll get a copy of that between now and then, and frankly adding that would almost be splitting hairs. We don't have to list every single milestone in the attraction's development. Saying the previews took place in April should be enough, and that would probably be after the fact instead of before it. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the by, forgot to add this a while back ... but congratulations for getting The Simpsons Ride to GA status. Well done! --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with vandals

Hi there,

just noticed this warning [1] you gave to a vandal recently. Well done for taking him on, but when they have already had a recent final warning (as this one had) there is no point in giving them another warning, that just makes them laugh. Next time, a better action is to report it at WP:AIV who will hopefully then block them. SpinningSpark 22:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow response, been away on business. If the vandal has had a recent final warning (from anyone) absolutely you should report it. If they are doing nothing else besides vandalising, be sure to mention that it is a vandalism only account. They are likely to get a longer block for that - maybe even forever. SpinningSpark 15:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project Rumble

Hey there. I am an avid reader of (and poster to) Screamscape, so I did see the new notices that were filed. However, I'm trying to decide if that information really is notable at this point, since it's mainly for set designers and such. That said, it is information that would be good to add to the article later, as construction moves forward. I say we sit on it for now and wait until Rumble starts going vertical and/or attractions close (if any) to make way for it. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Infobox

Please look at the code for the infobox ... it keeps leaving garbage at the start of the articles into which it is appended. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats

I am concerned that That Universal Guy is trying to intimidate you and other editors on the Disaster! article. First of all, you may not know, that making legal threats is considered a serious transgression on Wikipedia and he will be banned if we report him. I have left a warning on his talk page to that effect. If he does this again on any article you are watching please let me know or report him yourself.

If he/she has a legal issue, it should be dealt with through the Foundation legal department - that is what they are for - or else with the person concerned directly through proper legal channels. It is not acceptable to try to restrict free editing on-wiki with any kind of threat, including legal.

As for the picture being disputed, I am not a lawyer, so cannot give legal advice but I would not have thought there was much of a case. It might be against Universals rules to take pictures, but their rules do not have the force of law. Hard to see how they could claim copyright of a picture they did not take unless the photographer signed something at the time assigning the copyright to them (unlikely). Up to them to enforce their rules at their show. In fact, the photographer put a notice on the picture when he uploaded it releasing it into the public domain, so what evidence there is, says it is not Universals copyright.

I notice that you have put a copyvio template on the image. I would remove it if I were you (it is not the right template in any case). If That Universal Guy wants to dispute copyvio, let him tag it if he wants to. We don't need to do anything. If you want to put the image back in the article (not encouraging you either way - do what you think is best for the article) and he keeps reverting it, he'll get reported for that as well.

As a Universal employee, he should really be thinking twice before editing any Universal related article in any case because of possible breach of WP:COI.

Sorry to go on so long - hope that helps. SpinningSpark 12:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I think your action should be to ignore the legal threats and do what you think looks best in the article regardless. If he threatens you again, report to WP:AN/I or tell me and I will make the report. We can do without the kind of bad feeling this person is generating. If he wants to play lawyers instead of collaborating then he can go talk to the Wikimedia Foundation lawyers, threatening editors is definitely not the right way.

Anyway, I think it is all hot air, not very likely that the great Universal Studios would put their legal interests in the hands of a jumped-up power-crazed car park attendant. SpinningSpark 23:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roderick Jaynes?

If Roderick Jaynes is actually a pen name for the Coen Brothers in Film Editing, then who is the guy in the picture they showed for No Country For Old Men during the nominee overview for Film Editing?--Snowman Guy (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great question. Per: http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20007870_20164474_20180773_4,00.html [2] ... "Question: It's an open secret that the Coen brothers edit their own movies, but under the pseudonym Roderick Jaynes. Who, then, was the bespectacled old coot in the photo shown during the rundown of the Achievement in Film Editing nominees? Answer: A Dust Bowl-era farmer the wily Coens found in a book. The brothers are so committed to the ruse that if Jaynes had won this category, they would not have accepted on his behalf." Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the info.--Snowman Guy (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I'll take a look at it later and add what I can. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research: T2 3-D: Battle Across Time

Hi, I removed a section of original research from the T2 3-D article recently. You are, of course, free to reinsert it. However, please let me know from what published source it comes, as per Wikipedia's content policies. Thanks for your help. Projection70 (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last month I placed some challenges on the original mock-up's description, and a citation has not been contributed. I plan to re-delete it pretty soon. This is outlined in the discussion, but as you are overseeing a lot of what goes on with the page, I'm also running it by you first. The part that will be cut can be discerned based upon the "citation needed" tags. I will only be getting rid of assertions that I added while editing a long time ago, which are only there because of my direct involvement in the ride's development. That violates Wikipedia policy, so it needs to be taken down until it can be found in, and cited from, another publication first. It may also violate Digital Domain's policies. Any objections before I delete it one last time? Projection70 (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Simpsons Ride Entrance Photos

Let's not kid ourselves. The only reasons you want to use the image is because a) you took it and b) it has two people in it and either your one of them or you know them. Both of the other images are considerable better. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a good image at all, it's from an awkward angle, only shows 3/4 of the Krusty head and shows little else other than a couple letters of Krustyland. There are already other images of the Krustyhead, so readers do not need to know what that looks like. The other one actually shows what the entire building looks like, so it is more useful, even if there is a fence. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None that I could find. If you are a member of any of the universal fan sites, then perhaps you could ask some of the members there if they have any images of the building (you would have to make sure they are willing to freely license them) -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Rip, Ride, Rockit

"The attraction is future and has yet to open. This tag should stay here until the grand open". Why? The very first sentence of the article states "Hollywood Rip, Ride, Rockit is an upcoming roller coaster". So what is the point having the tag at the top? --Kildor (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

67.162.171.246

OK, I've taken a look at the edits from this user at your request. I don't think you can call most of them vandalism, so you cannot use the AIV process to deal with it. This is more along the lines of an editing dispute over content. The way Wikipedia expects editing disputes to be dealt with is for all the parties to discuss the issues on the talk page of the article in question and then when agreement is reached to modify the article text. You should avoid getting into revert wars, this is a blockable offence in itself, regardless of who is right - see WP:3RR. It is best to discuss, and politely try and persuade the other party to discuss, on the talk pages. If you really cannot come to an agreement there are dispute resolution processes that can be used but have a good try at discussion first.

On a couple of specific points, users are allowed to remove warnings from their own talk pages. This is not considered wrong (though archiving would be better) because it is their own user space. You might consider that the user removing a warning shows that they have read and understood the warning. On the matter of the external link, the relevant guideline is WP:EL and see in particular point 1 of this section which states that the official site of organisations should be linked. I know the site in question is very spammy and normally would not be acceptable, but if it is the official site this is an exception.

Hope that helps. SpinningSpark 23:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logo gallery in Universal Studios category

Hi, I noticed that you have reverted my removal of the Category:Universal Studios from several images. For example [3]. This is not vandalism on my part, and the reason these categories are removed, is that the images are trademarked logos, and their existence in the categories (as a gallery) does not qualify for fair use of these non-free images. Please refer to WP:LOGO and Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2 for further information. If logos are required in categories, then you will need to edit the category and add:

__NOGALLERY__

This will enable a list of images to be shown, without the image itself being shown. This will comply with fair use requirements. As an example, refer to Category:Airline logos. Thanks. --Россавиа ^Диалог 15:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future film header

Please do not apply that tag to a page unless it is a separate article for a future film. Technically, that means it is not in production and not a film, just talk about the possibility of a film and also misplaced in a main article. Alientraveller (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP Vandal

He just got noticed by the admins and got a temporary block. I was going to make a report for you but someone else beat me to it. Clear cut vandalism like that should be reported to WP:AIV after final warning which I see is what you did. SpinningSpark 00:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is only 24 hours because they don't like giving long blocks to IPs. The IP could be used by more than one person so you will be blocking someone innoccent as well. However, if he does it again he will get progressively longer blocks each time. Be sure to mention any threats on your talk page, that makes it much more serious and likely to get a longer block. SpinningSpark 00:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just given him a final warning. For ones like this, that come straight back after a block and start vandalising again, it is pointless given them all the polite warnings 1,2,3,4 go straight to {{subst:uw-vandalism4im}} which says this is the only warning you will get. If he does one more after that then report to AIV and he will get a longer block. SpinningSpark 15:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Incident at The Simpsons Ride

Probably not. The only malfunctions that would really warrant mention major ones that result in huge delays or injuries. These kind of minor things happen all the time. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

That's cool, but I think we should discuss these edits at Talk:Hulk in other media. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hulk (film)

It's already in there, and the 2003 in the 2008 film article. they mention each other appropriately, neither needs more. ThuranX (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Universal articles

It seems to be very tough to bring pop-culture articles to GA quality, simply because, in many cases, there is very little supporting documentation. What we would need would be a lot of historical research. For example, a lot of articles from the Orlando Sentinel or other area newspapers detailing the attractions. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 02:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your post on The Simpsons Ride: I'd contact some of the leaders of the two WikiProjects associated with the article (Amusement Parks and Simpsons) and ask what they think. I think there's a lot of good source material, and the article flows reasonably well. It may need someone to go over the grammar and spelling, but that shouldn't be too hard. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Images

Although I can understand your constant deletion of some of my images, your deletion of Nick Studios, E.T., Jaws and Studio Tour was unexplained, as they were valid. I'm going to reupload all of the images with a proper tag, but if they are still deleted by you, I'm going to chat with administrators.--Snowman Guy (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they weren't valid. Fair use images are only allowed if a free-licensed image can't be reasonably found or made. In all of those cases, they could: Someone could go to the park and shoot their own photo and release it under a free-use license. And in the case of the Jaws picture, there are already two correctly licensed pictures that depict just about the same thing, so a fair use image doesn't do much to increase a reader's understanding. Perhaps you should read the rules for non-free work before accusing me of not knowing image policy. Melesse (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete the The Simpsons Ride and Kongfrontation images. They are free images, photographed by users.--Snowman Guy (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. Melesse (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Simpsons_Ride_Film.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Simpsons_Ride_Film.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia: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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -Nard 22:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of superhero films

Did some clean-up, the article needs italics too. However, isn't the term superhero very suggestive? I'm just unsure about this undertaking. Alientraveller (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding wikiprojects...

Sorry for the belated reply; I'm rather busy in real life, but have a look here. Hope that helps...Lectonar (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Blueman Group

I don't really have the time right now. I was just articles that qualified for quickfail the other day to help with the backlog. Someone will get to it sooner or later. :) Nikki311 22:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA nominations

Hi there. I've now failed several of your GA nominations. I would suggest you read through the good article criteria. Also the lack of prose and lack of references are my main concerns with your GA nominations. Another suggestion would be to get input from other editors and take your articles to peer review before taking them to WP:GAN. Thanks. Peanut4 (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Busch Gardens Howl-O-Scream Tampa Bay

I'm not really clear on what was wrong with my contributions. Some of your location information was inaccurate, so I've changed that. 71.180.139.228 (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetheart, I work at the park and I worked every night of the 2007 event, I can assure you my information is accurate. "Baby" Zones did and do exist and so my contribution is not "Spam." You should double-check your information. 71.180.139.228 (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, I worked every night of the event, as a member of the technical team. We as technicians and stage managers did indeed, as I said in the description, "affectionately refer to them as 'baby zones.'" I am curious as to where you're information comes from. You said you were at event. In what capacity? As a guest?

On another note, the definition of "spam" is as follows: n. Unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups; junk e-mail. So I hardly see how a dispute over terminology can be termed "spam." 71.180.139.228 (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where an editor must forgo advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." I don't really see how any of the edits I have made represent a conflict of interest. I simply wanted to make sure that all of the available information was accurate--everything I added (and which was subsequently deleted without any explanation) with the exception of the information on Mini/Baby Zones came straight from the 2007 HOS map. The Mini/Baby Zones were not mentioned on the maps because the entire point of the scares they employed was that guests didn't realize they were in a "zone" and were therefore not expecting to get scared. Since they were never listed in the literature, they have no official name as far as I know; I simply stated that the technical staff referred to them as "Baby Zones." Since you yourself as a guest can verify that, whether or not they were on the park maps, these zones did in fact exist, I do believe they deserve to be mentioned in the article because they were part of the event. However, since I cannot provide a reliable source (except for other technicians' and stage managers' word) that the Mini/Baby Zones were "affectionately referred to as 'Baby Zones.'" I'll drop that argument. 71.180.139.228 (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Howl-O-Scream Entrance.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Howl-O-Scream Entrance.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Simpsons Ride Doc.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Simpsons Ride Doc.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fasach Nua (talk) 10:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete discussion from wikipedia as you did at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 September 20, if you wish to oppose deltion, then feel free to contribute to the deletion discussion. If you blanks content such as this again it would constitute valid grounds for a block Fasach Nua (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Creature from the Black Lagoon- The Musical

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Creature from the Black Lagoon- The Musical, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Bongomatic (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

Before deleting it, I think it would be better to search for sources on Universal Studios Hollywood's website or on any news/journalist sites. If the article should be deleted though, it could as well be merged with Creature From the Black Lagoon or Universal Studios Hollywood.

I don't think that approach makes sense if the premise of the text is wholly unreferenced, which (if I'm not mistaken) it currently is. Bongomatic (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please help clean up Hurricane Ike

You have recently edited Hurricane Ike. There was a recent bad anti-vandal edit that needs significant work to repair. See Talk:Hurricane Ike#Wiping out 15 edits to restore 123 edits caught in an anti-vandal edit if you want to help. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section length, Book titles, et al.

Hi. Can you read this section and then offer your opinion on the points raised, specifically the issue of titles in the FCB, length and detail of given sections, what constitutes “fannishness”, etc.? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:BMG Theatre.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:BMG Theatre.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you put this picture back into the Blue Man Group Sharp Aquos Theatre page, likely so it won't be deleted, but can you honestly say that that thumbnail picture looks good when it is stretched out so much? It gets so pixelated and blurry that it is impossible to read. I took/added the new picture so the poor quality one can be replaced. This new one has all the words clear and legible, and shows the actual entrance to the building. It would be an entirely different situation if that logo had a higher resolution (above thumbnail size) that looked acceptable, but until then, it has to be removed. A better quality version could always be added later, once one has been found. Thanks. --Mtjaws (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]