User talk:5VH9

Welcome![edit]

Hello, 5VH9, 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! -Razorflame (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Florida Studio Tour[edit]

Hello. It looks like you are in the process of building this informative article. However, I noticed there are no sources listed. Please cite sources for this article. Otherwise, it may be tagged as a candidate for deletion at some point in the future. If you are in the process of adding sources now, please continue to do so and ignore this message. Cheers. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 5VH9. As it appears that your account is rather new to Wikipedia, and you seem to be a bit confused about my comments on the Universal article, let me again welcome you to Wikipedia. I encourage you to read the previously posted welcome message at the top of your talk page to help get you started with editing.

In response to your message on my talk page, and to clarify, I did not say the page would be deleted. What I said (above) was "it may be a candidate for deletion at some point in the future." This means that someone (not necessarily me) could nominate it as an article for deletion due to the lack of sources. Nomination does not automatically lead to deletion. In fact, many AfD nominated articles end up being kept. I also stated (above) that if you were in the process of adding sources, you could ignore the message. It was simply meant as a courtesy.

Wikipedia guidelines state that articles must establish notability through citation of verifiable and reliable sources. Original research is not permitted. (Editors should not draw upon personal experience or knowledge unless that knowledge is supported by cited sources). While truth is important, verifiability is what makes it eligible for inclusion on Wikipedia. Cheers. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I do not think that a map is really a resource. There is nothing on the map that specifically says "Universal Florida Studio Tour," nor is there a publication date on the map. While some sources listed in an article can be "general" sources, specific facts and assertions need their own specific sources. For example, a statement like "Finally, the tour closed on December 2, 1998," needs to be cited using a source such as a magazine or newspaper article, a press release from the company, or a guidebook on the park like "Fodor's," "Frommer's," or Kelly Monaghan's "Universal Orlando" series. The source should specifically state the date the tour was closed. Without a source, it is considered original research.

There are many facts/assertions like this in the article that should have sources. I'm going to put the {{sources}} tag on the article as other users my have sources to verify the facts in the article. This doesn't meant the article will be considered for deletion. It's just a way for other editors to see that the article needs sources and pitch in to help. If you have additional sources you would like to add, a complete list of citation templates is listed here. Feel free to reach out to me if you need any assistance with how to use them. However, it may be just as easy to look at articles to see how citation templates are used. Cheers. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Thanks for dropping by my user page. I'm sorry that I don't have a video from the Universal Studios Florida tram tour, as I didn't make my first visit to USF until 1999, after Islands of Adventure opened and the studio tour was already gone. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry too, I think my first visit was also after the tour was already gone so I don't have a video. Good luck. Phydend (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't have any such videos. Why did you post to my user talk page in particular? Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not happen to have a video of that. -Razorflame (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Universal Studios Florida[edit]

I hadn't seen you'd replied on the USF page. I just answered with my opinions on it. Phydend (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

I'm sorry that I don't have a video but if you need anything else, I'm here.

King Kong Vs. Jaws[edit]

A tag has been placed on King Kong Vs. Jaws requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Red Zion^X 20:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any sources for this article? It currently contains none. please add {{underconstruction}}, {{inuse}}, or add some content or sources.

Jake the Editor Man _(talk) 20:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I see someone beat me to the mark. never mind

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Alientraveller (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King Kong Vs. Jaws, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that King Kong Vs. Jaws satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Kong Vs. Jaws and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of King Kong Vs. Jaws during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not create hoaxes. Please do not attempt to put misinformation into Wikipedia to test our ability to detect and remove it. This has been done before, with varying results. Most hoaxes are marked for deletion within a few hours after they are created. Some Wikipedians suspect that the majority of hoaxes here are attempts to test the system. Kindly — do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method is to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia, and then to check to see how long they have been in place and, if possible, correct them. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your a big hoax maker--B5JH (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please do not add the {{hangon}}. That is only for pages up for speedy deletion. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 00:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate, the {{hangon}} tag is meant for the process called speedy deletion. Its function is to warn administrators that the creator disagrees with speedily deleting the page. When a page is concidered for normal deletion, deletion happens after a debate (see WP:AFD). The hangon tag is not applicable to normal deletion. Please do not put it back to the article. Doing so repeatedly can be seen as WP:VANDALISM. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, my suggestion is write the script, then instead of posting it here, you can sell it to Universal!-Carados (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to write an article about a future film, you may want to check out The Hollywood Reporter's production listings. These are films that are already in production, and per the notability guidelines for films, articles on them would be warranted instead. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disaster!: A Major Motion Picture Ride...Starring You![edit]

Hi. The page does have very little info, but CSD A3 only applies to articles that have absolutely none. It's still a valid stub-class article. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Disaster!: A Major Motion Picture Ride...Starring You!. I do not think that Disaster!: A Major Motion Picture Ride...Starring You! fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because {{{reason}}}. I request that you consider not re-tagging Disaster!: A Major Motion Picture Ride...Starring You! for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding tags to this article. It's already gone through the AfD process and passed with a resounding keep. It will not be deleted. Continuing to add speedy deletion and other tags will be considered vandalism and may result in a block. Tijuana Brass (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

`{{helpme}}`[edit]

Please do not add {{helpme}} to other users' talk pages. That is not what it is for at all. If you need help, place the template on this page with an explanation of what you need help with, and I or another user will help you if we can. Algebraist 01:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enough...[edit]

Your pattern of bizarre edits is wearing thin. If you can't refrain from creating nonsensical articles, harassing other editors, and generally acting like a nuisance, you will be blocked. Consider this your final warning. Straighten up; you're welcome here if you can edit in a constructive manner. Tijuana Brass (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tijuana Brass (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

5VH9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I posted the block on your page because you kept thretening me. And for me doing something right you give me this junk.!!

Decline reason:

No valid unblock reason given. — Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 05:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.