User talk:62.48.98.196

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Disney character references

Dawg all u gota do is get an ip masker/changer and battle pong then destroy em!

Before you go any further in your apparent campaign against providing information about the Disney parks, please stop and discuss it.

One of the things that Wikipedia articles about fictional characters do - and are supposed to do - is provide information about the lasting impact they have. The fact that a character is popular enough to have been kept "alive" by Disney in the form of a "meetable character" at their parks is relevant. Saying that Mowgli is such a character is hardly a come-on trying to get people to come to Disneyland to meet him. That's not why the information was added, and that's not the effect it has.

By the way, I have no idea what your "Much like your company's efforts here" comment was about. What company do you imagine that I work for? I certainly don't work for Disney. - JasonAQuest (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


FIRST REPLY to JASON

Disney parks are a multinational commercial venture aimed at children that have nothing to do with literature. They aim, and have sadly managed, to turn globally famous

fictional characters like Mogwli or Pinocchio (which are handily past their copyright expiry date) into expensive products aimed at those who are still shaping their imaginations and creative potential, with the aim of turning them into consumers, not original creators and discerning, free-thinking audiences or cultural participants.

The fact that a poor re-enactment of Pinocchio is advertised as Disney park attraction does not make it worthwhile information. It is irrelevant trivia, in no manner comparable to the rest of film references (as you claim in your "undos"), who may help a researcher understand and comment on the impact in popular culture of the literary work.

You may not work for Disney, but you surely have made an effort to publicize their parks. I have not got much time to count, but you have inserted over ten references to "meetable characters" in every page where you have had a chance. In many cases you have managed to put it within the first twenty lines. You truly must believe that the most important thing about Pinocchio or Peter Pan's impact in popular culture are your extraordinary "meetable characters".

"Meetable" is not even a word in the English language, although I will admit that maybe it should be. In any case, they are not "meetable". They are real people, vastly underpaid and without the United Nations-sanctioned right to join a trade union. They could not even be considered to be actors without insulting that honourable profession. They often make children cry, as children usually know when they are being fooled.

As to my "apparent campaign against providing information about the Disney parks", that would be an excellent idea, because children deserve better than limiting their imaginations to only dwelling with what their parents may afford. However, that is no my intention. Unlike you, I am simply volunteering an opinion about what I consider to be relevant information, and doing my little bit against crass commercialism directed at children.

It is your turn to explain why do you believe that a disagreement over what constitutes relevant information (remember we are dealing with universal literature) should be a "campaign against Disney parks". Wikipedia is littered with references to those unimaginative supermarkets for children. I have not deleted them, for discerning parents should be able to learn what to avoid if they want their offspring's imagination to flourish. Many Disney films, sadly mostly in the distant past, are truly enjoyable and imaginative works of art. Product placement at Wikipedia goes against everything the creators of those films intended to do, and the writer of Pinocchio is no longer here to fight Disney Corporation in court. He would not be able to afford it anyway. That does not mean that his important heritage should not be respected


JASON REPLIES

For the record I didn't add most of the comments about "meetable characters"; I just linked them to an article about the concept, one that will (as its developed) explain what those are all about. Contrary to your assumption, I happen to agree (if not quite so vehemently) with your opinion of Disney as a corporation. I think it's important for people to understand that many of "their" characters are rip-offs of the real thing, which is one of the reasons I've spent countless hours trying to make it clear that Peter Pan existed for 50 years before Disney got their hands on him and still exists outside of the Magic Kingdom. I don't think that suppressing the information about how Disney is using the characters does that. You seem to have a very low opinion of people's intelligence, assuming that they'll see that Disney has turned Gov. John Ratcliffe into a meetable character and rush out to shake hands with him, rather than thinking "Gee, that's kind of creepy." Wikipedia's role is to present the facts from a neutral point of view, and let the reader decide what they mean. - JasonAQuest (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

SECOND REPLY TO JASON

You don't need to agree with my view of Disney being a corporation. That is simply a fact.

Perhaps you misread my comment. Obviously it is a corporation. I was talking about its behavior as a corporation. - JasonAQuest (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You did insert those lines about "meetable characters".

I did not. Go to the edit histories of those articles and look at the versions immediately before my first edits (such as this one), and you will find that information was already there, in the version on the left. I might have moved or altered some of these statements (I don't recall), but I didn't add them. I added the links, because I thought it would be a good idea to include an neutral, factual article about the subject of meetable characters. You seem to have information about how these employees are treated; please add that information (with appropriate references to prove the facts) in a neutral manner. - JasonAQuest (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It is there for everyone to see. If your aim was to inform people about the "rip-offs", you would have commented on it, instead of inserting your lovely "meetable characters" contribution as high on the page as you can. On many pages. A google search will show that this is a common tactic in an increasing number of websites.

I didn't "comment on it" because that would be inappropriate for Wikipedia. Please take a few minutes to read Wikipedia's policy about neutrality; writing anything that expresses an opinion about the facts is simply not acceptable. Using discussion pages to promote your opinions is frowned on as well, and I mention mine only to point out that you are mistaken in your assumptions about them. - JasonAQuest (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You cannot possibly talk about "suppressing information" when you just put it there unqualified, helping Disney parks get valuable google hits. In any case, it just does not make sense. You accuse me of mounting a campaign against Disney parks and then suddenly claim that you are actually against their commercial recuperation of children's literature and historical characters. You have failed. (Yet the first Peter Pan was an excellent film... shame about the way they are running things now, particularly their poor choice at Wikipedia propagandists). I don't assume anything about people's intelligence, but children read Wikipedia, and when they read about Pinocchio, and many others, the first thing they will find will be your "meetable characters" reference and the link about the "immersive fantasy experience", which you created. If you think anyone will believe about your neutrality, you surely know little about intelligence. I will leave this to the Wikipedia people. I have got a film to make. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.190.170.6 (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed to be neutral. However, I do understand and respect Wikipedia's policy about keeping the articles neutral. Before you edit further, you should also look at one of Wikipedia's other requirements, which is civility. You are violating that policy, and your accusation that I'm a propagandist for Disney is contrary to "no personal attacks" (not to mention untrue). - JasonAQuest (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Kanga (Winnie-the-Pooh), without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. --Charitwo talk 16:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Mowgli, you will be blocked from editing. --Charitwo talk 16:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Pinocchio, you will be blocked from editing. --Charitwo talk 16:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)