Talk:Meet the Deedles

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Ted Bundy, Marijuana and Stuff

Nitroman3941, FreedomFighter's edits were vandalism, somewhere along the line I think I conflated you guys together. Looking over the messy history of article, it seems to me, however, that he wrote a lot of trash that you are keeping in. If you have sources, you should cite them. If not, this article should be reverted to whatever facts can be agreed upon, even if that's a stub. Can you agree that, since I (and apparently others below) strongly question the accuracy of this article's content and no sources have been cited, the suspect information should be removed? Let me know if you have a better alternative. Dabizi (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my defence i'd like to point out that the edits were not vandalism. It's clear by how huffy Dabizi is getting that he has some personal issues with me. Telling me to come here and weigh in. Maybe i think your contributions to Wikipedia are trash also, Dabizi. The door swings both ways. NitroMan3941 (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will the article ever have sources? Will you ever contribute any if you do get your way? Because i seriously doubt it. No "personal attack" intended, but i think this is just meaningless whining. I believe the truth is you don't care at all about this movie or its page here, you even admit you only remember some of it from several years ago.

I doubt you own the movie, you're just making a fuss because you have something personal against me. Why should i post links to the articles when you'll just continue to debate and complain? NitroMan3941 (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While i remember; what does Disney distributing this movie have to do with its content? Disney also owns five of the Hellraiser horror films through Dimension Films, i'm also not sure what you mean by you conflated me and the freedom fighter person together, but perhaps i conflate you to him as you know more about him than me. NitroMan3941 (talk) 03:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what personal issues I might have against you. Or, I mean, I have them now, I guess, but I don't know what kind of personal issues I could've had that would prompt me to start warring with you here. The article was vandalized by FreedomFighter, which I prompted someone to please fix, you did a lot of work on it, and it looks like it's still filled with his vandalism. When I initially hit up your talk page, somehow I thought that all the vandalism had been originally done by you (that is, I forgot that FreedomFighter existed originally, and when I looked at the revisions, your name was attached to the article, keeping FreedomFighter's vandalism).

To answer your other questions, no I do not own the movie, no I have no sources nor will I contribute any. That is why that I initially made a request for a cleanup on this article, because I saw that it was vandalized and needed work, which I was incapable of doing. I, regrettably, saw the movie years ago, you're correct, and I don't remember much about it, except that I am pretty sure marijuana and Ted Bundy were not referenced. The reason Disney's production on this movie is relevant is because it appears to have been produced under their name, instead of a subsidiary house. FleetFlame is not my friend, I sought "Editor Assistance" so I don't biff dealing with you and FleetFlame volunteered to help.

I don't know why you're not sourcing the reviews you have to back up your claims. I am no expert Wikipedian, but my understanding is that that's the way it works: you write material and source it, and if you cannot source it, it can be removed. Dabizi (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources is probably still being reviewed by FleetFlame. I didn't want to deal with you on the sources because i think you're just looking for something to complain about because you're bored. My DVD of this movie doesn't even have Disney anywhere on it, so i don't know how to explain your issues with this movie in regards to Disney, other than that maybe they only marketed it under their name for the edited TV version. And what the heck does it mean to biff while dealing with me? Its not like dealing with an attention hungry editor like you is a picnic NitroMan3941 (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, FleetFlame marked your request as resolved. Pretty much this is just a debate, its not an edit war, yet, atleast. I have seen the movie several times and you only have a blurred recollection to guide you through this silly topic you've made about Ted Bundy and "stuff". A movie site gave summary reviews of Dennis Hopper's worst films and this was listed, them citing Hopper's portrayal of an alive-and-well Bundy as offensive to the families of Bundy's victims. I sent the URL to FleetFlame. NitroMan3941 (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed much of the content that I deemed suspicious and left only stuff that was verifiable or easily plausible. I added sources.Dabizi (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source is a website that only gives a sentence decribing two rich kids ending up park rangers. Its very vague. NitroMan3941 (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that's all we have to go on. That's all the article needs to say. I have submitted a request to Wikipedia's admins that you may have a Conflict of Interest in this article. I feel like everything I've said has been taken much too personally. I am only seeking to keep this article, and have it be as accurate as can be verifiable. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, specifically the "Questionable Sources" section. I am going to create a new section now to address Jeff G's concerns. Dabizi (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop repeating yourself for the sake of impressing other users, this is thev same thing you've been saying. NitroMan3941 (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said below I have no knowledge of movies and in particular this one but the marijuana stuff does seem to be vandalism based on the review here. Please remember to both assume good faith of other editors and work together instead of fighting. You might be best off reverting the article back to an earlier version before any of the vandalism was added and then working to improve it from there. Smartse (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

FreedomFighter1122290 made some hilarious vandalism edits that someone should fix.Dabizi (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Ted Bundy, homosexuals and marijuana, someone needs to get rid of all this rediculous vandalism (this is a Disney movie, after all). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.153.1.29 (talk) 08:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WOW. Maybe you should spell ridiculous first before you criticize what appears to be a completely satisfactory edit. You owe Walt Disney at least that much. Allah rest his soul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.203.76 (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current revision is satisfactory. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there are constantly trolls comming and trimming the summary of the film to a tiny, barely worthy of being called sentence of about five words. NitroMan3941 (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "needs infobox" tag

This article has had its infobox tag removed by a cleanup using AWB. Any concerns please leave me a message at my talk page. RWardy 21:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Deletion

User:Jeff_G. has added the Request for Deletion tag. I vote "No" as, in the past, and 24 hours ago, before the edits I had made and sources I had cited were removed, it was a brief, but acceptable-quality article. Once I feel confident that my edits will not be immediately reverted, I will help to get this article back to that state, and then would like to remove the tag. Dabizi (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources Dabizi cites are only brief descriptions of the film and are just as low quality as the ones i had submitted NitroMan3941 (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the PROD notice - anyone can do this. I do not feel that inadaquete sourcing is a reason to delete. As a Disney film it is definitely notable. I have no experience with editing movie articles and have never seen this film but it shouldn't be deleted. If anyone thinks it should be deleted please feel free to post it at WP:AFD. As you seem to be unsure of the deletion process (it is confusing) the PROD (proposed deletion) is put on by anyone and if no-one removes it in the next week then the article will be deleted. At AfD there is a discussion about the deletion of an article until a consensus is reached. Once an article has been PRODd it can't be again so AfD is now the only possible route. I hope this is clear. Smartse (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken an interest in the article from the COI notice placed on the noticeboard. (Just a note, there's not even a hint of an actual COI in this article.) I'm going to try to get ahold of the movie soon so that I can see how accurate the plot summary is, and I'll try to dig up more references. This seems to be a somewhat infamous movie, I've personally heard of it before and not in good terms, and I'm sure there is plenty out there to expand the article. I've reverted to what seems a "safe" version of the article for now. -- Atama ^chat 18:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Production Company

According to IMDB, this movie's production company was DiC Enterprises, which during the time of production (from 1995 to 2000) was a subsidiary of Capital Cities/ABC, which was a subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company. I think calling this a Disney movie is a stretch, instead it should be called a DiC Enterprises movie. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing, I've been attempting to acquire a copy of the movie with no luck so far, but I did run across a trailer for the film. The trailer starts off with a "Walt Disney Pictures Presents" caption. So the film was at least marketed as a Disney film. -- Atama ^chat 00:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]