Talk:Robert (doll)

Photo would be nice

What does the doll look like? Are there any suitably licensed photos for Wikipedia to use? 86.174.188.81 (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC) There is a photo of Robert on his Wikipedia page, but he curses everyone who takes a pic of him without his permission, so pray that whoever took the pic on the page asked permission first.

Somebody got cursed for your photo. I hope you're happy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.202.208 (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Interview where Don Mancini, creator of the Child's Play franchise, says that "Chucky" was inspired by earlier films and not "Robert", and was not originally written as being a 'voodoo' doll:

The whole idea of voodoo – I just couldn’t buy into that. In my script, Chucky was not possessed by the spirit of a serial killer. He was the manifestation of the id of the little boy, - http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/17586/1/the-father-of-chucky — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.165.158 (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

How do you put a picture on the Wikipedia page?🤨 Ballora minicreepa (talk) 04:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Expansion

This article isn't very developed and is missing a tone of information on its subject including it's history, and references in popular culture which need to be added to the article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is not very detailed when it comes to the doll's history. Might consider expanding t as well as the above mentioned info.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Protection

I suggest this page be protected. There's a growing edit war of people trying to add a section about films based on the doll, and it seems consensus is to have no such section 134340Goat (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree, especially if the shills prove to be persistent. Pinkbeast (talk) 06:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Safe to say they're persistent now? The edits have been continually reverted well over thrice now. 134340Goat (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Just had to do so again. I've now alerted an admin to the situation. 134340Goat (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Possible new section

We should add a section either here or in the article itself for users to apologize for looking at this photo of Robert without his express permission. It's known that bad things happen to people who do and neglect to apologize. 2600:1017:B125:79A4:D53A:14C2:B7D1:ECCB (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:FRINGE. We do not give space to such nonsense. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Infobox toy

Tajotep has added an infobox to this article. I'm not sure this is desirable. The infobox doesn't really convey a lot of information, and I think "infobox toy" is intended for a kind of toy (like "Rubik's Cube" or a particular Lego set), not a specific individual toy. The "Company" field looks a bit out of place in this case. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the infobox doesn't add any value to the article. I favor removing it. - Donald Albury 11:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind. I added it because I find it more appropiate, but I won't discuss the removal of the infobox. Anyway, thanks for discussing it first. Tajotep (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Real urban legend, or marketing?

What is the scientific source for this legend? Are you sure it was not made by the firm who exhibited the doll? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.51.235 (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The article is based on the cites. If you can produce a reliable cite to say it's all marketing, please do. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The citations are not really to WP:Reliable sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hi @LuckyLouie, thank you for reviewing the Robert (doll) page and notifying me of your concerns with my latest edit. All information within the update I attempted to publish is backed by credible and independent sources. The WP:FRIND sources you listed as Panicd.com, phantom press, youtube, robertthedoll.org, are all in place alongside other legitimate, independent sources to further cite the information as culturally relevant. My edit to Robert's page is solely to update and inform the cultural relevance and historical significance of such a doll. Gabriellemcnell (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

All information within the update I attempted to publish is backed by credible and independent sources. The WP:FRIND sources you listed... No, the sources I listed were not WP:FRIND. They were examples of what are not credible or independent sources, and your edits intentionally or unintentionally were lending credibility to supernatural claims. This tells me you may have a problem with English comprehension or some other issue. Editing WP:FRINGE topics such as supposedly haunted dolls can be a steep learning curve (see WP:NOTNEUTRAL). I suggest you start editing articles about some noncontroversial topic to familiarize yourself with the encyclopedia's polices before you attempt to improve WP:FRINGE articles. Thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding reverted edits,[1] it's against WP:OR, WP:V, WP:COPYLINK, WP:FRINGE, and the tone of an encyclopedia to say that "William Shatner tempted fate in 2012 by mocking" a "reputedly haunted doll", cited to an online pirate copy of "Weird or What?" hosted by William Shatner. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

@User:Gabriellemcnell I noticed this edit where you cut and paste a new version of the article to the Talk page for review, which was reverted because, well, there are better ways to suggest changes. From what I saw, there are some big problems with your proposed rewrite. Come-on's like "Robert's popularity has grown immensely due to his reputation for cursing anyone who disrespects him" and "he is believed to be the world's most terrifying haunted doll" have no place in the lead. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a clickbait site or a carnival sideshow.

Most sources you propose to cite are not reliable for the purpose of building an NPOV article. Some examples:

• Key West Weekly - a local story promoting the museum’s $29 tour: “The Robert the Doll Experience”. Not actual journalism but silly WP:SENSATIONALism, with lines like “the 4-foot-tall, straw-stuffed figure is one of Key West’s oldest surviving residents, although he’s never drawn a breath — or has he?“
• Artist House Key West Inn a commercial B&B site promising paranormal encounters, i.e. not a reliable source: "All is well as you relax on the ample king size bed, then – quietly, a semblance of a beautiful women walks down the meandering staircase in her wedding dress. A ghost in the room! If apparitions and the strange pique your interest you are not alone."
• New York Post. Not a RS. See WP:NYPOST.

Wikipedia is a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia. It's not in the business of giving credulous treatment to superstitious beliefs. When it comes to WP:FRINGE topics (and a doll supposedly with supernatural abilities haunting and cursing people is definitely a fringe topic) we look to sources that are independent of the subject. In other words, sources that have no investment in selling tours or room reservations or convincing people that ghosts are real. We call these WP:FRIND sources. I have not located any WP:FRIND sources for this topic. Typically, a lack of any sources that critique or analyze the subject indicates it is not taken seriously by expert sources, and so may not be notable. So the encyclopedia is a bit challenged to cover this topic in an NPOV manner.

That said, we are presently using some WP:PRIMARY sources such as KWAH.org for noncontroversial facts, and in a very limited way. We cannot cite it for sensational claims and promotional hype about the doll such as you have proposed.

Note that the "History" section of the article only reports relevant and verifiable facts such as the doll's origin, owners, location, etc. Trying to mix supernatural claims into this section such as you have attempted isn't appropriate. The article has a separate section documenting the "Legend" where we frame the supernatural claims as claims. We're careful to use NPOV language when describing these claims a legend and not reality. We also avoid WP:UNDUE weight on such claims, which naturally limits the amount of coverage the encyclopedia gives to such details which typically accompany paranormal hype.

Also it's not enough to say you (an editor) think the subject has historical and cultural significance. Third party secondary WP:FRIND sources must explicitly state this conclusion so we can cite them and summarize what they say.

Sorry this sounds like a lecture but I'll mention this again: Wikipedia's byzantine editorial policies and guidelines incorporate a great many subtleties not readily apparent to a new editor. It's a steep learning curve. I don't recommend you choose as your goal a rewrite of an existing article as your first edit, especially one in a WP:FRINGE topic area. You said you want to correct inaccurate or outdated misinformation you feel is presently contained in the article. Perhaps you can list these here on the Talk page, and we can discuss them one at a time. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

To add to the above, see also Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. Very little of what was included in your 'popular culture' section would be at all acceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

My suspicion is that the editor in question is somehow connected to business that the doll is housed in and is attempting to use the article as promotion, hence the barking. The other account making the same exact changes even has a name that indicates they look after a doll. NJZombie (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I have asked the editor about a conflict of interest (at the bottom of User talk:Gabriellemcnell#May 2024) and they have denied having one. They certainly appear to be a single-purpose account, but. with so few edits to date, I did not feel it appropriate to add {{spa}}. Donald Albury 14:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

They did mention they are working with the Key West Art and Historical Society who are the foremost experts, and rights holders, on Robert, which could mean that the KWAHS "rights holders" assume they have exclusive control of the content of the Wikipedia article (this usually happens at BLPs where the subject of an article or their legal representative shows up on the Talk page and demands editorial control). I also think they misunderstand WP:COI. Claiming that KWAHS interest in Robert is solely for preservation and accessibility purposes. There is no financial motive for them regarding Robert would only make sense if the museum didn't charge admission fees or offer special $29 Robert-focused tours. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Unless and until they try again to add questionable material to the article, I'm willing to let sleeping ducks lie. Donald Albury 19:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Donald Albury, @AndyTheGrump, @LuckyLouie, AND @NJZombie, I am the editor in question - thanks for discussing these matters here.

I am simply interested in updating Robert's page as I have the utmost respect for phenomena of this sort.

My capacity in working with the Key West Art and Historical Society is limited, they have merely allowed me access to primary source documentation that supports Robert's true origins and cultural significance. As they are the foremost experts on Robert, they are the ones with the most accurate information.

You've touched on my point that the KWAHS is interested in preservation and accessibility and come back saying this "would only make sense if the museum didn't charge admission fees or offer special $29 Robert-focused tours". This point is arbitrary as the East Martello Museum and the Key West Art and Historical Society are separate organizations operating on separate missions. The KWAHS promotes all attractions surrounding Key West as a cultural center. I am not affiliated with the East Martello Museum.

@Donald Albury's point Unless and until they try again to add questionable material to the article, I'm willing to let sleeping ducks lie" is troublesome to me as I'm dedicated to updating Robert's page as an independent editor, and your qualms seem to be concerning my personal experience..

I'd like to continue discussing my proposed changes and get Robert's page sorted properly. Please do look at my suggested lead edit v2 and kindly let me know if there is anything of issue within.

Thanks. Gabriellemcnell (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The additions to the lead that you are proposing in "Suggested Lead Edit 2" do not have any counterpart in the body of the article, and are completely unsourced. The guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section clearly states, Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. The changes you propose are NOT "basic facts", would require extraordinary sources, and would still be subject to editorial judgement on the due weight of such content. Donald Albury 18:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The additions do not currently have any counterpart in the article because the article, as it is, leaves out crucial information relevant to Robert.

It is a basic fact that Robert is at the East Martello Museum because of his haunted reputation, and it is a basic fact that visitors of the museum write letters to him - a rarity among museum attractions.

I did exclude sources in my suggested edit, an attempt to focus on the content of the lead, I have now includes sources that back these simple facts.

Looking forward to your thoughts! Gabriellemcnell (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Per the guideline at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing own comments, please do not modify your own comments after another editor has responded to them, as that can make it very difficult for other editors to follow the conversation. Please revert your edit and restore "Suggested Lead Edit v2". You can then present your newest proposal in a new paragraph or section. Donald Albury 21:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

It's fairly simple to follow my edits to my comment as I have explicitly outlined them.

Nevertheless, I will abide to your preferences by creating a new topic for each edit I would like to propose. Gabriellemcnell (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Suggested Lead Edit v3

Hi!

Altering my proposed edit as user @DonaldAldbury raised an issue with the lack of sources and user @AndyTheGrump raised an issue with Robert's affiliation with the East Martello Museum:

The lead in this article leaves out some crucial information about Robert and his current status. I'd like to suggest the following edit to the lead:

Robert the Doll is an allegedly haunted doll exhibited at the East Martello Museum in Key West, Florida. Robert was once owned by painter, author, and Key West resident Robert Eugene Otto. He was brought to the museum after supposed hauntings, maintaining status as a paranormal phenomenon. Robert has daily visitors, thousands of which have written letters addressed directly to him.

Open to suggestions, kindly let me know!

Thanks~ Gabriellemcnell (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion: stop trying to use this article to promote the museum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @AndyTheGrump, I can assure you I am not affiliated with the museum and welcome any helpful suggestions in improving my proposed edit.

Thanks! Gabriellemcnell (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Regardless, my comment still applies. 18:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Robert the Doll is an allegedly haunted doll exhibited at the East Martello Museum in Key West, Florida....He was brought to the museum after supposed hauntings. That's like saying "George Washington was an American President. He is included in history books because he was a President." Not an improvement. And what's a paranormal phenomenon? This kind of marketing promotional writing doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

That's like saying "George Washington was an American President. He is included in history books because he was a President." Saying Robert is at the museum because he is a haunted object is really nothing like what you suggested.. Robert is over 100 years old and a one of a kind doll, there are many reasons he could be displayed at a museum. It is important to outline exactly why he resides in his current location in the lead as it is Not a given.. Gabriellemcnell (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Notice the wikilink "haunted doll" in the lead. That's why we need not repeat a claim of hauntings. Claims of hauntings are a 'given' when it comes to haunted dolls. And no, the encyclopedia isn't going to state in Wikipedia's voice that the doll is "maintaining status as a paranormal phenomenon" whatever that means. At this point, your suggested edits are either WP:PROMOTION or WP:PROFRINGE. I see below you have stated that you plan to continue this WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior here and in other venues until you get your way. It would be best if you abandon that plan, and instead took some time to learn about the encyclopedia's editorial policies, how articles are written and edited, and what the community standards are for behavior. We try to WP:AGF about newcomers, but please understand AGF isn't a WP:SUICIDEPACT. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Suggested Lead Edit v4

Hi! Altering my proposed edit here as user @Donald_Albury raised an issue with the lack of sources, and the way I proposed these edits in v3, user @LuckyLouie raised an issue with the verbiage I used in v3, and user @AndyTheGrump raised an issue with Robert's affiliation with the East Martello Museum in v1:

The lead in this article leaves out some crucial information about Robert and his current status.

I'd like to suggest the following edit to the lead:

Robert the Doll is an allegedly haunted doll exhibited at the East Martello Museum in Key West, Florida. Robert was once owned by painter, author, and Key West resident Robert Eugene Otto. He was brought to the museum in 1994 after supposed hauntings, maintaining status as a paranormal object . Robert has daily visitors, thousands of which have written letters addressed directly to him.

Open to suggestions, kindly let me know! Gabriellemcnell (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Please stop wasting our time by repeatedly proposing the same text. I have already responded once, and made my position perfectly clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I can assure you this is different text.. I will not stop proposing edits as this article is incomplete and inaccurate. I would like to collaborate with other editors to ensure the information is updated in an accurate way, but here you seem to be blocking me because you don't like the approach I've taken and are, for whatever reason, set on keeping Robert's article garbled.

I am continuing my attempts in good faith as I have no intention for vandalism here, please abide by Wikipedia:Encourage the newcomers and suggest helpful improvements to the suggested edits so we can have Robert's page reflect his real background. Gabriellemcnell (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

You have removed "in 1994", and substituted "object" for "phenomenon". That is all you have done. It is still the same promotional fluff I commented on earlier. As for continuing to propose edits, you may very well find your ability to do so curtailed if you don't stop wasting peoples time with this repetitious stonewalling. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I actually included the year 1994.. This really isn't promoting anything? I'm going to be posting to a dispute resolution board as I have done nothing here to justify your threat of revoking my editing abilities and you have done nothing to suggest a better lead. Gabriellemcnell (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I am under absolutely no obligation to 'suggest a better lead'. It is fine as it is, without the repetition, and without the promotional fluff about "status as a paranormal object". AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#:~:text=The lead should stand on,points, including any prominent controversies. It (the lead) should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

The lead as of now does identify the topic, but that's it. It does not establish context, summarize important points, or include prominent controversies. Having thousands of letters written directly to Robert (becuase of his curse) is a prominent controversy.

Stating why Robert is at the museum is important context, it is not enough to say he was owned by a previous Key West painter as there is much more to Robert's story that just that.

As Wikipedia is open to editing by the public, I am very much allowed to continue suggesting edits according to what Wikipedia recommends, and since you are combating my edits (on a personal level) you are advised to suggest quality changes. Gabriellemcnell (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The suggestion is that the current lead is better than what you're proposing. Your proposals ARE promotional and despite your denials, there are those of us, myself included, who do not believe that you have no connection to the museum. NJZombie (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Gotchya. I'm reporting this talk page to a Dispute Resolution Board, involving @NJZombie, @AndyTheGrump, @LuckyLouie, and @Donald_Albury as we are going in circles trying to resolve this ourselves. Gabriellemcnell (talk) 18:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

You are going in circles; no one else agrees with you. Remsense诉 19:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

What do you expect a "Dispute Resolution Board" to do? There are several of us, all well acquainted with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, telling you that what you are trying to do is promotionalism, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. I am inching closer to blocking you as not here to build an encyclopedia. Donald Albury 19:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Hey everyone, I'm trying to approach this in a way that can appease all of us. I have a report here: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Robert (doll)#Suggested Lead Edit v4 and would appreciate if you added to this from your perspective.

Would love to work together as a community on this, in a kind and constructive way. Gabriellemcnell (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

There's no middle space to consider. We're not including a promotional lead on this article. An incomplete lead is better than a promotional one. Remsense诉 19:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Is it not notable and significant that thousands of individuals have written to a doll in a museum? That fact feels important to outline in the lead.. It's not sensational, it's not forsaking accuracy to provoke anyone, it's simply the truth? Gabriellemcnell (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Fan mail is a very common phenomenon, even for fictional characters. See Fan mail. Note also that our articles for such popular figures as Elvis Presley and Taylor Swift do not mention their fan mail. Now, it there were independent, reliable sources that discussed Robert's fan mail as an exceptional phenomenon, you might have an argument, but, as it is, fan mail is a run-of-the-mill phenomenon not worth covering in a Wikipedia article. Donald Albury 16:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Gotchya, I can understand that. It seems an exceptional case as this is a Doll in discussion, but I understand the policies. Thank you for clearing that up for me. Gabriellemcnell (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm interested to know if the run-of-the-mill fan mail phenomenon applies to apology letters? I understand fan mail is typical for a public figure, but apology letters? Those are exceptional, I don't know of any celebrity or public figure receiving daily apology letters. Maybe this belongs in the legends but it is fact and applies to Robert's history? Gabriellemcnell (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, nothing is exceptional unless published reliable sources say it is.

I'd strongly advise you to just let this drop. You have had multiple very experienced Wikipedia contributors explain things to you, and you arguing the same point again and again is just getting annoying. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Pop Culture

Hi All,

The pop culture section on this article could use some updating.. I've listed here some major media coverage that's overlooked in the current article:

• Paranormal YouTube stars Sam and Colby visited Robert the Doll aiming to share his story in their video Our Demonic Encounter with the World's Most Haunted Doll.
• Ozzy Osbourne and Jack Osbourne visited Robert the Doll in Key West during the first episode in the second season of Ozzy & Jack's World Detour. They blamed Robert for everything that went wrong on their trip and Ozzy later blew up an effigy of Robert the Doll. He has since suffered a string of misfortunes which he blames on Robert the Doll.
• William Shatner mocked Robert the Doll in S3 E4 of William Shatner's Weird or What.
• In 2022 the doll was featured in the Discovery + Shock Docs: The Curse of Robert the Doll.
• A fan-fiction horror film series by Andrew Jones loosely based on Robert the Doll were created without permission from Key West Art & Historical Society, who hold the trademark on Robert the Doll's name and likeness.
• Key West author and paranormal pioneer David L. Sloan started researching Robert the Doll in 1996. He uncovered the true origins of the doll and was able to tie the most popular legends surrounding Robert to actual events with the Otto family.
• Celebrities who have visited Robert the Doll include Vince Neil of Mötley Crüe, Butch Patrick who played Eddie Munster, Bridget Marquardt of Ghost Magnet and The Girls Next Door, Metal Blade Records founder Brian Slagel, Aaron Sagers of Paranormal Caught on Camera, Ozzy Osbourne, Jack Osbourne, Amy Bruni, Cindy Kaza and Zak Bagans.
• In 2023 Key West First Legal Rum released Robert the Doll's Voodoo Spiced Red Rum as a tribute to the doll.
• TikTok star Kalani Smith and YouTube star Exploring with Josh dedicated a video to Robert the Doll where thet perform a bloodletting ceremony during a paranormal investigation.

I'm sure some of you will have something to say about one or more of these. Happy to kindly discuss here. Gabriellemcnell (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

References

More blatant promotion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Which of these do you feel are irrelevant and pure promotionalism?

For example, the first bullet is significant in today's context:

Sam and Colby have a multi million follower base with their video on Robert gaining nearly 10 million views. They're represented by Night Media, went through the proper contractual approvals to film within the museum in affiliation with the Key West Arts and Historical Society, and abide by all of Youtube's approvals for content. This content is produced by Night Media and Youtube, both experts in their given field. Furthermore, the video features reliable experts in the field discussing Robert and his entire historical identity. This video of theirs is not some homemade engagement tool on Robert or the East Martello Museum, it has made waves in the community as a professional piece of media. Gabriellemcnell (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

That paragraph looks like blatant promotion of Sam and Colby, and is irrelevant to the issue, which is that there is nothing encyclopedic about a couple of Youtube personalities basing a program on Robert. Donald Albury 19:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Mostly non-RS sources or sources indulging in WP:SENSATIONALism, presented in a credulous or promotional tone. In general, the encyclopedia is not improved by collections of trivia that promote ignorance and superstition ("Our Demonic Encounter With The Word's Most Haunted Doll", "A cursed doll ruined my life" etc). - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)