User talk:GoneIn60

User:GoneIn60		User talk:GoneIn60		Contributions
About me		Talk		Contributions		Wiki Stats

Top Thrill 2

Hello. Thank you for your additions to Top Thrill 2 on the Cedar Point page. I was eager to get the ball rolling & add it, but unfortunately I still don't have the necessary editing experience to add in everything twas lacking. SummeRStorM79 (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

TTD2 page protection

I think it's time to ask an admin for page-protection. I'm sure you're tired of nameless IP editors, not familiar with Wikipedia policies, wanting to change parameters to fit their made-up definitions. This edit summary kind of says it all.—JlACEer (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

JlACEer, yeah I already submitted a WP:RPP request that was declined on the basis that it was likely the same editor and per WP:PREEMPTIVE. I left a note for the declining admin here. The IP range will likely get blocked if they keep it up. I plan to escalate it further if so, thanks. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Hyperia

Thanks for your hard work on the Hyperia article! Dealing with the amount of unsourced/incorrect additions is not easy :P Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 15:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Suntooooth, quite welcome and thanks for keeping an eye out as well! New amusement attractions, especially major coasters, tend to attract a lot of attention. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

New message from Sjones23

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pinocchio (1940 film) § Plot. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Lord Sjones23, it appears that Ratmanny and the 151.*.*.* IP ranges on that page were socks. They have been blocked. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Need your advice, please?

Hello, GoneIn60. Please don't get upset with my adding this topic on your Talk page? I look up to you because you have many years of editing experience. There is an unnamed editor ((or editors) username is just a series of numbers) continually making the same edit (I'd call it disruptive) on a couple of different film pages (specifically Men in Black II & Men in Black 3). I keep reverting it back to how it was. To pinpoint it, they're insisting on inserting "film series", whereas "franchise" is what it originally said, so I keep reverting their edit back to that. I'm frustrated & don't know what can be done to stop this. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. SummeRStorM79 (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

SummeRStorM79: First, no worries about the post. Always glad to help! If anyone ever posts something here that doesn't belong, I'd move it to where it needs to go or simply remove it altogether!

In a content dispute such as this, the best place to start is the article talk page. Begin a new thread and explain your position. You may want to provide a WP:DIFF or two that show the edits you're referring to, which can be helpful to other editors who may join the discussion later on (even just a quick URL diff is helpful, such as this one).

I would start the thread now, and be sure to do this in the future as soon as you realize this is going to go back and forth (to avoid edit wars). Unfortunately, you cannot WP:PING anonymous IPs to the talk page, but you can mention talk page discussions in your edit summaries. If the IP ignores the discussion, then over time it can be seen as a form of disruption to the page. An admin may then choose to warn (and eventually block) the IP range or just protect the pages in question. However, the admin will also expect that you've made sufficient effort to discuss on talk. When an IP does engage on talk, and the discussion reaches a stalemate, seek other forms of dispute resolution, such as third opinion or leaving a neutral discussion notice at a relevant WikiProject (WT:FILM in this case) to bring in more participation. The third opinion process is one of the better options you have in disputes involving only two editors.

Hopefully that gives you a general idea of how to approach content disputes moving forward (also don't forget, you can always disengage and move on). In this specific case, you may want to reconsider what the IP is trying to do here. The link in the Men in Black II article points to Men in Black (film series), so that may be why they are trying to change "franchise" to "film series". That actually seems to make sense. While there is a different franchise article, the film series article seems more relevant to me. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Spider-Man (2002 film) § Plot section

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Spider-Man (2002 film) § Plot section. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Unrelated Thanks

In between the back and forth on production countries, thanks for you patience going through them btw, but also thanks for that way of quoting text, probably going to use that a bit more when making discussions on the talk page if I can! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I guess this thanks was for not. What was your goal of that message on my talk page? I can guess several things but it really hurt me at a time where things are not exactly going well with my life. I'm sorry that I effected you that badly. Do whatever you like on that article. I don't want to say what you said on my page was right or wrong but I'm really disappointed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about linking to that post. But what exactly are you trying to get from following my edits like this? Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, your edits slandering me on a topic you weren't involved in on my talk page, and not responding to questions, or looking to find solutions, and verging on WP:HOUND. I'm going to politely ask you to explain what exactly you want me to do different. I've apologized, but as you are eager to revert my responses, and ignore apologies, I'm struggling to assume good faith and I don't know what would satisfy you if you can't be open to discuss. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The answers you seek are in the feedback you receive from others. It's not about what others want; it's about what you are doing. The feedback identifies your actions that are detrimental to discussion, and I even listed several examples on your talk page, yet you still ask for me to describe them to you. Are you really that interested? Do you really want to improve? Or are you trying to politely challenge while ignoring the issues that are staring you right in the face?

I find it hard to believe that someone with your researching ability needs help with identification and understanding. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Consensus, compromise, and collaboration do not involve winning the debate. Discussions on Wikipedia often end in no consensus, in which case you either find success with an alternate proposal, seek an alternate form of dispute resolution, or simply move on. Hanging around and continuing to bludgeon the discussion, and then saying that if no one comments you'll move forward with changes, is an unacceptable approach. You are welcome to read WP:NOCON to learn what happens with an article when a discussion fails to achieve consensus.

I feel that these basic concepts should be well understood by an editor with your experience, and after noticing the issues you're having at another talk page, it's become apparent that our encounter is not an isolated one. The note I left on your talk page is to point this out. If you are taking any of this seriously, now is the time to make changes. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 06:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

In all honesty, most people got what I was trying to say when I took things to a talk page or were showing me a rule I had missed out. This is why there's only been a few incidents like this recently and you (thankfully) were the first to point this out. I appreciate that and I appreciate you responding. I definitely need to reflect with editors who have different ideas and values for editing this site that aren't necessarily breaking rules. Thanks for replying as I deal really poorly with silent treatment and felt like I was being set up to fail. I really hope we can both get past this. To show good faith, feel free to remove the discuss tab tag on the intro to that film article. I know you probably see me a meddlesome or trying to own articles, but I genuinely am more familiar with rules about editing rather than disputes. My only back up on this is I generally work on articles that are on more obscure topics that don't quite get as much traffic or discussion. So yes, I wasn't familiar and will try and sleep on it and work it out.

For real. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I noticed your comments here, but I want you to understand something. Conceding your position and stepping away at this point is not going to earn any points with admins reviewing your account. They are going to want to see that you understand the root cause of the problem, and that you are taking actions to improve over time and avoiding the issues that lead down the same path in the future. The pattern that is forming or has formed needs to go the other direction, or stronger action will eventually be taken.

Avoiding content disputes is not the lesson to be learned, nor is it the goal of this conversation. It is fine to engage in discussion – actually encouraged – and spirited debate will occasionally turn into a dispute; it happens. The important concept to understand is when the debate has run its course, to know when you're beating a WP:DEADHORSE and walk away. It's also important to avoid WP:WALLSOFTEXT and WP:BLUDGEONING, which can easily happen when you're strongly committed to your viewpoint. If you find yourself responding to every reply and repeating your argument, while other editors have stopped participating, you're probably guilty of one or the other (or both) which will drive editors away from the discussion.

Although I'm taking the time to explain these to you now, they've been pointed out to you before. There are other points brought up to you in the feedback at other talk pages. When multiple editors are telling you similar things, there's probably a good reason for it. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate you reaching out and discussing, if you are responding to me on your talk page, which I don't watch or anything please ping me.

I'm not sure when it becomes discussion or WP:DEADHORSE. I'm not trying to earn points or appeal to moderators, i'm leaving the conversation just as you have and when you say "Final thoughts from me, good luck!" I interpreted that as "go ahead, but I'm stepping back." In hindsight, that was me misunderstanding. I think what maybe got to me was Mapreader, who seems to respond with signatures, I felt was a new editor and maybe did not understand some more general rules (as they seemed new enough to not know how to use a signature) and was trying to step them in the right direction.

As I want to avoid a wall of text, I'll try to let go when debates have run their cause. I'll try to focus more on catching myself when I feel it's reached that limit. If you have any suggestions on that, I'd want to hear them (not as a challenge, but as something to take away and learn from this). Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for piling on, but Valereee made some good sound advice for me going forward, and I think this would be best for myself going forward.

• accept it when consensus is against them, even if they think that consensus is wrong
• don't ask for explanations over and over again when people have already explained, even if they don't feel the explanation is correct
• avoid generating huge amounts of text for others to wade through

This is line with what you said, I definitely have a tendency to go on and on in real life and on Wikipedia. I'm seeing the repercussions on it now, and will go forward with these in mind, even if they aren't any known rules in general. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Follow-up and path

Hi GoneIn60. Per your follow-up on here. I might as well come clean and discuss. I'll assume good faith you want me to be on the right path. I don't know if there are rules about discussing my own personal issues on Wikipedia, but this might make help you approach in trying to help me.

I have recently been diagnosed with Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Some traits I tend to follow it is I have a very sensitive in terms of right and wrong. I think this may be why I really struggle with the whole "letting go" parts. There are times where I'm wrong and I think I try to admit. This is not fair for other editors, but also something I've only had to tackle when I've been dealing with more popular topics on Wikipedia.

In my own personal life lately, things have been stressful. I've had to have a friend leave my home on not good standards and we are not in contact. My job has not paid me in the past four weeks due to a technical error, so times are not ideal and I've been trying to distract myself. I apologize if this has come off the handle through Wikipedia, but all the previous above has not really put me in a good place.

From these past experiences, I've discovered I do not respond well to non-responses, and of course, I obsess on specific topics. I absolutely do not want to use these excuses for any behavior as it would not be respectful to any other editors or other people with ADHD, but I suggest using the above as an approach if you want me to be the better editor you believe I can be. My only other follow-up with this is people like me tend to require guidance, but we also really do not like it thrust upon us. This is why i'm trying to ask for it from others, and why I think I ask questions, and why I can be flippant when people do not respond to my questions. Its not fair to them and I'm not proud of it, but I'd at least like to own this.

Not sure what you want to do with this information, but as you said you want me to learn from mistakes, I think keeping the above in approach to me might be helpful. I'm trying to keep myself adjusted properly and focus, and I have done mistakes and said rude things to other editors. I hope you can forgive me and we can go forward. Apologies if this was all a bit too much to discuss on wikipedia, but I figure I may as well make point across. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Andrzejbanas – I appreciate your willingness to share, though personal details might be best shared privately instead of publicly, but I do empathize with your situation, as I have had family members struggle with that condition at various stages of their lives. However, I'm not really sure I'm qualified to provide any tailored guidance you may need outside of the normal guidance any other editor would typically receive.

With that said, there's a general expectation that editors contribute constructively where they are able to do so. Avoid areas and activities that might require a skillset exceeding your current abilities (or what your current temperament might allow). When your actions create a mess, even if unintentionally, and it requires community resources to clean up or intervene, you may have just reached one of your limits. Same deal with any type of action that repeatedly lands you in the hot seat, where others are calling you out for behavioral concerns. Determine what those limits are and stay within these self-defined limits. The best course of action for now would probably be to avoid all disputes as much as possible. Perform edits that have a lower likelihood of being controversial.

Some tips to keep in mind along the way:

• Spend less time challenging what you perceive to be a weak source, and spend more time locating sources for unsourced content.

Wikipedia, as a whole, is better served by the addition of sources vs. the replacement of sources. This is especially true when the replacement is only marginally better than what existed before.

→ Bonus: You'll likely run into a lot less resistance when adding as opposed to replacing or removing. Plus, you could come across new information in the process that can be inserted into the article.

• Consider reading through the essay directory. Some are decent, some are bad, and some are outdated, but quite a few are actually outstanding.

Although essays are not guidelines or policy, many of the well-written ones often explain in great detail how processes work on Wikipedia. Even experienced editors can benefit from perusing the list and reading a new essay from time to time.

• Work on your understanding of collaboration and negotiation.

Specifically, "working toward inclusionism", which is an approach where you should "seek to merge your views with those of others". The act of compromising and working toward a mutual solution usually means letting go of one or more planned changes you had in mind for the article. In some cases, it could mean scrapping all plans and coming up with a completely different solution.

• There are 6,884,802 articles on Wikipedia, and you can bet more than 99% of them have room for improvement.

You should be avoiding disputes, but if you do encounter conflict, don't get bogged down in one. Practice WP:HOWTOLOSE and move on to the next article. There's plenty more to work on.

--GoneIn60 (talk) 10:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

All solid advice. I'll try to go through the essays, if you have any specifics, I'll check it out. I'm not sure if you are wanting a quid-pro-quo deal, while I think responding with green text is useful, I think the average reader will feel like "this is the only important part of a message" In a wall of text, its easy to lose focus on other details.

As for sharing privately, I've tightened up the concept, and I know it's not really here or there, but it may give clarity on an approaches with trying to get me to where you think is most desirable.

I think i've been making a bigger effort to merge concerns with others, I'm just not sure what to do with this offer when another editor doesn't really want to play ball.Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

No, definitely not interested in any quid-pro-quo deals. Remember that I'm offering you feedback at your request in the wake of your situation, so let's not lose that focus.

Discussion on talk pages is a valuable resource on Wikipedia, but one that should likely be a last resort for you moving forward in the near future. Will you adopt the suggestions above and consider changing your edit habits? Make less controversial edits and/or edit in less inhabited areas? Take some necessary time away from conflict, reflect, learn, grow, etc., all while still remaining a productive contributor? Giving the advice is easy, but accepting it? Not so much. The ball's in your court. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Fair. Again, I've happily said yes continuously. I appreciate the essays, but I want to balance them with policy which is rarely what seems to be discussed when it came to discussion on any talk page we've discussed on. When I make a suggestion (as I have above), no response. When I've apologized to you, it must not have been genuine, when I reach out for help, I've been told I'm the bigger problem and I would love to hear from you that this is not trying to pigeonhole me as a non-productive contributor, which frankly I'd really not anyone cover me or anyone who is not an obvious vandal or is not interested in policy in such a blanket statement. While I think my biggest take away from this is to basically keep my cool when talking with editors. This follows WP:ETIQUETTE's "Recognize your own biases and keep them in check." As for the talk pages, I'm sorry but suggesting I do not contribute to them is probably not a step I'd like to go on. I'd rather focus on how to contribute to them while following the above rule. As we are to assume good faith, I'd like to acknowledge that I'm also still discussing with you on the grounds that we both want to make articles better, not worse. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Andrzejbanas: It's not exactly clear what your end goal is here. Do you want to discuss me and my responses to your suggestions? If the answer is yes, then we are done here. Sorry, but I am not interested. Do you need me to accept an apology for something? I'm telling you there's no need. We are way beyond that. These are all distractions to the real issue at hand, which is:

multiple editors/admins telling you there are behavioral concerns with your actions, you kinda accepting there may be some and wanting to improve, and me offering some advice on what you can do as next steps.

Your last response about feeling "pigeonholed" and not seeing enough "policy" stated in discussions appears to indicate you are gravitating back toward a state of denial. I'm afraid there's not much I, or anyone else, can do for you if you aren't willing to take accountability.

I have offered a small blueprint of what you can try for now. Avoid controversial edits and stay under the radar. In the meantime, review policies and guidelines, of course, but also seek out some of the little nooks and crannies in the essays I linked to (you'll know which ones are well-written when you see them). You'll be surprised what you'll pick up if you are willing to learn.

You, of course, are under no obligation to do any of this. That's why I said the "ball's in your court". What I offered above is simply advice that you can either take with you or leave behind. If you choose to jump back into the fray and make edits that lead to heated talk page discussions before you're ready (meaning you haven't really made any changes to your overall approach), then I have no doubt the path you're on will lead to additional community escalation and possibly more severe consequences. Personally, I'd hate to see that happen if you truly have good intentions, which is why I suggested taking a break from conflict. There's plenty you can contribute to in the meantime, but I also understand if that's too difficult to accept. Everyone has to make their own decisions and live with the consequences. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Not sure how to take it when your interpretation is when you have acknowledged that I'm apologized. The policy suggests we forgive and forget. As for not making changes to my overall approach, I have.

• I've recently re-written the entire article on Below the Root for various reasons (poor sourcing, lack of following an MOS, etc.) and replaced it with sourced content. As I know others have worked on it and still seem to continue to edit I reached out to them on the changes I've made on their respective talk pages if they appeared to be active users.
• Not sure what would convince you I have or have not taken a break from conflict. I have been reviewing a GA, an FA, and have submitted three good articles, one just today after several pieces of expansion.
• In short, I think some of my actions were inappropriate as mentioned above. Otherwise, I do not think there is anything wrong with being a WikiDragon as that's what I am over a sealion. if its going on and on, I'm not sure what you want as you did not impose the ban, but you respond to me here and other pages about my actions instead of asking for requests on content like I've asked. You don't have to help, but your suggestions are not in line with my edit history outside the two or three times you've chosen to engage. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

If you are making an attempt to improve and believe you are making progress, then that's a positive thing and all anyone could ask for. These things take time; it's not going to happen overnight, but glad to hear you're trying to move in that direction. Avoiding conflict obviously isn't a solution, and it's nearly impossible to do on Wikipedia, but it can be a short-term remedy in the meantime while you ease back into discussion and learn to fine-tune your skills with compromising.

If you find yourself running into the same editors often, pick and choose your battles. For things you care less about, go ahead and throw them a bone sometimes. Give in completely on those issues. You might find that on issues you care more about, they'll return the favor and be more willing to lean in your favor next time around. Also never forget your option to WP:DISENGAGE or WP:HOWTOLOSE. Those could come in handy when it gets heated and it's time to step away. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

All good. Thanks. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I meant to mark out my first bolding on the Deadpool & Wolverine talk page discussion

Sorry 'bout that. thanks for fixing. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

YodaYogaYogurt154, no prob! --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Gone, he's doing it again ---Please help me ??

Dear Gonein60; I followed your attempts on various talk pages to deal with an editor named Andrzejbanas. I couldn't believe how you were so patient and were able to tolerate what I thought was intentional harassment for so many weeks. I'm writing to ask if you could possibly help me with a problem I'm having now with that same individual. Since he was blocked by Valereee from editing the Universal Monsters page, he has gone on to delete huge blocks of text from a number of other articles. In the past 3 days, Andrzejbanas deleted 80% of the information on a film article called Jesus Franco which was a long-established article that has been on wikipedia for many years. The section he deleted was titled "Filmography", and it contained a ton of valuable information on Jesus Franco's films and collaborators, and comprised about 80% of the article! It featured two columns, "Alternate Film Titles" and "Notes". The Notes column was meticulously set up to allow readers to quickly search the names of his former collaborators (actors, producers, etc.) all arranged chronologically, and the other column featured all of the various alternate titles of his 173 films (they were released in many different countries under many different titles). Andrzejbanas created a totally separate "Filmography" page (in two days) and then deleted the Filmography section that was on the main "Jesus Franco" page without even asking anyone! His filmography list does not contain ANY of the information that he deleted from the other page, all of that data the notes on 173 films) is just GONE! This Franco article has been on wikipedia (uncontested) for many years, and many horror film fans (such as myself) use it every week as a reference since it was so accurate (it took about ten YEARS to create and double-check). Is there a way to possibly prevent him from deleting the Jesus Franco article as he has done with your articles? I ask you because I know what you went through with him for so long, and I thought you would appreciate what I'm going through now. Please help me prevent the Jesus Franco page from being destroyed? Thank you so much for your time.49Bottles (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

49Bottles, without looking into it, I would suggest sticking to the article talk page and not letting it get heated. Remain calm and realize that nothing is truly lost (it can always be pulled back from the article history once the dispute is resolved, if that's the outcome). In the meantime, if you're unable to work out your differences, I suggest getting other participants involved that may have an interest in the subject matter. Drop a neutral discussion notice such as {{Please see}} at a relevant WikiProject talk page or seek a Third Opinion. There are also other options listed at WP:DR.

The most important thing is to focus on the content in question and not on editor behavior. Yes, there is a history, but every editor deserves the chance to be judged on their current actions, and it would be best to put judgement aside and focus on improving the article first. See where that gets you before turning to escalation. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Gone. I know what this guy put you through, and I do admire your tolerance level. I just can't believe this guy would continue to delete complete sections of articles while he is already partially blocked from editing due to disruptive behavior. Unbelievable. Well, I hope at least you've seen the last of him. Thanks again!49Bottles (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh wow, I added a survey at The Acolyte too!

I love your sourcing. I think we should merge your citations and main points together. BarntToust (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

BarntToust, well considering you copied/pasted another editor's comments, I'd say it would be best to undo that. The last thing we want to do is increase the amount of text on the page. Plus, my timestamps precede yours. Honestly, I would just undo your edits. It would make things easier. I already dropped a discussion notice at WT:FILM that points to my survey. The less people have to read, the better. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I dunno. This may or may not be worth it. I will undo the paste, though, so we can start fresh. BarntToust (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

We can discuss further here. For now, I've restored the talk page. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@BarntToust: I abandoned my edit at the talk when I got the edit conflict notice that GoneIn60 had done cleanup but they're right that you shouldn't have a) altered another editor's comment without making it clear that you were adding bold emphasis & b) without adding an explanatory note making it clear you were copying the comment from elsewhere. That edit made it look like that was my original comment. WP:TPO has 2 suggested templates for quoting. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, my bad, I was in the wrong for that. I'll check that WP: out. Sorry for doing that, Sariel. Should have done the due diligence. BarntToust (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, BarntToust, I see you have been tinkering at the Survey since my last edit (diff). Not everything in that diff is yours, but almost all of it is. I'm not going to revert any of it, but hopefully you are done tinkering at this point. If you think of any more changes that need to be made, please drop a note to discuss here before making them, and most importantly, once editors begin to weigh in, do NOT make any more changes to the survey heading. Survey questions should not be modified after they've been responded to. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I am indeed done with tinkering. I wanted to make sure I got that done with. Most of my intent was to ensure that the perspectives were neutrally-informed and included details from each party. I would not dream of tinkering with this by the time that responses come in.

I also found it important to stipulate that the information was proposed to be set in the #Casting section, as that is where it would solely be appropriate to be included if it is to be, and makes this as simple as possible.

Thank you for working on this, and taking time to approach it from a neutral perspective. If I need to attach any more disclosure that I edited the proposal than the with input from BarntToust) that I added at the tail of your signiture, please say so. BarntToust (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I am strictly of the mindset that the less verbiage that is written in the survey, the better. Less is more. It was 151 words originally, and is now sitting at 228. I honestly don't think any of that additional clarification was needed, aside for maybe one or two minor word changes. You have to keep in mind that the less people have to read, the more likely they are to weigh in. They can always scroll up if they want to dig in-depth to the arguments of both sides.

Sometimes it's nice having a really short, concise summary even when it seems incomplete, because editors are smart enough to know that the complete discussion lurks right above. Veteran editors are well aware of that fact. Resist the urge to cram every detail into the survey header. It often makes things muddier and less attractive to potential participants. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

But I don't want to sound all negative. I do appreciate your willingness to help. Hopefully this finds a resolution, and we can put this behind us. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

By the way, BarntToust, I am going to remove the Forbes source. Tassi has been challenged many times in the past for his reliability. He is considered low-to-mid, and most discussions conclude that there are better sources out there. Better to stick with the original three we had listed. He does not improve the slate. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey, go for it. If Tassi has been so questioned, it's better to not make it into a discussion about Tassi. Lotta the text I did add was footnote material and directory to another project's policy on Sneider. Minimalism is an art that is an art in itself to balance carefully with informative value. I can't wait to ensure this comes to a good conclusion.

"Be seeing you, Winst-" er... I mean, GoneIn60.
I just had to put a John Wick quote in here, this whole thing being subjected around Keanu, after all!
...with Peace & Love, BarntToust (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)