User talk:GoneIn60/Archive 3

< Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  ... (up to 100)

2019 – 2022

Question regarding the Shrek films

What happened to the info regarding DreamWorks Animation from the lead paragraphs for the articles of the Shrek films? IceWalrus236 (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

IceWalrus236, I mentioned in the edit summaries that there is more than one production company listed in the infobox. However, you are only listing one of them in the lead paragraph. I've removed it for now, because it causes confusion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Froster Soak City.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Froster Soak City.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

My edit on the Cedar Point article

There is clear evidence that Cedar Point has 18 rollercoasters. It says so on their website. It also is evidenced by this article [1]. I've even been to the park. I went on all the coasters and by the end, I counted that there were 18 rollercoasters.

Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you for your time! --Ridebuilder5 (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Ridebuilder5, thanks for taking the time to discuss. It has been brought up before in other articles, such as Kings Island, where a ride similar to Pipe Scream is featured in an amusement park. While amusement parks tend to bolster their count by including it, experts in the industry don't tend to classify them as true roller coasters. One of the main arguments is that it isn't self-propelled after the initial start of the ride (there is a drivetrain along the track that continues to accelerate the train as it passes over during the course of the ride). Also keep in mind that a claim in a primary source doesn't usually override secondary source analysis, and the bible of statistics the industry tends to reference is information provided at RCDB.com. When primary and secondary sources disagree, we tend to defer to RCDB as having the last word in a debate. In the rare circumstances that secondary sources overwhelmingly agree and contradict RCDB, then we would make an exception to that general rule and go with what the other sources are saying, but that's not the case here (for more info on primary vs secondary, see WP:PSTS). Here's the RCDB link again for your reference: https://rcdb.com/4529.htm

Hope that helps! If you'd like to further discuss and get other opinions on the subject, I'd recommend starting a new discussion on the article's talk page, or even better, begin one at WT:WikiProject Amusement Parks for more visibility. What I've explained to you is the consensus we've established in the past, but if there are reasonable new arguments that haven't been considered before, we should have the discussion again. Consensus can always change. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

You make a good point. Thank you for clarifying! --Ridebuilder5 (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

follow-up discussion

I am going to be cautious about posting on the Talk page of the Aurora, Illinois shooting article. I hope you don't mind my responding to you here. You posted this inquiry to me. You wrote "Since you've participated in past discussions for other articles, have any trends been identified previously that would lend some precedent to this article?" I will respond. A trend concerning what? 90% of similar articles contain victim lists. Though I never created such a victim list I think those editors largely had it right. I don't disagree with those editors. I think they suggest a de facto project-wide consensus. I have literally examined over 200 similar articles. I compiled a list (3 lists) in the midst of this discussion. It is not conclusive but it warrants your perusal. Bus stop (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Bus stop, yes I'm aware of that list, which analyzes the current state on Wikipedia. However, what I'm asking for is whether or not you were a part of past discussions, where secondary sources were analyzed for these "trends" as well. If not, that's OK. I just want to make sure I wasn't missing anything, and that I was taking past considerations/consensus into account. Further responses on this should really be placed back on that talk page in case others have information to contribute. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

RE:Feedback on talk

Hi, GoneIn60. I was just trying to clarify something for you. 'Uninspired' is an actual word that means "lacking in imagination or originality", it isn't a mistake and they didn't mean to say 'uninspiring', which means "not producing excitement or interest", or 'uninspirational', which isn't a word. But given that you actually wanted me to answer, yes, I do consider it the only part I would change. El Millo (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Paint The Night

Hi there, Don't you think something has got to be done with Kevinkishler because because I just think that its getting annoying now as he's appearing to do it constantly.

Regards

Pepper Gaming (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Pepper Gaming, it does appear to be that way, but in order to avoid biting newcomers, we should allow a reasonable amount of time for an offender to recognize warnings on their user page (see WP:VD#For beginners) and respond accordingly. It will eventually result in a block if they continue past level 3 and level 4 warnings. If the warnings fail to get their attention, then I'm sure the block will. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

GoneIn60, I agree with you. If i'm honest I think he'll just ignore those warnings until he gets blocked. Pepper Gaming (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Spoiled on Game of Thrones?

GoneIn60, you weren't spoiled on Game of Thrones, were you? I'd hate it if my WP:TV and WP:Film query spoiled you or anyone else who looked at the matter/weighed in to help. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn: No worries, not at all! I didn't wait more than an hour or so after each episode originally aired to stream it. I was hooked, but like the many of the critics, I can safely say this was not my favorite season! (BTW, I know you hate pings, but I wasn't sure you were closely watching this page). --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Glad that you weren't spoiled. I hope no one else was either.

As for pings, they do annoy me, but especially if I'm pinged to a talk page I'm already watching. Your talk page was on my watchlist, but I removed it late last year or at some point earlier this year when I was cutting down on the number of pages on my watchlist. When User:MediaWiki message delivery happens, a lot of user talk pages flood my watchlist. But I have no problem with keeping your talk page on my watchlist. I think I thought about it, and figured that I could just re-add it in the future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Revert at Talk:Great Wolf Resorts

I removed an empty heading line, I did not remove any content or comments. Prior to that it looked like there had been some false information/vandalism going on. Beach drifter (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Beach drifter: Yes, I noticed. My comments weren't directed at you, but the IP editor's actions of removing another editor's comments needed to be reverted. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

I think all these recent edits to the statistics on coaster pages may be from the same user. I've opened a sockpuppet investigation. If you agree (or not), feel free to leave a comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bradley026258.—JlACEer (talk) 04:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Was just about to report them as well, but I was waiting to collect one more example. I think what we have at this point though is probably enough. Thanks for the heads up. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

JlACEer, just letting you know that the related IPv6 range has now been reported at WP:AN#Range block needed for problematic IPs. Letting you know since you were directly involved in reverting edits from this range. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the New Texas Giant page.

Lots of people have been getting their responses revoked by you. Why? HoneyestKid (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

HoneyestKid, unsourced information will eventually get removed. If not by me, then probably by someone else. Since you're new here, you may want to read WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:RS for help understanding why citations matter. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Orion Giga Coaster

Hi, no I have not found any links stating that it would be the 11th tallest either, but I will keep looking for them, if Kings Island or Cedar Fair posts information about it. It probably is true that it's the 11th tallest but I can see why it wouldn't be allowed for now without a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverkev79 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Neutral notice

This is a neutral notice to all registered editors who have contributed to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film over the past year (Sept. 15, 2018-present) that a Request for Comment has been posted here. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

AfroCine: Join the Months of African Cinema this October!

Greetings!

After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:

• Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
• Diversity winner
• Gender-gap fillers

For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kings Island Soak City logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kings Island Soak City logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Oblivion Drop Angle

Thanks for your edit and note on my talk page. I've added a note on the Talk:Oblivion (roller coaster) citing my source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.248.160 (talk) 06:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Invitation

You are invited to this section of MOS:FILM about the issues with the format of 2019 in film. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The Smiler

Hi GoneIn60, there has been quite a bit of activity today on the article so you may want to check the track elements infobox as I am not sure it is correct (per consensus). I did left edit warring notices with the editors and encouraged them to start a new discussion if they disagreed, etc. S0091 (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

S0091: I'll check it in a while and revert it back to the status quo if needed, but that will probably happen after I get the page protected. Thanks for the heads up! --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Neutral notice

As an editor who commented at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film between Jan. 1, 2019, and today, you may wish to join a discussion at that page, here.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey there, just want you to know that I appreciate this concession. I'm not trying to convince anybody who doesn't want to be convinced, but I do truly appreciate that you were looking to understand my points and frustrations, even if you don't ultimately agree with me. The project is massive, and I participate in areas (mostly Indian film articles that are prone to all sorts of frustrating crap, from undisclosed paid editing, promotion, ethnic warring, ethnic vandalism, phony box office figures, and so much more. I could spend hours kvetching about my poor choice of interests.) But anyway, I do appreciate your attempts to see things from my perspective. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb: You're welcome and glad it's not personal! I try to be as fair as possible to both sides, especially when I see good arguments from competing perspectives. I do recall from past discussions at WT:FILM that you do a lot of work in that realm, and yes, I can imagine you frustratingly deal with a lot of junk that finds its way into articles. I know I'm not the only one that appreciates the amount of time and effort you dedicate to cleaning that up! --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Grazie, grazie. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The Mandalorian RfC

You are being notified because you have participated in previous discussions about The Mandalorian article, and might have interest in the current RfC: Regarding Darksaber Mention in The Mandalorian Plot Summary. You might be interested in adding your voice to the RfC. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Alpengeist

Just so you know I added a train tab to alpengeist with the number of trains and also the zero car weight (sourced from CoasterBot which he sourced from the park) and the skis on the side of the trains (also sourced from coaster bot) (Both sourced were from “What is Alpengeist”) AGAR-05 (talk) 10:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

AGAR-05: I see that you did. However, you didn't include a citation for it. I left you some information on your talk page that might help you learn more about referencing. Hopefully that helps. Also keep in mind that not everything you can find a source for belongs on Wikipedia. The amount of coverage an idea or detail receives in reliable sources usually determines whether or not we should include the info here on Wikipedia. It's usually best to avoid trivial, insignificant details. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Expedition GeForce

I don't want to get caught in an edit war. Can you revert the nonsense about Expedition GeForce being named after nVidia's line of graphics cards? The nVidia GeForce line didn't exist until 2014. The coaster opened in 2001. Thanks, —JlACEer (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

JlACEer: Actually it has been around since 1999, see GeForce. However, the claim definitely needs a source other than the company's website that verifies the park and manufacturer intended to name the ride after the Nvidia product line. I'll begin a discussion on the article's talk page, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Six Flags Darien Lake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Orion's lift

Hi i'm CatSmart08, i saw your comment and i'm wring to tell you that all giga coasters, like orion, are all cable lift, its faster to lift that wayOrion --CatSmart08 (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Watch actual video footage of any B&M Hyper Coaster model that qualifies as a "giga" coaster, such as Fury 325: video link. Clearly this is chain not cable. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Reverted my edits to Fury 325

You reverted ALL five of my edits to Fury 325. I didn't think that they really weren't beneficial. Now that I saw what you did, I realized that I made a mistake by doing these. Thanks you for pointing them out to me. 208.59.132.152 (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to discuss in detail if you'd like, but that conversation should best happen on the article's talk page at Talk:Fury 325. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to RedWarn

Hello, GoneIn60! I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta test my new tool, RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.

• Easy to use - Unlike other tools, RedWarn uses easy to interpret icons and simple summaries for common actions, reducing both learning and reading times.
• Supports rollback and rollback-like functionality - Unlike Twinkle, RedWarn supports both rollback and rollback-like functionality for users will rollback permissions. This decreases waiting times during rollbacks.

• Making life easier on the battlefield - Ever been in the middle of a vandalism war or campaign, frantically reloading the history page to see a new edit? No more! Enabling RedWarn's "Alert on Change" feature will automatically send you to the latest edit when a new edit occurs - and if you're working on something else, RedWarn will send you a notification while the tab is still open in the background. No time wasted.
• Rollback previews - If you're ever worried about the changes a rollback will make, especially in the case of reverting good faith edits, you can click the rollback preview button to preview the difference a rollback will make, with the version that will be restored on the right, and the latest revision on the left.

• Always the latest revision - RedWarn will automatically redirect you to the latest revision if the rollback is no longer for the latest revision - no more frustrating errors.

• Fast - RedWarn can automatically select a warning level, and, on vandalism and content removal rollbacks, automatically select a warning template.

• Built on your feedback - RedWarn is receiving frequent feature additions and changes based on your feedback. If there's something you don't like, or would like to see, just say!

• and many more features ...but I don't want to fill your userpage.

RedWarn is currently in use by over 35 other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. If you're interested, please see see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features which I haven't listed here. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed6767 talk! 19:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

A discussion on the Six Flags talk page

@GoneIn60: I would like to invite you to take a look at the recent edits of the main Six Flags page, including the ones from Dyll222. To an prevent the event of a edit war, I made a discussion at the Talk:Six Flags page to which, the user continues to revert the edits without any comments to the talk page, to back up his claims. Thanks. --Jpp858 (talk) 04:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that I made a mistake

Thank you for pointing this out to me. I think that I made a mistake. 208.59.132.152 (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Hasn't stopped you before and won't likely stop you now. That's just too bad. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm SO worried that if I accidentally made a disruptive edit on a Wikipedia article that I'll be blocked from editing. What should I do? --208.59.132.152 (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry SO much. It's not healthy. You could spend some time asking for help at the Teahouse, or you can continue doing your thing. Up to you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll make sure that I ask for help at the Teahouse instead of continuing to do my thing. Thank you for pointing this out to me and, more importantly, NOT refusing to answer. Now, I have to make sure that I keep my word. 208.59.132.152 (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd call that progress, or maybe more accurately, POTENTIAL progress. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Former roller coasters in Wisconsin

A tag has been placed on Category:Former roller coasters in Wisconsin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Cedar Point

...thank you for adjusting the reference at the Cedar Point page. And hopefully you will be able to verify, through other early sources, whether or not Cedar Point Resort is truly “150” years old....or if that current enterprise has been, and is, embellishing history to suit their own commercial purposes. (Also please peruse the local newspapers of the EARLY 1900s....and you will see that this “1870” claim did not begin to appear until circa the time of the U.S. bicentennial.) [I think my I.P. has now been blocked from editing the C.P. wiki-entry, etc...but feel free to migrate this message to wherever you think it’s appropriate. Thanks] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:84A:8DC5:93E:3559 (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you go to Talk:Cedar Point and click "New section" at the top. Begin a discussion there listing the various sources you've come across and how you suggest you we use them. Although non-user accounts and unconfirmed editors are not permitted to edit the article, you can still make use of the talk page. There are quite a few sources I'm seeing that state 1870 as Cedar Point's founding (some say late 1870s, including a state historical marker near the park's entrance). We should not make any decisions on user talk pages, but instead need to have this conversation at the article. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

....my browser doesn’t seem to display a “new section” creation....so I did the best I could to post a new msg there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:84A:8DC5:93E:3559 (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

....anyway, what I came back on here to mention, was that, certainly of course, I have a few more old and good source references that I could post to that discussion. But that other contributor is obviously not interested in the truth (based upon their vehement defense of “1870” by using any illogical reasoning they can spout...the same situation as my initial interaction with them )...so therefore no amount of information is going to change their mind....regardless of how compelling it would be to reasonable persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:FC04:ACC6:E142:1168 (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

...in fact, there would be nothing preventing that contributor from soon “deleting” the entire ‘thread’ so that no one would even see it....so, what would be the point of my further participation, there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:FC04:ACC6:E142:1168 (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to respond as long as we don't start wading into repetitive waters. I've done so again, and that will probably be the last time I address the Firelands source. As for your concern about the thread getting deleted, that may only happen on user talk pages. Whoever the page belongs to, they can wipe it clean at any time. Your conversations are still stored in the page history though. As for article talk pages, no editor is permitted to remove any comments, even their own except under very specific circumstances. WP:TPG explains that in more detail if you're interested. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC).

...I have read your msg at CP ‘talk’, but will respond here. — One of my specific comments about the Firelands item, was meant to be in response to the fact that you, yourself, are the one who said that ‘verifiabilty’ is more essential here on Wiki, than ‘truth’. Therefore, it seems odd that you would fault a person for “championing” a VERIFIABLE reference (regardless of the ‘truth’ of that reference), especially after you have also agreed it was a very acceptable reference. I, myself, was fine that you personally didn’t think the word ‘founding’ was pertinent enough to retain that wording/phrase in the Wiki TEXT (...however, I was furious that ‘J’ simply DELETED the ref.citation, without bothering to see if it was real, nor if it was useful to quote in some other capacity, at least so that other researchers can decide for themselves as to what source they feel is the most, or least, pertinent. THAT is the great failing of this entire website...that dominating wiki-editors are allowed to simply trash a GOOD resource, in favor of what THEY, themselves, believe is instead a BETTER resource). Anyway, in truth, you never needed to explain to me ANY of your personal thoughts about the Firelands source. Instead, it was the 1952 information that came straight-from-the-horse’s-mouth (that 1952 Cedar Point rep) which needs thorough pondering. And specifically, why HE apparently included NOTHING about the PRE-1882 period, in his oration. Until we resolve that mystery, no other source is as compelling, as C.P.’s own (repeated) inconsistencies about their own business history.

Did you read WP:NOTTRUTH? I suggest you read it carefully again if you did. We value truth of course, but we require verifiability. We prefer to have both, but we can only guarantee the latter. We don't expect our readers to blindly trust that what they read on Wikipedia is true. By being able to verify information, readers are empowered to check it for themselves and draw their own conclusions. We have to be careful not to draw a conclusion that the source doesn't directly support, so that when readers attempt to verify the claim by looking up the citation, they are able to do so without issue. Newspapers, again, are usually primary sources. Primary sources are not bad, but they are a sliver of the overall picture that secondary sources ultimately paint. Depending on the claim, primary sources can be fine on their own. But when they conflict with other sources, we look to secondary sources for clarification. In most cases, primary sources would not override expert analysis from secondary sources. We cannot allow the newspaper "promotional" source to override multiple scholars that have written on the topic.

Instead of getting into the semantics, what exactly are you proposing? What do you want to see the article changed to? What text do you want to see inserted? It might be better if we focus on that, and then consider whether or not that is acceptable per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, when you subtract 70 from 1952, you get 1882. But that doesn't mean 1882 would be the first season in that scenario. Think of a simpler example. Let's say a park celebrates its second season in 2002. If you subtract 2 from 2002, you get 2000. Does that mean its first season was 2000? No, it doesn't. Obviously 2001 was the first season. So if the 70th season was 1952, then that means the first season was 1883. Does that sound crazy to you? Have you ever seen ANY source mention 1883 as a significant year for Cedar Point? I'm looking for something here that would cause an old administration to believe 1883 was the first season. I honestly haven't, and I think that the spokesperson interviewed or promoting the park in 1952 made a mistake. And if they really did celebrate their 70th anniversary that year, there's got to be something else out there to indicate that happened (memorabilia, brochures, magazine articles, books, etc). --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

You completely misinterpreted my actions. I reverted your "citation" because it was not properly formatted and your edit damaged the layout of the page. It has nothing to do with what I believed or could even verify. I never deleted the statement, I simply tagged it so that other researchers could look into it and enter a proper citation. I didn't have time to do the research myself at that particular moment. You then removed the CN tag, but left the page in a damaged state so I reverted it back to "citation needed" because that is what it needed — a properly formatted citation. I also told you to take it to the CP talk page so that it could be discussed by other editors, or if you had trouble formatting the citation, you could ask for help with the formatting — but you never did. Stop insinuating that I didn't agree with what you wrote. It has nothing to do with that. You left a mess right in the middle of the page and I explained this to you multiple times. If you took 10% of the amount of effort that you spend arguing with everyone and funneled that into learning how to create a proper reference, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Much like GoneIn60, I'm tired of wading into repetitive waters. I'm sure you'll have plenty more to say as you always have to have the last word, but I'm done here.—JlACEer (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

—-J: (to refresh your memory), the only reason that I posted the raw LINK, was because you had previously deleted the ref.citation(“Firelands Pioneer(series), Apr. 1925)...so then I tracked down the actual source, and posted the raw LINK, which you then also deleted ...so I posted it again, and ‘G’ graciously fixed it for “us”. (..during which time, you filed a wiki complaint against me, but which I prevailed, not surprisingly).[If that still doesn’t refresh your memory...then refer to your own edits-history. Thank you.] (anyway, you need not concern yourself with my formatting skills... at least in regard to me editing any actual wiki-entries. I will concentrate on contributing to the ‘talk’ pages from now on.]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:FC04:ACC6:E142:1168 (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

—G: no, 1952 did not make any mistake in the reporting. Because in 1957, guess what CP celebrated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:FC04:ACC6:E142:1168 (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll wait for you to respond to everything else, but if we can verify that for a long period of time, Cedar Point was celebrating 1883 as their inaugural year, then it may need some attention in the article even if only a sentence or two. We could even add an EFN, which is a note that when you hover reveals additional details. We could place one next to 1870 if it can be verifiably shown that Cedar Point made a significant effort at some point in their history to celebrate a different year. It would be even better if it can be determined when and why they changed course. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I am not going to obsess over that 1882/1883 issue. I am just going to assume that they didn’t operate during one of those years, sometime before the Boeckling era. (which would also explain why, in the earliest 1900s, they were honoring their “seasons” based upon the Boeckling era...as I had also stated with an ‘edit’ on the CP page...and which you promptly excercised your verifiability-policeman skills, before I could even create the proper citation syntax. :-))) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:FC04:ACC6:E142:1168 (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

...by the way....(unless you perhaps have an uncontrollable o.c.d. about it)..there is no need for you to try to teach me how Wiki functions. And, even in regards to me editing the ‘talk’ pages....from now on, wysiwyg. ;-)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:FC04:ACC6:E142:1168 (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

My last suggestion was legit. If you have some additional sources that you'd like to bring to the table (and not just promotional entries in a newspaper), please post them at the article talk page. I'd be willing to work with you on that. But until then, let's stay on track and focus on improving Wikipedia. Taking stabs at each other isn't going to move this forward, assuming that's your ultimate goal. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

....sounds good. Although I still don’t comprehend your objection to the verifiability-quotient of newspaper items. Newspapers are just like any other publication...good/bad/indifferent...but PUBLISHED. And that makes them a “verified reference”, meeting Wikis strictest guidelines. (Also, apparently I am interepreting their restrictions against personal-research, entirely differently than the way you seem to have explained it, to me. No need for you to re-explain it to me...in fact, please don’t....but you might want to re-peruse that Wiki page, yourself, to make sure you indeed explained it correctly to me.)

You don't get it, yet you dread receiving an explanation. Guess you're stuck there, bub! I think you're well aware of how things work around here, much more than you're letting on anyway! Looks like we're done here (on my talk page). If you have anything else, take it to the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

...I think that you may have misunderstood, that I merely didn’t want you to have to “wade through the same waters” about it, (as you lamented before). [But, while I am back here, I will just add that my interpretation of their explanation about personal-research, is actually more akin to “non-extrapolation”.] Anyway... see you at CP talk, from now on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:FC04:ACC6:E142:1168 (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I have zero idea about what you are accusing me about my I.P.....but if I indeed was an experienced user on here, you (and your friend J) would have been reported for bullying me (yes, and also threatening me) beginning almost the very day I tried to contribute worthy information, here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:FC04:ACC6:E142:1168 (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

You aren't here for the right reasons. Take a break from Wikipedia, and come back when you're ready to roll up the sleeves and work collaboratively to get something accomplished. Do not post on my talk page again. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Amusement park articles

Hey GoneIn60, I've seen your good job on a few amusement park articles and I assume by your username that you've done a lot more, you crazy kid. Verrückt (water slide) is a superb article, especially as a public service due to the tragedy. I would never have wanted to go to that park just as a monument to arrogance. At a glance, "that aint safe". I hope my quick description of Cedar Fair wasn't worded too clumsily, "a nationwide whatever etc" but please fix if so. And please do review the sources to put it at class B, which I'm 99.9% sure it's presently at. Editing wikipedia is one thing we can do to stave off the sorrow of being unable to go to parks properly in the pandemic. We wanted so badly to get to Worlds of Fun, but people are saying it's typically miserable especially with minimal shelter from the oppressive KC heat. I want to rewrite Worlds of Fun for sure. Roller coaster articles are like trains and storms and such, in that they are a magnet for people with an obsessively myopically wild abandon (euphemism for their mental conditions) for WP:FANCRUFT and WP:TRIVIA and should mostly be deleted or relocated to fansites, as a huge embarrassment to Wikipedia. I can't believe there's an article for *closed* rides. When I first saw you dumping details on that one roller coaster's lame article, I thought "oh no, not another one" but you flipped a breakneck 180 on me real quick with mad RSes and article structure, verrah niiiice. You guys are talking about ye olden newspapers and I have a free subscription to newspapers.com via WP:LIBRARY. I highly recommend that you apply for that so you can instantly mass-search all the goodies. It's a hurdle but it's worth it. Or I'll help if you tell me exactly what to search for. — Smuckola(talk) 00:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Smuckola: Mainly just a "kid" at heart! ;-P

Not sure what coaster article you're referring to, but yes, especially this time of year, these articles see a lot of unsourced rumor and speculation getting added frequently by drive-by anonymous IP editors. During the slower months, I'm usually evenly split between film and parks. Could always use more help in this arena, so definitely feel free to pitch in where you can and consider joining WikiProject Amusement Parks (click on the Participants tab). We've lost a lot of help over the last 5 years, so we're always looking for new blood! I had considered signing up at Newspapers.com, but just never got around to it. That's probably a good idea at this point. If you want to assist with this issue in the meantime, hop on over to Talk:Cedar Point and see if you can look up those 4 sources that the IP above posted there. Would be helpful to know more of the context surrounding those claims, who they were posted by (author), and if it's some kind of promotional entry from the park or if it's a legit story covered by a journalist. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

—G....if you reside anywhere near Akron, you can access the Akron library’s NewspaperArchive... no library-card needed (....try it, anyway, no matter where you live). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:FC04:ACC6:E142:1168 (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Help with IP Vandal

An IP Vandal whom we had once thought was a sockpuppet of User:Bradley026258 is running rampant again. I thought we were told there would be an IP block, but the investigation indicates "Blocked but awaiting tags" on July 18. I don't know what that means. I also filed an AIV last night but after six hours it was purged with no action. Does that mean it is in a queue somewhere, or does it just die because someone didn't get to it before a clean-up bot did? You seem to be a little more familiar with this than I am. The vandal seems to have a penchant for damaging Fire in the Hole (Silver Dollar City) — more than 30 edits in the last 12 hours, using two different IP addresses. Thanks.—JlACEer (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

JlACEer: Back on July 22, I reported the IP range at WP:ANI, which is now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1042#IP range block needed for 2605:A601:AD87:300. The IP range was blocked for 2 weeks, which means through yesterday, August 5. If they're back at it again, I would start a new ANI thread with new diffs (examples) and link to that archived discussion. Should be a quick decision to block for another month or two. Your AIV post looks like it ran into a timeout of some kind as you can see here: MDanielsBot Removing Stale AIV Reports

AIV is good for quick reports on new vandals, where the vandalism is VERY clear, but the admins there prefer extremely short descriptions (like 1 or 2 sentences). Could be why no one got to it in time, but that's just a guess! --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I should add that they rarely do IP range blocks at AIV, as far as I know. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Page Moves

I was shocked to see so many entries on my watch list. It looked like every roller coaster page had gotten moved. Thank you for getting ahead of this. I tried to thank User:Oshwah as well, but I'm not sure how to edit his talk page. I would offer to help but it looks like the two of you have gotten all the pages back to normal.—JlACEer (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

No prob. For future ref, you can actually go into the talk page history, find the edit you want to "thank" and do it from there. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

AstroWorld page

If you get a chance would you take a look at what is happening over at the Six Flags AstroWorld page? A well-meaning editor wanted to rewrite this section in the hopes of getting it to good-article status, but he evidently has no experience with amusement park pages. Perhaps you can offer some guidance particularly when it comes to sources for ride manufacturers.—JlACEer (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I've been swamped the past few days at work. I've weighed in on the AstroWorld talk page and made a few cleanup edits in the article. A complete overhaul like that was very sudden and probably could have been handled better, but I do think they have the article's best interests in mind. We have the article history to look at and can always add lost information back, as long as it's sourced. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

GoneIn60, Exactly. I'm not opposed to re-adding some of the removed detail, but sourcing is a must, no exceptions. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing some of the sources posted on the talk page. This is tremendously helpful. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

No problem. I may have more time later this week, hopefully. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Join the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project invites you to join us again this October and November, the two months which are dedicated to improving content about the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.

Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand contents in Wikimedia projects which are connected to this scope. Kindly list your username under the participants section to indicate your interest in participating in this contest.

We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap fillers - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

We would be adding additional categories as the contest progresses, along with local prizes from affiliates in your countries. For further information about the contest, the prizes and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. Looking forward to your participation.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:22, 22nd September 2020 (UTC)

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Ghostbusters

The warning comments about not changing the lead seem to have been ignored repeatedly. As someone who was involved in the previous consensus discussion could you please take a look at it Talk:Ghostbusters_(2016_film)#Summary_of_critical_response and possibly revert to an acceptable version. -- 14:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.211.204 (talk)

Another editor (MASEM) has fixed it. Thanks. -- 109.78.211.204 (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!

Greetings,

Thank you very much for participating in the Months of African Cinema global contest/edit-a-thon, and thank you for your contributions so far.

It is already the middle of the contest and a lot have been achieved already! We have been able to get over 1,500 articles created in over fifteen (15) languages! This would not have been possible without your support and we want to thank you. If you have not yet listed your name as a participant in the contest page please do so.

Please make sure to list the articles you have created or improved in the article achievements' section of the contest page, so that they can be easily tracked. To be able to claim prizes, please also ensure to list your articles on the users by articles page. We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap filler - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

We are very excited about what has been achieved so far, but your contributions are still needed to further exceed all expectations! Let’s create more articles before the end of this contest, which is this November!!!

Thank you once again for being part of this global event! --Jamie Tubers (talk) 10:30, 06 November 2020 (UTC)

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Colossus (Playcenter São Paulo)

Thanks for creating the redirect. Since you categorized it, it should probably be a redirect to a section. Please check out WP:SUBTOPICCAT. Thanks. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Elliot321, I'm definitely not an expert in category maintenance, but this may be a unique situation. In order for Colossus (Playcenter São Paulo) to show up properly under Category:Roller coasters introduced in 1981, the redirect itself needs to be categorized. Its target, Teststrecke, doesn't really have a dedicated section for the previous name at this stage of the article's development. Therefore, I entered it as a standard redirect to an article. Would this qualify as an exception to the general guidance, or is there more to it that I'm missing? Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

that's understandable, but it probably should have a section on that. no rush, of course, just be sure to update the redirect to link the section (as well as add {{R to section}}) Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Elliot321, thanks for the prompt reply. The target article isn't one that I'm likely to update or modify, and even if I do eventually, it may never expand beyond a simple stub article. What do we do in those situations? Is the categorized redirect still acceptable? The problem is that we can't simply categorize the target article in the same way, because then it will show the ride's current name for the 1981 category, which would be misleading and inaccurate. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: I'm honestly not completely sure here. I don't think there's a specific policy one way or the other. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, well thanks for pointing out the editing guideline. I have been redirecting to subsections when they exist. I will continue to do so when it's an option. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Bad Boys For life

I saw the error and I'm sorry. I meant to say "Her Husband Benito". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.170.187 (talk) 03:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

If you need help, ask. You can also discuss on the article's talk page at Talk:Bad Boys for Life. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Volcano: The Blast Coaster

Thank you for keeping watch of the Volcano: The Blast Coaster article. I had also noticed that all of these newspaper.com references were all clipped by Masonkim. I'm not sure why this person has such an affection for LIM coasters and remains so persistent.

We have another situation, which I thought I would bring to your attention. I know that there are many references that refer to Volcano as the first inverted LIM-launched coaster — some of them written by people I know. However, through my own personal research I'm 99% certain that Linear Gale opened first. At the time it was largely unknown, and some coaster enthusiasts who were aware of it — or rode it, questioned if it should even be considered a coaster. Unfortunately in 1998 sources were difficult to come by so no one challenged the park's claim that Volcano was the first launched inverted coaster. As more Intamin Impulse coasters started to open, those who dismissed Linear Gale as a non-coaster changed their minds, and more people started to learn of its existence. By then it was too late to rewrite history, and Volcano became known as the first launched inverted coaster. I'll keep looking for credible references, or I suppose I could write one, although I'm not sure if any of the publications I write for would be interested in such a story now that both coasters are gone. In the meantime I won't be making any changes to the wiki articles, but stay tuned.—JlACEer (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Yep, that editor will be back undoubtedly. It's just one of those things we'll have to deal with each time unfortunately. Appreciate your help as well keeping their occasionally-destructive edits in check.

Good catch on Linear Gale. If it can be shown to have opened earlier in 1998 from a reliable source, we can definitely update the Volcano article to reflect that. It would still be the first complete-circuit version, as well as the first in the United States, but yeah, hopefully that's documented at some point if true! --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Back to the Future § Plot summary revamp

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Back to the Future § Plot summary revamp. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Coaster opinions in wiki

Happy New Year. In case you want to chime in on this, there is some discussion with user Adog at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_subject_of_personal_websites_for_reliability_and/or_opinions, concerning adding opinions and reviews to wiki coaster pages. I also made some edits to Iron Gwazi that he is probably not going to be happy with, but I really think it went too far. Curious to know what your thoughts are.—JlACEer (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Red Force roller coaster drop height

I'm sorry if I didn't cite properly. I'm new to editing wiki. I also don't know how to "answer on my talk page" so I hope this is okay.

Basically, the drop height I found is 105 meters. The total height is 112 meters. The number in feet was a calculated value. This can be found on https://coasterpedia.net/wiki/Red_Force On the right side under the photo, you'll see two green bars that say "Roller coaster" and "Statistics". Eight rows below that it says "Height 112 metres Drop 105 metres".

If you want to add that info you can, I'm too lazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.183.229 (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is a wiki, like this encyclopedia, that can be edited by anyone. It doesn't qualify as a reliable source. If you do come across one that you think qualifies, add the citation to the article redoing the changes you made or feel free to post on the article's talk page if you need to discuss further. You can also ask for assistance from experienced editors anytime at the Teahouse. Good luck. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Images

Hi GoneIn60

Ready to discuss images. Which one do you need help on and which article do you want to add it to? Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate the quick response, Mike! I'm looking at this image, as well as its license. I intend to add to the infobox at Sky Rocket in place of the ridiculous one that's there now. I assume CC 2.0 qualifies as acceptable use on Wikipedia, but am I limited to Wikimedia Commons for the upload? --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes. CC BY 2.0 is just an old version of CC BY SA 4.0 (as now used on Commons by default) and CC BY SA 3.0 as used on-Wiki (see bottom of edit page in the source editor). You would be best to upload that image on Commons and give it the standard default. Don't use the upload here on en.wp as that's for special cases of non-free photos and means they can't be used later by our foreign-language Wikis. Note that you must quote the source (a URL usually suffices) and comment about its current license. Also, the date you cite should be the date the image was taken (which is stated on the page on Flickr and may be in the .exif data from the camera). I think that there is a possibility of using a special bit of software to go from Flickr to Commons but I've never used that. Let me know if you need further advice.... Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I guess it would be polite to use Flickr's comment feature to mention there that you've copied the photo to Commons, once you've finished. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

P.P.S! I've just looked at Commons and the Upload wizard has indeed got an option to go straight from Flickr and get the licensing right. That was, incidentally how the image currently at Sky Rocket was done, as you'll see if you click through from WP to Commons on it. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Mike: That is helpful. Do you know of any examples you can point me to that I can look at and try to emulate? Also a page that lists the different licenses and what they mean would be very helpful as well. I might be able to steal some of the descriptive language used to describe the relevant licenses when doing uploads like this one. Sorry, the whole nature surrounding licenses and what each one entails is still pretty vague to me, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, the existing page's image is linked to Commons "here". If you look at the whole of that page, you'll see stuff that mentions that during the upload process the license was confirmed to be valid, so there's no doubt that the image can stay on Commons. If you use the Upload Wizard "located here". and then click on the "Share files from Flickr" option, all should be done for you when you follow the instructions. Commons will probably ask you to add the file to its Categories, which from the old image includes the category "Sky Rocket". Give it a try and see how you get on. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The licensing rules are all given as an essay at Commons:Licensing but the bottom line is that you should now only be using a type of CC BY-SA. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll give it a go later this afternoon. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Having seen the discussion at the Teahouse post and following here, you've gotten some great advice above. Just one clarification. Unless I'm misreading you Mike, you seem to be advising to update the license to Commons' default 4.0 license – "...give it the standard default". That is impossible. Authors—owners of the work that have granted a highly free copyright license—are encouraged to re-license their work under an updated CC license, such as from 2.0 to 4.0. That is what is meant. No one but the author has any legal authority to do so. If that's not clear, GoneIn60, you must tag it with the license it was granted by its owner, CC BY 2.0; only that owner could update its license. What can be confusing is that if a CC license is "forward compatible" (such as 3.0 is (see section 4[b]) that means that an adaptation can be granted a compatible later license for the adaptation, the derivative work elements added, but that person cannot re-license the original work, ever. You are not an adaptor; no derivative work is being created. You are just a conduit for upload. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

P.S. This stacking of creative elements can be highly problematic for derivative works – technically their reusers must comply not only with the original license but the derivative license for derivative elements, if a different license was chosen by an adaptor; this has been fixed in 4.0 to allow only the listing of the latest license for updates).

Fuhghettaboutit, appreciate the additional insight. I haven't yet had time to attempt anything, but that's helpful to know. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Kings Island page

I saw you reverted my edits on the Kings Island page- I was trying to separate the different sections under the one drop down menu into separate drop down sections if you know what I mean. all the sections like “References” and “Notes” were all under the one Kings Island section, at least on mobile. I wasn’t sure how to fix that but wanted to try a few things. If you have any idea how to fix this can you do it? Eg224 (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

You should be able to preview the changes and how it affects the entire page by clicking "Edit" at the top of the page instead of clicking "edit" next to a section header. Then only save if you're happy with the preview. Right now, the two sections are separated by titles that refer to the location of the attractions. Changing "Kings Island" to "Attractions" doesn't seem like an improvement, although there's probably a better title for "Kings Island". Maybe "Amusement park"?

As for Notes and References, those appear at the bottom of the page for me (as expected), so I guess I'm not sure what you're trying to do there. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Eg224: – Forgot to ping, so here you go. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I was doing it on mobile originally so I could see the drop down menu. Not sure why but I'm still not seeing the separate sections. Maybe there's a missing bracket somewhere or something? otherwise it could just be a glitch on my end.Eg224 (talk) 02:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Eg224: I found the issue. There wasn't a closing bracket for the v-align statement. I went ahead and removed that portion altogether and just listed the Windseeker image normally. Looks fine on mobile now for me. See if it's fixed for you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Yep, looks all good. Thanks! --Eg224 (talk) 04:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Bad Boys For life

I apologize for saying Zway-lo was an accident. Benito was not Armando's father, he was Isabelle's husband. Mike is Armando's father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.175.208 (talk) 03:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, but the motivation behind his actions is to avenge Benito, whom he believes to be his father. The 5th paragraph reveals the truth, so the way it is written in the beginning is fine. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked over Rock n’ Roller Coaster Starring Aerosmith

Hi. It has come to my attention that my IP address was blocked over an edit to the article mentioned in the title of my message to you. I have no I’ve been logged into my Wikipedia account for years and I have never even heard of the article in question until now. Is it too late to ask for the block to be taken off my record? 8.48.249.189 (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

If you're on a shared IP address, it would be wise to create an account (or try to reuse an account you've created previously). Others using the same IP address will not be able to edit from your account, and therefore, you will be in control of your own editing history and record. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Removal of an edit I made

I made a contribution to the Mr. Freeze article, adding the name of a song that is played in the queue. I can confirm that the song was played in the queue just a couple weeks ago and I have heard it several times in the past while waiting. I would love to provide a source for how I know what the song is, but I cannot find one. The only way I was able to find out was by using Shazam in the loading station and then listening to the song on YouTube. Sure enough, that's what it is. Cranberry11 (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Cranberry11: Thanks for reaching out. Yes, it can be frustrating, but realize that Wikipedia is meant to contain information that is not only verifiable, but has also received significant coverage. Encyclopedias are summaries. They should contain the most relevant content about the topics they are covering. While trivial details may be true, and you know them to be true, if no reliable publisher is covering that little known fact, then we shouldn't be either. We follow reliable sources; we don't lead. In hundreds of articles I work on, there are details I know to be true but have to leave out, simply because there isn't any real coverage for them. Even when I can locate a single source, sometimes I still leave the detail I want to include out, if it's a minor aspect of the topic and doesn't qualify as significant coverage.

In the end though, that's how encyclopedias work. That's how it should be. If you have additional questions about this or other Wikipedia aspects, I highly suggest visiting the Teahouse. There are a lot of experienced Wikipedia editors monitoring that forum assisting newer editors like yourself. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Ghent

Without looking at Wikipedia, please advise me of the nation in which the title city (a bit of a clue, there) exists... Strange as it may seem, not every speaker/reader of English is American and may not be familiar with the various states and their names. Anyone interested in Rollercoasters may come to an article and wonder which country it is in, although I note that if it is in Tokyo it is noted that that city is in Japan. Now, I know Tokyo is in Japan - but then I am British and we tend to learn about places outside of the nation in which we reside - but I do not make that assumption of every reader, thus I would add that fact to every article that mentions Tokyo. I do the same on every US article that does not denote same - it does not detract from the subject. I will not revert a good faith edit, but I suggest that you recognise that unconscious bias can leave the reader less informed than they might be. Regards, LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU: Yes, it's an excellent point that a reader may stumble into an article that doesn't specify the country or nation next to the province or state. Usually if the country is specified somewhere in the article, such as the infobox, it's not necessarily needed in the lead. However, I just realized "United States" isn't anywhere in the article, and it's not obvious the U.S. is the country of origin. I also checked other Featured Articles and realized that most specify the country in the opening sentence, so I went ahead and reverted myself. Thanks for pointing this out. I'll be sure to add the country in other amusement-related articles as well. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Cool. Props for listening, too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

16ConcordeSSC

Hello,16ConcordeSSC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) came to my attention through Pennsylvania Railroad 3750. He or she is back and making sequential "minor" edits while simply changing the working and grammer to suit personal preferences. It's bordering on disruption if not already there, but the editor is definately circumventing the use of edit summaries. I wanted another experience editor to take another look and see if this is at a level needing intervention. Blue Riband► 20:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Blue Riband, yes several messages were left at Oshwah's talk page. If there's no response in the next day or so, we may want to begin a follow-up discussion at WP:ANI. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Apparently unreformed and back to the same editing behavior. There is a new AN-notice here Blue Riband► 05:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate it. Your summary in the incident thread is spot on and thorough. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi there! Sorry about the delay responding to messages on my user talk page. I just moved into a new place and was without an internet connection for about a week until the ISP could come out and install it. I'm also in the middle of unpacking boxes, organizing all of my stuff, sigh... moving sucks. :-) Anyways, it looks like you two have taken care of this matter and referred it to ANI. If there's anything else I can do to help, let me know and I'll be happy to do so. :-) Thanks a lot, and I hope you understand why my responses were so delayed... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Rutland Railroad

Whether you have 2,200 edits or not, you have no right to block my constructive editing. Some of your deletions directly contradict the official timeline in www.rutlandrr.com. It appears that you spend all of your time editing others’ more-correct edits, and are acting more like a Florida condo board President than a careful and accurate editor. This site is NOT about jealous control, but about ACCURACY and GOOD GRAMMAR. I wrote a syndicated newspaper column for 15 million weekly readers, and as a railroad preservationist know far more about the Rutland than you ever will. Unblock me at once, or I am taking you to immediate arbitration. 16ConcordeSSC (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk page stalker here 16ConcordeSSC. You obviously have a lot of interst in historic railroads in the Northeast and could help improve existing articles. You are also new to Wikipedia and there is much to learn about its standards and the need to communicate with other editors. If you wrote a syndicated newspaper column for 15 million weekly readers then you had to conform to that publication's manual of style, expected fact-checking, and editorial standards. This is no different. Wikpedia has its own manual of style (WP:MOS), a policy of verifiability (WP:VERIFY), and an editorial community where decisions are reached by discussion and consensus (WP:CONS). Consensus includes being able to respect the work of other editors and also be able to have civil policy-based discussions with them with disagreements arise. There is nothing to stop you from going to arbitration. But it's not likely to go in your favor if you show no willingness to follow policy and respectfully communicate with other editors. In the case of the Rutland Railroad you (and anyone else editing the article) need to supply in-line citations from reliable sources for any additional information. There are local historical and rail preservation societies that would have a treasure trove of documents on its construction, operation, and the abandonment of its main line and branches. You need to identify them and refer [here] for how to properly cite websites, newspapers, journals, reports, and magazines. Blue Riband► 01:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Listen to the advice above from Blue Riband and what others have given you on your talk page. You were blocked for lack of communication and other forms of disruptive behavior (see WP:NOTHERE), and this was done by an admin who reviewed your activity. Like Blue, I believe you have the potential to improve articles on Wikipedia, but you need to be willing to adhere to the site's policies and guidelines, especially WP:Verifiability. I've suggested it before to you, but I highly recommend you ask for guidance at the Teahouse on procedural topics you have questions about, and possibly even ask an experienced editor there to mentor you. There's also a tutorial available at WP:ADVENTURE for newer editors worth checking out. You have options and a path forward if you are willing. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The editor appears to have decided to cease editing and leave as indicated by this message left on my talk page. Blue Riband► 12:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Sad to see potential wasted. If they could have only taken a fraction of the time and effort put in to disparaging others and simply respond on their talk page, a lot of this could have been avoided. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Empty talk

There are things that can be wrong for years, that doesn't make them correct. You appear to be deliberately ignoring what MOS:FILM suggests, what Rotten Tomatoes actually says and what I wrote on the talk page discussion. You should better start writing reasonable comments instead of bothering people and calling their edits disruptive. You have no basis or any source to cite, and it seems you just like to revert people's changes to appear to have contributed to Wikipedia. ภץאคгöร 18:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

No, as I've said on multiple occasions, we can discuss changing/updating/modifying the essay WP:Review aggregators, but the point is it needs to be a discussion. You have been asked to take the discussion to the talk page, yet you continue to battle on the main page (and other film pages). That's the wrong approach. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The Suicide Squad

Well... what should we do about this? JOEBRO64 13:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

TheJoebro64: Definitely becoming a problem. It may be time to raise the issue at WP:AN/EW (or at WP:ANI for general behavior issues considering the PA). --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Reliability of Great Adventure History

Hey, thanks for pinging me, and you're right, I did pull away after being harassed for several of my edits. BUT, I became quite interested when I popped in at Wiktionary and found a notice, but the article had already been archived with the usual pooh-poohing about first person information. Too late now, and I'd have been one voice in the wilderness. I'm gonna head back over to FANDOM where people tend to be reasonable and don't approach an article with a finger on the delete key.

I do remember you. You were one of the rare ones willing to try working with an editor. Thanks.  — Myk Streja ^(beep) 16:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Dune talk

Fair enough. My apologies for the misunderstanding. P.S. I'm fine with leaving that information out until RT reaches enough reviews and secondary sources corroborate that this film truly is the critical darling others are making it out to be. e.g. Spiderman 3 seemingly opened to rave reviews but has since been considered a critical failure. Food for thought. Nice chatting with you. 2601:280:6:C7EB:311F:673E:A417:4101 (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Good to know you are fine with it, but it's important to realize that the discussion is still underway. The consensus may still result in retaining a summary statement. Removing it now may be premature. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

No need to condescend me. No one is arguing that this be included. That is what the reception section is for. I'm objecting that it be included in the lead, which gives the false impression that this film is in wide enough release that it already has critical acclaim. False, on both accounts (it played at exactly ONE festival outside the US).

Look, I removed it because it serves no purpose. Again, the movie played at exactly ONE film festival. It hasn't been in wide release. It has NOT had an opening weekend. If you look at several verifiable news sources, like this one, it is hardly a foregone conclusion that this has some sort of critical acclaim. Headline: Dune: Critics divided over Denis Villeneuve’s ‘dazzling’ and ‘boring’ sci-fi adaptation This "tradition" where editors will give undue weight to aggregators is clearly addressed here as bad etiquette. This starts to become like that movie "Idiocracy" where everyone says to feed plants Gatorade because electrolytes is what a body needs. Except RT and MC is the electrolytes here.

RT and MC are fine as aggregators but if the press is saying that this movie is polarizing and dividing critics, then we report that. We don't veto them because RT and MC say so.lol ... Do with that what you will. Absurd to include misinformation which serves as PR, intentional or otherwise, for a film that not so coincidentally relies on a hype machine to make $$$. Sad that Wikipedia continues to be the tail that wags that dog. 73.95.134.202 (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Further discussion needs to be at the article talk page, but I'll just say that I agree it's likely too soon to include anything in the lead, hence my comments over there. However, should the positive trend continue once we hit an overwhelmingly significant number of reviews at RT and MC, it will become more difficult to argue against it in the lead. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

And I'm fine with ALL that. In a week or two, maybe sooner, it should be clearer. It could very likely end up with critical acclaim. But for now there is such a rush to judgement, with even the filmmakers themselves presuming that there will be a part two with no green light. All of which will depend on (A) how well the movie is actually received, and (B) the box office, etc. Again, soon enough we will know, and that's all I care about. Take care. 2601:280:6:C7EB:311F:673E:A417:4101 (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Six Flags AstroWorld

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Six Flags AstroWorld has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. I tagged one sentence that I suspect could be updated in the Closure and demolition section.

Best of luck to you and your group with the GAN.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Wonderland Hotel

You're citing the wrong hotel project in your attempt to claim the hotel is opening spring 2022. IHG Avid branded hotel is not the Canada's Wonderland proposed project which is a Hyatt House & Hyatt Place branded hotel. It's a bogus citation. The Hyatt at Wonderland is only listed as an executed contract, not opening in spring 2022 like your wring citation claims. The project is status unknown since Cedar Fair has not mentioned it since the pandemic started, not ground has been broken on the 25M project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schoup (talk • contribs) 19:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Schoup, learn to sign your comments with 4 tildes (~~~~). And no need to get snippy. I included a source found from googling "Hyatt" and "Vaughan", and apparently it was wrong. We'll just remove the whole damn entry altogether. Fine by me. You want something said about it, do your own homework. Until then, it stays the hell out. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

A suggestion I made for "The Last Jedi"

I feel like I may have sounded a bit passive aggresive when I put in the suggestion for "The Last Jedi's" whole bot's bombed reviews to be removed. Then I gave a few citations for people giving bad reviews. Then it was taken down. 165.73.226.233 (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Please review WP:TPG closely. Talk page posts, especially involving controversial material, requires editors to be very specific on the changes and improvements they would like to see happen in the article. We should not be blanketing the page with general information that doesn't say what the posting editor wants to do. That's kind of what you did here. You threw out an opinion, mentioned a few sources (many of which, by the way, only mention "some fans" not "most" or "a majority"), and then made a generalized statement that doesn't really ask for any particular action to happen in the article. That's not what talk pages are for. State what you want to change, how you'd change it, and then provide sources that support the change. Just don't throw out a bunch of random sources, though. Cite the ones that support precisely what you're trying to say to encourage participation from other editors. Otherwise, it looks like soapboxing. Hope that helps, but if you still have questions, don't hesitate to ask. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't soapbox anything, people hated the last jedi, and the whole thing about a bunch of "bots" ruining it's score is lies. And I did ask for it's removal (the whole bots thing). It's not an opinion, it's not the type of crap you'd find on Infowars, this is a FACT. Most fans hated it (although critics liked it) and I am a believer it should say it fared well with critics and not with audiences. And if it were an opinion it would be somethig like "Rian Johnson is a bad writer and director" or "Every copy should be burned", but no, I never said anything like that. 165.73.226.198 (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

So here's how you'd need to change your approach... Quote the part of the article you think needs attention, and then write how you'd change it. Cap it off by providing the reliable sources that support the change. If you do it like that, then it wouldn't be soapboxing. As for the whole "bot" thing, it's not getting removed. This was widely reported in reliable sources. Remember that Wikipedia doesn't investigate the truth. It presents all significant viewpoints that are published, even when they compete or disagree with one another, regardless of which one's more correct than the other. If you have another viewpoint to add to the mix and can back it up properly with sources, then that's a productive conversation we can have. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok. The whole thing with the bots I disagree with, but I will deal with it, but it is true that it was wildly panned by fans but praised by critics. like if you go on IMDB, and/or Letterboxd. Letterboxd is a place for critics. Everybody loves this there.

IMDB is a place for fans. The 1st review I saw panned it hard. And also, if you saw Dune, could you tell me whether it's good or not, I may want to go see it.

165.73.226.198 (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

As long as you can back up what you believe with quality sources, you'll be fine. IMDb, which contains user-generated content, is not considered a reliable source by our standards. You can read more about this at WP:USERG. I also suggest reading through MOS:FILM – in particular, MOS:FILM#Critical reception and the following section about audience reception. Reviewing those first before posting again on the talk page should help you avoid arguments that will be quickly dismissed.

And no, I haven't seen Dune yet, but I'm looking forward to streaming it as soon as it's released! --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, cool. Thanks man. So...have a nice day and may the force be with you.165.73.226.198 (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project core team is happy to inform you that the Months of African Cinema Contest is happening again this year in October and November. We invite Wikipedians all over the world to join in improving content related to African cinema on Wikipedia!

Please list your username under the participants’ section of the contest page to indicate your interest in participating in this contest. The term "African" in the context of this contest, includes people of African descent from all over the world, which includes the diaspora and the Caribbean.

The following prizes would be recognized at the end of the contest:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap fillers - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

Also look out for local prizes from affiliates in your countries or communities! For further information about the contest, the prizes and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. We look forward to your participation.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:20, 30th September 2021 (UTC)

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Reporting a user

Hi GoneIn60, I would like to report the activities of 213.249.184.124 (contribs) who keeps removing content from pages, including sourced information, with no justification. Arabela13 (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Boo Blasters On Boo Hill

In 2021 the Boo Blasters on Boo Hill was moved from International Street To Planet Snoopy on the park map, thus having 20 rides in Planet Snoopy, so it is tied with Kings Dominion as the largest Planet Snoopy in the Chain. I'm still learning how to cite so here is my proof, I will put the citation in when I can, or can you cite it for me Also sorry about that fast lane thing :)

https://kicentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/2021-ki-park-map-and-guide-digital.pdf

Also, they are open Spring through Fall and Thanksgiving through New Years Eve at Kings Island and Spring through Fall and Thanksgiving through Early January at Kings Dominion. I can get proof on that via park calenders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KIfanboy (talk • contribs) 16:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

KIfanboy, first I appreciate you taking the time to respond and explain your edits. Having a conversation when editors disagree is essential here on Wikipedia. So thanks for that! As for Boo Blasters on Boo Hill, if you go to the ride listing on KI's website and you sort by location, you will see that Boo Blasters only appears when you have International Street selected as the location. When you switch to Planet Snoopy, it disappears. Also, keep in mind that fan websites like KICentral are typically not considered reliable sources. For some items, it might be, but for other claims, it is not. You can read more about reliable sources at WP:RS.

As for the operating schedule, we are are listing the "Normal operating season" in the infobox. The normal operating season is usually from some date in April to some date either at the end of October or early November, depending on whether or not October 31 falls on a Friday or Saturday. When that happens, then the park is open through November 1 or November 2 on those years. So instead of listing months, "Spring through fall" is the way to go. The Winter holiday schedule is a limited opening of the park. A lot of rides are closed during this time, so we do not list "Thanksgiving through New Years" in the infobox in the article. Readers can still get this information by reading the article, however. Hope that helps. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Also...

Planet Snoopy at Kings Dominion is larger than Planet Snoopy at Kings Islands. This is referring to the actual size in acreage, regardless if the number of rides is the same or not. Sources reported that as well in 2012/2013. We should use what the sources state. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I can get the map from the actual website if you would like, then can I change it to Planet Snoopy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KIfanboy (talk • contribs) 16:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

We may need more than the map, so let's keep digging to make sure they didn't change it back. Prose in a reliable source is preferred when possible. As I mentioned above, the ride listing on the website still has Boo Blasters in International Street. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

https://cdn-cloudfront.cfauthx.com/binaries/content/assets/ki-en-us/general-information/explore/directions/2021-ki-park-map-and-guide-digital.pdf

Here’s the park map KIfanboy (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

It's great that we have that, but did you also read what I stated about the "ride listing" on the website? Have you checked that? --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but if you look, Slingshot is listed in Action Zone on website, Oktoberfest on map and on Wikipedia. Also Backlot Stunt Coaster is listed as Coney Mall on website and Rivertown on map and Wikipedia. That is a glitch going on and not a reliable source, the most reliable source is the actual park map. KIfanboy (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you check that out KIfanboy (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, well, after thinking about it more, yes it's possible the website has it incorrect. Let's use the park map. Go ahead and make the changes, and I'll see if I can add something to each article that links to the park map as a citation. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok cool KIfanboy (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Walt Disney World Genie+ and Individual Lightning Lane

Hey I was seeing that they have not updated the new system on the Disney rides pages. How do I use a photo of https://cdn1.parksmedia.wdprapps.disney.com/resize/mwImage/1/468/468/75/dam/genie/plus/geniePlusLightningLane_infographic_mobile.png?1635281454913 To update all of those pages. Some are individual Lightning Lane Plus and others are genie+? Thanks KIfanboy (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

https://cdn1.parksmedia.wdprapps.disney.com/resize/mwImage/1/468/468/75/dam/genie/plus/individualLightningLane_infographic_mobileV2.png?1635281454915 KIfanboy (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I honestly don't have a lot of experience dealing with images, but go to WP:TEA and ask for assistance there. An editor with some knowledge in that realm should be able to help. Typically, a low-resolution version of a logo can be used if it's deemed necessary for a description of a product or service that can't be sufficiently replaced by prose (in short, logos are usually allowed). --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!

Greetings,

It is already past the middle of the contest and we are really excited about the Months of African Contest 2021 achievements so far! We want to extend our sincere gratitude for the time and energy you have invested. If you have not yet participated in the contest, it is not too late to do it. Please list your username as a participant on the contest’s main page.

Please remember to list the articles you have improved or created on the article achievements' section of the contest page so they can be tracked. In order to win prizes, be sure to also list your article in the users by articles. Please note that your articles must be present in both the article achievement section on the main contest page, as well as on the Users By Articles page for you to qualify for a prize.

We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap filler - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

Thank you once again for your valued participation! --Jamie Tubers (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Your help desk request

You did not get a response to this request. Did you find a response somewhere else?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Vchimpanzee: Well, it generated a couple extra participants at the linked talk page discussion, so in that sense, sure I got a response. I don't think any real clarification has happened though, as to whether what's been suggested is the best course of action. Thanks for following up though! --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether to mark it resolved. I hate to just leave an unanswered question.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 00:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Vchimpanzee: Sure, mark it resolved. Fine by me, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Your helpful comments

I just wanted to thank you for your thoughtful comments that I have seen you make related to film articles. You have an amazing ability to explain issues clearly and concisely, and your comments always seem so helpful, including in more heated discussions. I think your comments and attitude have helped me immensely improve my own ability to express myself, and I hope to continue to learn from you how to be a better editor and a better communicator. Thanks for all the work you do here. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

wallyfromdilbert, thanks for the kind words! I appreciate your insight as well, which has been very helpful in some of the more difficult discussions we tend to find ourselves in. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words as well. I have immense respect for you, and so they truly mean a lot to me. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Closed roller coasters

A tag has been placed on Category:Closed roller coasters indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Carowinds page deleted

I posted this to the WikiProject Amusement Parks page as well. I'm not sure if you noticed that the entire Carowinds page has been deleted. I asked the page deleter for an explanation. I don't recall seeing any notices prior to the page just disappearing. The note states G12 copyright infringement, but it seems extremely unlikely that the entire page violated copyright. I think we should have been given an opportunity to preserve at least a portion of it.—JlACEer (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Oxford High School shooting

GoneIn60, I didn't see the survey section, the page is fairly cluttered. Thanks for the info, I have moved my comments. Pincrete (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cedar Point Castway Bay logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cedar Point Castway Bay logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Joyous Season

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. Huggums537 (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spider-Man: No Way Home, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variety.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Editing GTA table

I noticed someone added the 2021 ranking to the Golden Ticket Awards in the Taron (roller coaster) article. It doesn't show up, and I noticed that none of the citations are listed in the edit, yet they appear in the table for entries 2019 and prior. Obviously, something is going on here behind the scenes. The last edit to the table was made by you in 2019, so I'm guessing you must have some idea of how this works. It does not appear to be a template, so I'm confused about how the table is picking up citations. I'm hoping someone can explain.—JlACEer (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I figured out how to modify citations and update the chart template, though I don't get around to it every year. I'll have a look. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

JlACEer:  Done – If you come across an article that has the parameter set but the chart doesn't show the 2021 ranking, simply edit the page (or section) without making any changes and click "Publish changes". It will refresh the chart without adding to the article's edit history. If you do nothing, it will eventually update on its own, usually within 24 hours. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Army of Darkness

Just curious as to why you reverted Rocky's genre edit to this article? I'll be the first to say a lot of Rocky's edits have been problematic, to the point where I imagine they'll be blocked if they're not more careful, but in this case the source they provided did appear to support their change.

No plans to revert you, and I don't especially care one way or another (both versions are sourced), just curious, especially as you didn't leave an edit summary. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

DonIago, the AllMovie source they replaced only lists horror and comedy. They attempted to add "adventure", but that's only supported by 1 of the 2 sources, AFI. The other issue is that we really only want the primary genre in the lead, which on occasion is two genres (rarely three), and I didn't think adding a third here was warranted. Hope that helps. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

That's fine, though shouldn't epic also be removed? Also the AllMovie link in the article just links to a search page. I'm happy to fix that if you don't care to make another edit. Again, I was just curious, hopefully didn't sound as though I was insinuating anything. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

No, didn't take it that way! Yes, please feel free to fix that link, and I'd agree that "epic" should be removed without being tied directly to a source. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done! DonIago (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Every edit marked a minor edit

Hello GoinIn60, I came across Markman1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at Recent Changes. What got my interest was a +400 edit marked "minor". He/she is marking just about every single edit as "minor". (I got suspicious because a certain now-blocked problematic editor had done the same.) Markman1 has been around since 2012 and his never used edit summaries but marking everything minor started last fall.

This editor appears to sincerely have an interest in updating articles on broadcast stations. I've left a message on the talk page but the editor doesn't seem to visit it very often as there is no acknowledgement or relies to other messages there about lack of sourcing. It's behavior that unnecessarily raises a red flag as vandals frequently use misleading edit summaries. Is this something that needs be brought to the editor's attention or am I just being too dramatic and Wikihounding? Blue Riband► 23:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I think your being too dramatic. Markman1 (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I've left another message on your talk page Markman1. Blue Riband► 13:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Markman1: Edits like this one, when you are adding or removing content (including citations), are NOT minor edits. You can read more about what's acceptable at WP:MINOR. While it isn't the end of the world, please be sure to mark your edits correctly, as it helps other editors watching those articles to know when an edit is truly minor. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I mark them minor, because I don't know what to put in the summery. Markman1 (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Markman1, these are two separate problems. Marking an edit minor when it is not minor is one issue, but leaving the edit summary blank is a different issue. You are making the problem worse when you do both. Why don't you start by leaving "This is a minor edit" unchecked. If you can fix that issue first, then you'd be taking a step in the right direction. Then you can focus on how to use the edit summary by reading WP:ES, and if you still need help after that, ask at WP:TEA. Also keep in mind that there is a learning tutorial you can try out at WP:ADVENTURE that covers many of the basics. There are plenty of the places you can turn to for help. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Blue Riband, haven't spent much time on Wikipedia recently (I've been traveling), but it looks like Markman responded on their talk page. Cheers! --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Terminator Dark Fate (VFX) and an apology

Hello there. Thanks again for your assistance and feedback on the Terminator Dark Fate VFX page, I do apologise, But I'm glad we are all on the same page now. Please let me know on my talk page if you need anything else done on the page for Terminator Dark Fate, and I'll be more than happy to have a look at it or make a section in the talk page for it — Preceding unsigned comment added by MOVIEFAN2001 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

MOVIEFAN2001, no problem. I haven't gotten around to making any changes in the article, but I plan to later this evening. If you want to take a stab at it first, feel free. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

No problem I already took a stab at it, so it's already up ready to go, I thoroughly explained, basically our discussion for the sources and directed the people to the talk section if they had any more questions MOVIEFAN2001 (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Cedar Fair

If you get a chance, can you keep an eye on the Cedar Fair page? I don't want to get into an edit war with User:StatsFreak, but I don't know where that user is getting the information from. If there is a legitimate source that indicates the company is a headquartered in Charlotte, I'm all for changing it, but the Cedar Fair overview page clearly says headquartered in Sandusky, Ohio. So does the SEC website. I know Richard Zimmerman has his office in Charlotte, and there has been talk of relocating the headquarters, but Sandusky is doing everything it can to keep CF there. The user making changes has a multi-year history of adding incorrect and poorly sourced material, often gets into edit wars, and has been issued multiple warnings. Thanks.—JlACEer (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

JlACEer, it looks like the notices are piling up on this user's talk page, and they have yet to respond to any of them. Failing to adhere to WP:V will get them blocked if they continue to ignore others. I won't be very active over the next few weeks, but I'll be sure to check Cedar Fair when I am. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

If you don't mind I'd like to copy some of the content from his talk page to the CF talk page. Admins at AIN have indicated that is where the discussion should be taking place.—JlACEer (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

JlACEer: No problem. Yes, general discussion about the conflict, especially when addressing the other editor directly, the article talk page is the best place for it. However, I considered this a side discussion about watching the page. Perhaps just begin a new discussion there, and I'll add my thoughts to it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

JlACEer: Well apparently I didn't read your comment closely enough. You said copy from his talk page. Absolutely, go for it. Thought you meant from this discussion, my bad! --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Film lead Strange

If I recall correctly you are an editor who takes WP:FILMLEAD seriously. I'd appreciate if you could take a look at Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. I think a very common mistake is being repeated. Maybe you'll agree with my view, maybe you wont, either way I think the article would benefit from someone like you giving it a look. Thanks. -- 109.77.205.36 (talk) 04:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

SlingShot (Cedar Fair)

You incorrectly stated that the price of SlingShot changed based on the time of day. As a current operator of the SlingShot ride at a Cedar Fair park, I can assure you this is NEVER the case. Cedar Fair would NEVER charge one guest one price, and then raise or lower the price for other guests on the same day. This would result in multiple complaints, which Cedar Fair strives to avoid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FSUNolez06 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

FSUNolez06: Then fix it! Find a source that describes pricing, or simply remove the statement altogether if you can't find one. Unfortunately, personal experience is not acceptable, since it is a form of original research. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll remove that statement. I didn't want to do it without reaching out first because I didn't want it to appear like we were just revising each other's edits (edit war). FSUNolez06 (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

FSUNolez06: As long as you're building off the previous editor's edit in some way and not wholesale reverting (or repeatedly reverting), then it wouldn't be edit warring. I made quite a few changes as shown here. If your only concern is that statement, feel free to make further corrections as needed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

FSUNolez06: I noticed you updated the article by removing "time of day", but you left the rest of the unsourced statement intact. Do you have a source about the "fluctuating price structure"? If not, the entire claim needs to be removed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

What qualifies as a source? Does an in person interview qualify? If not, what if I took a picture of the price every single day for the next month? Would that suffice? Cedar Fair is not going to advertise on their website that they charge a different price depending on the day, so that's why you don't see a price mentioned on any of their websites. FSUNolez06 (talk) 05:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

FSUNolez06: A source on Wikipedia involves three different concepts: the creator (or author) of the work, the publisher of the work, and the work itself. Any of those concepts can be judged for their reliability. Information that you self-publish is not acceptable, for example, because you are not a reliable source. Information needs to come from a source that has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Think newspapers, books, magazines, and online news articles.

Once you have an acceptable source, you've cleared the first hurdle of showing that something is verifiable. However, not all verifiable information deserves to be included on Wikipedia. Only the most significant information belongs. The more reliable sources that pick up on something, the more likely that "something" is significant and finds its way onto Wikipedia. See WP:RS and WP:OR for in-depth explanations. It would also be helpful to take a close look at WP:PSTS which covers the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Secondary sources are one-step removed from the subject and are typically preferred over primary sources (though primary sources are generally fine).

• An example of a primary source: Cedar Fair publishing information about itself, such as a press release.
• An example of a secondary source: A book that covers the history of Cedar Point, written by a historian with no direct affiliation to Cedar Fair.

If you're new to Wikipedia, that can be a lot to digest. If you ever get stuck, keep the Teahouse (WP:TEA) bookmarked in your favorites. You can always ask for general help there from other experienced editors. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Terminator 2

Good day. I was just curious, do you think it's pointless to try and improve the wording? Nowy Prywaciarz (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Nowy Prywaciarz: Wording improvements are always welcome. However, your efforts here, here, and here have a few issues.

First, you linked to List of films considered the best. Terminator 2 is not mentioned anywhere in that article. So that head scratcher is problem #1. For problem #2, you removed "one of the best science-fiction, action, and sequel films, as well as equal to or better than The Terminator" in favor of "an example of a sequel superior to its predecessor". Your change was less detailed and changed the meaning.

Multiple editors disagreed that those were improvements. When that happens, begin a new thread on the article talk page to discuss and sort through the issues. Cheers! --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

"Hold your hand or be expected to read your mind"

I just saw your rude, irrelevant and unreasonable comment about me here. I think you are one of the "editors" who had a problem with me long time ago but I'm not sure. Anyways, you may continue to write nonsense, but at least do not go off topic on the talk page of the articles. ภץאคгöร 05:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I said what needed to be said. It wasn't rude; it was blunt. Your comment, "you need to link exactly where the discussion is", is out of line. Editors should be expected to show some level of competence. At the time you were reverted for your poster file upload, this was what the talk page looked like. A simple CTRL+F to open the find window in your browser followed by typing "poster" would have given you 25 hits to look at. There was also only 2 discussions that were longer than a paragraph, so logic should have told you the discussion was likely in one of those.

Even if for some reason you still couldn't locate the discussion, drop a note on the referring editor's talk page or begin a new discussion and ping that editor. It's not hard, and the other editor shouldn't have been called out publicly for something you should be more than capable of doing on your own. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Nyxaros: – forgot to ping above --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Temp closed

So look at the Cedar Point fast lane, I cited, it says temp closed on valravin and fast lane plus for gatekeeper 2600:1004:B124:A6DB:14F3:3A82:7000:BA10 (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:VNOT. Not all sourced information is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Encyclopedias cover the most significant aspects of a given subject. If a ride is closed for a few weeks for maintenance or some other normal, reoccurring issue, we do not need to document that closure on Wikipedia. Something like that will not matter in a few years, and certainly not in 20 or 30 years. This is not a fan website or forum. If you'd like to discuss the "temp closed" issue further, begin a new discussion on the article's talk page at Talk:Fast Lane (Cedar Fair) and seek consensus for what you are trying to include.

As for Gatekeeper and Fast Lane Plus, yes, that does need to be updated. Feel free to restore that portion of your edit. However, I will usually comb through and update those annually, but it looks like the entire page hasn't been updated since 2021. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Amusement Parks discussion

Hello GoneIn60/Archive 3! Your input is requested for a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks#Draft proposal for the future of WP:APARKS. Any feedback is welcome. Thank you.

You are receiving this message as your username is listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Participants

Adog (Talk・Cont) 02:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Grave of the Fireflies § Plot summary format

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Grave of the Fireflies § Plot summary format. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Amusement Parks reliable source discussion

Hi, GoneIn60/Archive 3. Your input is requested at WikiProject Amusement Parks, as there is a discussion about the reliability of some sources which can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks#Reliable source discussion. Thank you!

Note: You recieved this notification because you are listed as a participant for WikiProject Amusement Parks.

Harobouri ^{T • C (he/him)} 16:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)