User talk:JudgeJake40

November 2017

Hello, I'm SkyWarrior. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Roller Coaster DataBase seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SkyWarrior 02:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced edits and deletion of content

I reverted most of your recent edits to the Kings Dominion coaster pages as the content was uncited. Please stop changing statistics and removing references to RCDB.com. Information on park websites is typically not accurate. RCDB is well researched and most stats come directly from the ride manufacturers. Park websites are often subject to marketing hyperbole. If you have a legitimate change, cite your source and use the comments section to state what was changed and why.—JlACEer (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC) Hi there are numerous cases where RCDB's info is incorrect. I don't think it is a valid source[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Woodstock Express (Cedar Point). Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC) it's on the official website do I need to link there?[reply]

See WP:CITE. Secondary sources are preferred on Wikipedia. Primary sources such as a park websites are notorious for providing incorrect information. You knocked ten seconds off the time on Rougarou (roller coaster) but if you watch the official Cedar point video on YouTube, you will see that at 2:26 the train is just hitting the brake run. It has not yet returned to the station. That is not a complete circuit. It certainly does not mean you can delete multiple embedded references for RCDB, just because you think the time is incorrect. RCDB.com is considered a reliable and established source. Your wholesale deletion of references can be construed as vandalism and I suggest you stop and discuss this before you make any additional edits.—JlACEer (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A video doesn't do justice to how long a coaster is. Many videos cut off the break run in the POV so the viewer doesn't have to see it. And for your point about deleting references, I am already starting to do it like my revert edit on Top Thrill Dragster. Cheers. I have other reasons why I don't think RCDB is a reliable source. Obviously that won't affect my editing. I don't think it is appropriate to share here however (emails?).

There is a link to send an email, on my user page in the left column under tools—JlACEer (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that an essential policy on Wikipedia is editing through consensus and discussion as explained at WP:CONSENSUS. You may have your reasons, but to inject your preferences on this website requires that you discuss them when confronted. Also, another very important policy deals with original research. A personal interpretation of source material, such as watching a YouTube video, is a form of original research and is not permitted. Please take the time to review some of the core policies and guidelines and visit WP:HELP for other tips and FAQs. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. Thanks! --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GoneIn60: First off enough with the wiki-hounding. Second off why are you being aggressive towards me with edit summaries like this one. It said on the file page that "This image was uploaded with an opaque background where it should have been transparent.". So I uploaded one with a transparent background.

It appears your account was linked to Hawkeye75 which has been blocked indefinitely. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sock block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JudgeJake40 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi there, I would like to firstly apolgize for my disruptive editing. I wrongfully created another account while banned because I wanted to contribute to the encyclopeida and make it better. That was a bad mistake. Some people suggested I take the standard offer in which I did. I have thought about my actions and the disruption to the enyclopedia. I just chatted with a nice admin on the IRC and said that they may consider unblocking me. I hope you give me another chance. I have think I made good edits before I was blocked and I will continue to make good edits if I get another chance.

Decline reason:

You are not eligible for unblock consideration here. That must be made on your original account. There, you will find you are not yet eligible for an unblock under the standard offer (WP:SO) as it has been less than six months since your last violation. Once that time is up, you'll need to address your sockpuppetry, your harassment, and your battleground mentality. Yamla (talk) 11:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Ponyo:-- Dlohcierekim (talk)

Thanks for the ping Dlohcierekim. For the record, I don't see any evidence of socking in the last three months.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]