About me		Talk		Contributions		Wiki Stats

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

Oldest – 2012 2013 – 2014 2015 – 2016 2017 – 2018 2019

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

....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)[reply]

....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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

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).[reply]

...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

—-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)[reply]

—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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

....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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

::::g60: no, obviously i did not come to this website, to harass you. i came here to post worthwhile facts. however, now that seems quite impossible, as long as "registed users" are so easily able to continue to "game the system". (have you taken the time to read that "gaming the system" section, yet? ....you certainly seem to be able to quote every other wiki rule, to justify your "exemplary" wiki behavior).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

—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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]