Archives

Cedar Point 150 years discussion 2012-2013 2014-2017 2018-2020

Thanks for uploading File:JudgeRoyCoasterlogoatSFOT.gif. 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) 18:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@B-bot ⚠

Thanks for uploading File:JudgeRoyCoasterlogoatSFOT.gif. 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) 18:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_languageCyberslapp.orgQ23695692. (Redirected from User talk:FuzzyBot)

Wikidata entities used in this page

MDW: Sitelink, Title, Description: en

Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page (help):

Template:Category handler (view source) (protected)

Template:Disambiguation (view source) (template editor protected) 174.250.210.32 (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just letting you know I modified the autoarchive settings at Talk:Cedar Point. It will only keep the last 4 threads now and start archiving around 4 months old. Also went ahead and manually archived the long thread from last year. Looks a little cleaner now! --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, it looks good. Now I need to figure out how to clean up my own talk page.—JlACEer (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right on. Help:Archiving a talk page#For talk pages might be a good place to start. You can automate it if you want, but I choose to manually archive on mine. You can take a look at my talk page if you want examples.

Basically, you create subpages like /Archive1, /Archive2, etc., and then in the archive box you can customize each page's label (e.g. 2015-2017, 2018-2020). --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Runaway Mountain logo SFOT.gif. 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) 17:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure how much time you have on your hands these days, but I made some significant changes to The Bat (Kings Island; opened 1981) if you want to look them over and add a few things. The last half of the article still needs a little work, and I'm sure additional references couldn't hurt. I plan to submit it for peer review and then get it assessed for WP:GA. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welp... the page got moved. I mean, I did propose the title but the title you gave was better. Maybe do another requested move or should we wait awhile before requesting again? Aasim (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I made another page request using the template but for some reason it appears indented on the talk page, and I can't figure out why. Also, am I supposed to post a notice on the main page or will a bot do that?—JlACEer (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Chance American Wheels logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Pbrks (talk) 04:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wanted to notify you and Jpp858 separately. Opened a wider discussion at Talk:Six Flags Over Texas#Fate of coaster chart: Retain or convert to prose. Feel free to add your response there, thanks! --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's against the rules (WP:RMCI -- An involved editor, admin or otherwise, may not close a move request). You ought to immediately self-revert. Kind regards. EDIT: also a move request proposer may close their own move request as withdrawn if no one has commented yet, or if opposition is unanimous. (it isn't unanimous) — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You could try editing the close to change the outcome to withdrawn, expecting that the few supporters would not contest it. It still wouldn't be fully proper, but probably wouldn't be seriously contended either. Not sure about this however, simply reverting is better. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Alalch Emis: Thanks but the Wikipedia:Closure requests page states: "Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion. The default length of a formal request for comment is 30 days (opened on or before 13 July 2021); if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed earlier. However, editors usually wait at least a week after a discussion opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion."

The two entries apparently contradict each other. It seems there is no clear consensus on who is allowed to close a requested move. I have, nonetheless taken your advice and reverted the closure.—JlACEer (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit: Apparently, while I was commenting you deleted the above comment. Now I'm not sure what to do. I already reversed the closure.—JlACEer (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't mind my comments above not being deleted (EDIT: I deleted them when I saw that you reverted the close). I disagree with your application of the Closure requests instructions over RMCI (which is very very normative for RMs, above anything else), but this would be a purely academic discussion that we don't need to have here. What I wanted to message to you was a brotherly heads-up to avoid any unpleasantness and/or confusion. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I appreciate that which is why a reversed the move request closure. However, I am still confused as my first step was to post an entry at Wikipedia:Closure requests and the first thing I see on that page is an entry stating that it is okay for the page requester to close it him/herself. Then, a few minutes after initiating the closure I got a warning that doing so is against the rules.—JlACEer (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't treat it as a warning, it's just my opinion, based on my understanding of what rule applies where. Closure request instructions are very general and contained in a really non-prescriptive text (and technically they're completely non-normative, not being a policy or a guideline, or a even a how-to guide) -- RMCI applies to the RM formal process (essentially deriving from WP:MOVE, a how-to guide that people tend to follow pretty strictly). In a conflict of the general and the specific, the specific wins! Per universal jurisprudence expressed in the principle of lex specialis. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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. GoneIn60 (talk) 03:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Thanks for uploading File:Shock Wave SFOT.jpg. 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) 18:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see the discussion at WT:WikiProject Amusement Parks#Status field for Amusement Park infoboxes. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I don't understand what the issue was with my citation? It was actually the very 1st one I've ever added. Did I do it incorrectly? Also, why did you change the wording? What was wrong with 'park enthusiasts'? 74.111.103.205 (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Placing a sentence between ref tags is not a citation. Please look over the section on Wikipedia:Citing sources and use the templates that are provided. I think enthusiasts is too strong of a word. It was just a simple poll that anyone had access to. Park fans is a better choice of wording.—JlACEer (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was skeptical at first as well, and I couldn't immediately check the cited source in the article since the link was broken (which I will fix later today), but this source from Don Helbig mentions $3.8 million in #20. Perhaps we should set it back to that for now. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In this article, written in 1998, Helbig says it cost $3.5 million. Same website, same author, two different articles, two different figures. I'm not sure how the wiki page got the amount of $3.2, it does not seem to be cited anywhere.—JlACEer (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Finally got Wayback to work. The $3.2 mil figure was originally cited to this blog article by John Keeter. It appears KI's spokespeople have been all over the place. So odd. Maybe we need to sample as many sources as we can find and take the strongest sources and/or number of sources that agree. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem with looking at the number of sources is that a good many probably got the $3.2 million figure from Wikipedia. I see a lot of sites out there that are just blatant wiki copies. Looking at the various articles, it appears the one from John Keeter is well-researched and is specifically about the Beast. The other two appear to be just "fun facts." I'd put my money on Keeter's article being the accurate one.—JlACEer (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When evaluating sources, you can often differentiate between unreliable wiki copies and reputable sources, although not always. If we stick to top newspapers in Ohio, such as The Plain Dealer, Dayton Daily, and Cincinnati Enquirer who often report on KI, we can be confident they are sourcing their information directly from the park. There are also books and journals – types of sources which are some of the WP:BESTSOURCES – that we can comb through to see if any reported that figure. So it's not just about the numbers, but I do agree that Keeter's article seems to be thoroughly researched. Among the blog articles that were put out over the years, his was the most detailed that I've seen. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello JlACEer! 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.

Adog (Talk・Cont) 02:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, JlACEer. 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)} 16:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Started working on Side friction roller coaster, adding a ton of info. If you get a chance to review and add to it (or make corrections), please do. Figured your vast collection of sources might come in handy! --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, what is up! I wanted to personally propose to you and some members of WP:APARKS whether we should have a Manuel of style guide for our articles, namely roller coasters, amusement parks, attractions, and manufacturers. Although we do have Wikipedia:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Standards for three of the aforementioned, they do not go explicitly into detail about what content may or may not be important or appropriate for inclusion. It could be beneficial for new members and experienced alike, as I do know we have come to a consensus on points in the past, but we do not have an area where we can point to an explanation outside of digging through the archive bin.

Some issues relevant for roller coaster articles to give you an idea are, for instance: what kinds of reviews or polls should we include in reception, what incidents or accidents are important enough for inclusion, what part of the history should be mentioned, and the short and long-term status of roller coasters? Obviously, we may know most of these answers, but newcomers may not. I know when I started out, I read hundreds of our articles to see how previous editors structured theirs and what content they included that was pertinent or important. Passing idea, I am thinking about typing up at User:Adog/sandbox2 and also wondered if you would like to contribute if it is feasible. We all have a good grip on amusement parks and roller coaster standards. Attractions are kinda in the grey area and most certainly manufacturers. Adog (Talk・Cont) 21:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]