User talk:GoneIn60/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2 >

All Pages:

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

Oldest – 2014

Kings Island

Made a few changes to your edits on Kings Island should help organize it a little more. see discussion page.--Nickvet419 (talk) 07:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

A new page is a good idea for the defunct list... List of defunct Kings Island attractions --Nickvet419 (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping the previous names in the waterpark section, has more historic value now. I think with the both of us working as hard as we have the last few years tweaking this article, it is by far the most complete of all the amusement parks. :-) --Nickvet419 (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, GoneIn60. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 05:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I've removed the crystallinks source again. I removed it because it does not meet our criteria for sources at WP:RS. It's an anonymous webpage and in any case isn't needed as this isn't in dispute, is it? Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

No, you're right. I didn't realize there was an issue with the site itself. Most of the information in that referenced article is in turn referencing a published work and material posted at Ohio State University. No big deal though, as you mentioned, since the content isn't in dispute. Thanks for the belated welcome! GoneIn60 (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Page moves

Hi. When you move a page and turn the original location into a disambiguation page (like you did with Castaway Bay), please make sure you update all links to the article as I have done in these edits. Thank you. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been fixing some links on other page moves, but didn't get around to Castaway Bay (Sea World) just yet. Thanks for cleaning up the mess for me!GoneIn60 (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Cedar Point

I just saw the post you made on Nickvet419's page about fixing up Cedar Points page. I have been in the process of updating and reorganizing the page to make it as great as Kings Islands page. My next goal is to clarify the childrens and family rides section to make it clear if there in planet snoopy, camp snoopy, kiddy kingdom etc. Is there anything you think should be done to the article that would improve it even more? Thanks for all the help! --Astros4477 (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Kings Island

Charts

Goneln60, take a look at the extra column that nickvet placed on the attractions list. I think its a nice idea but IMO, it clutters the page more than it needs to be. What are your thoughts? --Astros4477 (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I looked at other amusement park articles and they do have the manufacturers in the chart so I'm thinking that should stay. Im just not sure about the model right now but I'm ok with leaving it and seeing what other users think. --Astros4477 (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

KECO

I undid your recent change concerning the sale of KECO/Kings Island. I think a Press Release from Paramount via PR Newswire is a more reliable source than a Dayton Newspaper, and we've already established that the KI Central website is full of errors. I'll keep researching this, but it doesn't make sense that the entire KECO chain would sell for $150 million then get sold for $400 million just five years later. It does make sense that Kings Island alone, being the premier park of the chain, would sell for $150 million, then five years later the rest of KECO for $400 million.

I also see many references scattered throughout the web and on Wikipedia to "KECO Entertainment," some of which I have flagged as needing a citation. To the best of my knowledge there was no KECO Entertainment — it was just Kings Entertainment Company abbreviated KECO. KECO Entertainment is almost redundant.JlACEer (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No need to research any further. I already found two other hits outside of the PR Newswire you cited that agree with you. I should have known to dig deeper than Dayton Daily News. KECO remained its own entity until it was purchased by Paramount in '92, so it did in fact only sell Kings Island to American Financial, and the numbers apparently support that as well. "KECO Entertainment"...well...yeah, that's like fingernails across a chalkboard!  ;-) —GoneIn60 (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is interesting. I stumbled across a reference that indicates Kings Entertainment Company and KECO were two different entities. So it actually appears that Lindner's American Financial purchased Kings Entertainment and its only remaining asset, Kings Island, right after it sold its other holdings (parks) to KECO based in North Carolina. KECO may stand for the same name, but it doesn't appear that Kings Entertainment Co. was ever known as KECO until this transaction took place. The old Kings Entertainment then apparently became briefly known as Kings Island Co.. May or may not be worth looking into. The statement we have in the article now is technically still correct. —GoneIn60 (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The edit was reverted by another party as secondary sources are preferred to primary sources in wiki (even if the secondary source is incorrect). If you have another source other than the Dayton Daily News that does agree with the PR Newswire, can you please use that and make the appropriate edits? That article you found is very interesting. Of course the whole Kings Entertainment Company page on wiki needs to be updated now as well. I may try to get to it later.JlACEer (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'll locate those references and update the article later this evening. —GoneIn60 (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello

I see you like roller coasters. Which one is your favorite? Mines Diamondback! (Kings Island) I have been editing on Wikia for some time, but I'm going to be here for a little bit. Kata89 (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose it's no secret. If I had to choose just one, it would have to be The Beast! GoneIn60 (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Beast is my second favorite coaster. Whats your favorite type of coaster? Mines wooden coasters. Kata89 (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

DisplayPort Neutrality

The "Advantages over VGA, DVI and LVDS" section of this page is a one-sided marketing evaluation of advantages. As one example, the following statement implies VGA, DVI, and LVDS require royalty fees. Since they do not (Where are hidden fees for DVI?), there is a justifiable edit to this page. How would you suggest writing this edit?

"DisplayPort has several advantages over VGA, DVI and LVDS.

Open standard available to all VESA members for free and non-members for a fee[27], royalty-free and extensible standard to help broad adoption" — Preceding unsigned comment added by DSTKSC (talk • contribs) 17:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Recognizability, Precision, etc.

G, names like "Plug & Display" and "Digital Flat Panel" are just generic terms capitalized, meaningless without either completing the proper name with VESA or saying what they are. I fixed. See WP:AT. Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize (until now) that there would be a consensus issue. Before submitting this as a RM, consider this. These terms are similar to Digital Visual Interface, Video Graphics Array or DisplayPort - article titles which are not preceded with VESA yet are capitalized. Also, in just five minutes, I was able to locate two books and one magazine that made references to "Plug and Display" without VESA. These published sources do go on to describe what Plug and Display is, but isn't that what the Wiki article does? I'd like to get your feedback before taking the next step, thanks. GoneIn60 (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

But if "plug and display" are generic, they should be downcased (unless they're proprietary names). "WP does not use unnecessary capitalisation", it says. Are you looking at "plug and display" in subtitles/tites, or when it's directly abbreviated ("PaD" ... WP doesn't capitalise expanded forms for those reasons). Also, have you checked for sources where they're not capitalised? I'm sure you'll find plenty. Tony (talk) 03:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand the guidelines in WP:MOSCAPS well. "Plug and Display" is a proprietary name/phrase. Furthermore, if you search on the phrase in quotes on Google, 90% of the first 50 hits support this. I am seeing the phrase capitalized outside of the abbreviation in a variety of reliable sources. In fact, the short list I mentioned above should easily supersede the forums, blogs, and other unpublished fodder typically found in a google search (though that fodder still supports my position). GoneIn60 (talk) 04:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Books use the "Plug and Display" term various ways, but quite often with VESA, which is logically part of the name and really helps to make the article title recognizable. Another way would be to call it "Plug and Display connector standard" or something like that. But to just have the unadorned name leaves it unrecognizable as anything. Some others, like Digital Visual Interface, might possibly be well enough known to be recognizable on their own. They'd probably still be better off if made more precise. In the case of Digital Flat Panel, I had a hard time find out what it was until I discovered that it's a VESA thing; so I added a ref about that and fixed the title. Dicklyon (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from. The list you linked to has the appearance that VESA must be in the front. However, if you drill down into the text of many of them, you will find a different result. Many articles and book chapters introduce "Plug and Display" to the reader as "VESA's Plug and Display" or "A VESA Plug and Display standard". That's just the introduction to give a frame of reference to the reader before referring to the term the rest of the way as simply Plug and Display. In addition, the abbreviation would not be P&D if VESA was required to precede the phrase each and every time (why not VP&D then?). VESA is an organization and P&D is its technology. Where are you seeing that VESA is actually part of the name? GoneIn60 (talk) 04:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Is plug and display proprietary, owned by VESA alone, or has it become a technique, approach or concept more widely used. Many products and concepts began as proprietary things (telephone, mouse) but became generic. What stage are we at here? Tony (talk) 05:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that it's a defunct concept. It was introduced and never truly caught on due to the success of DVI. Since it never became a household name (and never will), I would say it belongs to VESA. Plug and Display also does not conflict with any other known common name using that phrase. GoneIn60 (talk) 05:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: YouTube

Hi, is the where we had our discussion about YouTube references. This was during the reassessment of the article. Wizardman quoted, "You can't use YouTube as a source; get rid of those and replace where necessary."--Dom497 (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

All I was saying was that in order to keep the article GA status, we all agreed that youtube references arent the best and therefore have kept them out of the article ever since.--Dom497 (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Always glad to help! :) --Dom497 (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Cedar Point peer review

A peer review of the Cedar Point article has taken place. I know you were working on the Kings Island article and getting it to GAN but if you have any free time could you help with the Cedar Point article? They listed what needs to be done, it's mostly just referencing. Thanks, --Astros4477 (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure will. I'll try to make time over the next few days. — GoneIn60 (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Soak City names

Why'd you reorder and change some of the names of the Soak City attractions? They were alphabetized and they were the new names.--Astros4477 (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't paying enough attention, that's why! I meant to only undo your last edit which was the image move to the left. Putting it there causes the "List of attractions" heading to indent at some screen resolutions. I restored everything else. The image will either need to be reduced in size or removed altogether to fix the chart spacing issue. GoneIn60 (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to keep the image just because it would be good to have atleast one image to refer to in the page. I'll try reducing the size.--Astros4477 (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Astros4477 (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

After messing around with different window sizes, I realized anything set below 240px wasn't necessary. The reason? The infobox (right above) is already wider than the image at this point. —GoneIn60 (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Oldest amusement parks

I know SFNE opened in 1840 but almost all the sources I have found say Cedar Point is the second oldest amusement park. I think SFNE is technically a theme park, which means Cedar Point is the second oldest amusement park. Knott's Berry Farm is the oldest theme park, but not the oldest amusement park. Even the Cedar Point website says its the second oldest amusement park.--Astros4477 (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

1) What sources have you found? Are they published? The source you have referenced currently does not meet the standard as a "reliable" source.

2) Another problem is that "amusement park" and "theme park" are widely considered to be synonymous with each other. So it is hard to distinguish a difference to readers without making it seem like a play on words.

3) A theme park is officially defined as a type of amusement park "in which landscaping, buildings, and attractions are based on one or more specific themes, as jungle wildlife, fairy tales, or the Old West". Therefore, Six Flags New England can still be called the 2nd oldest amusement park. When referring to theme park status only, then it is neither the first or second oldest - those are titles that belong to Santa Claus Land and Disneyland respectively. —GoneIn60 (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no reliable sources but that's what I'm guessing. No where have I seen Six Flags New England listed as the second oldest amusement park. Every source I have found lists Lake Compunce then Cedar Point with no mention of SFNE. I'm just guessing that as I have been to Knott's and there entrance does say America's 1st Theme Park so like I said, I'm just assuming that they are making a difference to amusement and theme park. Maybe SFNE didn't open in 1870 because it's not included in any of the oldest amusement park lists I have found.--Astros4477 (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I will do some digging then. In situations like this, we cannot go by what the parks themselves say. We need a 3rd-party unbiased source. I suggest we leave your change in place for now until we can verify SFNE's history. If it turns out that it opened before 1870 with at least one ride, then it would make sense to undo the change. —GoneIn60 (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I had this same question when I updated SFNE's early history back in November. SFNE opened as Gallup's Grove in 1840, and was basically just a picnic ground until 1911. I think most sources use 1911 as the starting date for the park. However, if you look at the history of Cedar Point and Lake Compounce, they were mostly just picnic parks when they started. SFNE set up a bathhouse, gazebo and boat dock just like Cedar Point and Compounce did. People were arriving in droves by Steamship, so there must have been something there. I've been meaning to write to NAPHA and ask why they don't consider this one of the oldest parks. I found the Images of America book on Riverside to be an excellent source for the early history of SFNE.JlACEer (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. Cedar Point's first known amusement ride didn't come until 1890. So, what defines the beginning of an amusement park then? I'm sure most scholars would argue that the traditional definition of amusement park doesn't necessarily have to include amusement rides. Even so, that doesn't answer our concerns over SFNE's history. Heck, SFNE's beginning in 1840 would even pre-date Lake Compounce's first public opening in 1846. Great idea to write NAPHA. Please let us know if you hear anything back. —GoneIn60 (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Kings Island/SOB

I do not think posting the SOB as a current attraction on the Kings Island page is appropriate especially as it is SBNO and has been removed from the maps at KI it sounds to me that it is no longer an attraction they want to advertise until its fate is decided what the ride's fate will be so it fits as a former ride and should be listed there until the ride's fate is decided cause it is not operational and is not advertised so we should respect CP and not note it as a current ride when it obviously is not nor does it make any sense to post it as one when it is in SBNO status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.68.35 (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll give my comment on this as I'm pretty involved in Kings Island. First of all, we use grammar here on Wikipedia and that is the longest run of sentence I've seen, I'll try my best to understand it. I do think that SOB should not be on the current attractions page and should be moved to former attractions. However, it should be significantly noted in the Action Zone section about SOB. Also, I think you mean CF, not CP. Many people think Cedar Point owns Kings Island, but Cedar Fair owns it.--Astros4477 (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I actually agree with your point. I only undid the change since it was undone in the past. This, to me, means there isn't consensus yet to make the change. The best way to get that consensus is to start a new discussion on the Kings Island talk page. If anyone is still opposed to the idea, they will respond. If not, then feel free to redo the change. Also, you created a new section (Former attractions) that only contains one paragraph and probably isn't needed. As Astros suggested, it would be best to leave some kind of note in the Action Zone description that indicates the ride is still there with SBNO status. By the way, you may want to consider creating a Wikipedia account login so your edits are easily identified instead of showing up as an IP address. —GoneIn60 (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you already redid the changes on both articles, and another user undid one of them (I undid the other). At this point, start a discussion on the KI talk page which will be seen by a wider audience and we'll go from there. —GoneIn60 (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Since I was directed here: I feel it should remain listed as long as it exists. Once it is announced that it will be demolished, then it can be removed, but at this time, there is still a slight chance that SOB could be "fixed" and resume operation at some point in the future. I've labeled it as SBNO in the ride name column and inserted the year of last operation in the next column; hopefully that will make it clearer that the ride is not operating and could serve as a compromise. jcgoble3 (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Son of Beast GA

Thanks for the help on promoting to Son of Beast to a good article!--Astros4477 (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate your work as well! — GoneIn60 (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Cedar Point update

Hey I was just wondering if you ever finished revamping the history sections in the Cedar Point article. The copy edit should be taking place in the next few days then I'll list it for GAN. I know you posted on the peer review page back in April that you were going to give an update soon so I'm not sure if you ever finished. Thanks for all the help, if you have any other recommendations for the article before it goes to GA, feel free to take care of them.--Astros4477 (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been out of town a lot lately, so I haven't had a chance to work on it much. I'd say go ahead and nominate it whenever you think it's ready. Hopefully, I can work on it more this week and next. — GoneIn60 (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know the Cedar Point article is getting reviewed so the sooner you can finish what you were doing, the better.--Astros4477 (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback on Wing Coaster talk page

Could you take a look at the Wing Coaster talk page and comment on the 2013 Cedar Point coaster please? We need consensus on whether it should be included yet.--Astros4477 (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

	Thanks for the help!
	Thanks for all the help in getting Cedar Point and Son of Beast to good article status! I hope we can continue working together to bring more articles to GAC. – Astros4477 (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

October 2012 talkback

Hello, GoneIn60. You have new messages at M0rphzone's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time.

- M0rphzone (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Mean Streak Operation section

I've never had a problem with the Operation section before. It can be found in every Cedar Point GA plus the Behemoth article.--Astros4477 (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, a lot of the recent GA reviews have come from Dom497. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. However, the problem with getting reviews from the same user or group of users, is that the items can be overlooked multiple times – if it's not caught the first time, it's not going to be the second, third, or fourth time either if you follow me. One of the pillars of a good article is broad coverage of a topic without going into unnecessary detail. My beef is that the proposed section doesn't add any value to the article. It can be repeated for many rides in the park substituting only the ride name. You may want to also review "What Wikipedia is not". Specifically, look at the section "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal". Although a specific example of amusement park guides is not listed, I feel that it falls under this category. I'm still open to hear any opinions on why it should be included, but at this point I'm not convinced that it's necessary. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I do understand what you're saying. I think some parts should be included though. The stuff on riding when pregnant and having heart conditions can be deleted but I feel stuff about what weather conditions the ride can operate in should be included because its related directly to the ride. What do you think?--Astros4477 (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I tend to ask these questions:

• Is the information so unique and significant to the article's topic that it needs to be included?
• Does the information bring something essential to the table for readers to learn about?

First of all, the source being cited is the park's policies and procedures page. This is general information that applies to many rides at the park, even the part about weather conditions. In my mind, if I'm going to the Mean Streak article to learn about a new coaster, it's not important for me to know that certain weather conditions will have an impact on the ride's operation. That seems like common knowledge. So it's hard for me to answer yes to either question. Look at it this way. Take the iPhone 5, for example. If Apple says that immersing the phone in water will do damage, should that be in the article even though I can point to the iPhone's manual as a source? If there were no other phones out there but the iPhone, one might argue "Yes". But because this is common knowledge accepted about phones (and electronic devices in general), it wouldn't do the iPhone 5 any justice. This is why we tend to exclude basic information from guides and manuals: they make the article sound like one. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go ahead and remove it.--Astros4477 (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, not trying to nitpick. I could just see someone eventually challenging that material at some point if I didn't. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

iPhone 5

WP:RS. Would you comment on all the bickering that's going on in iPhone5 talk page? thanks Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply on this. I didn't comment on the RfC or some of the other bickering, mainly because it was very lengthy and would have been hard to get in the middle of. That might also explain why very few editors did. Oh well, it looks like some of the animosity has died down a bit the past couple weeks. Hopefully, we can focus more on content moving forward. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Reliable source discussion on iPhone 5

I'm trying to get consensus on proper summary words and whether or not to allow inclusion of author's own opinion outside his field of expertise. Can you chime in? Thank you.

Here

-Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Future of WikiProject Amusement Parks

Hi GoneIn60. I am contacting you because you are listed as one of members of WikiProject Amusement Parks or one of its task forces. I have just started a discussion on the project's talk page regarding the future of the project. I have made four proposals and I would appreciate your comments on them. Thank you Themeparkgc  Talk  23:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Comparison of Nintendo portables

Thanks for the article with the color depth info. I'll keep an eye out if I see anything. Unfortunately, I haven't seen anything official either though. Awesomeness95 (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC) I really think it's 24-bit though. I doubt with the GPU it has and its low resolution screen that it could even take advantage of 32-bit color. Either way though, I think it's best to put the actual amount of colors according to what Nintendo's specs say. Awesomeness95 (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GoneIn60. You have new messages at Talk:iPhone 5.
Message added 19:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 19:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit SpinSpider

Please edit SpinSpider for me please.Leave a comment on Starship9000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.177.233 (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Astros4477 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Astros4477 (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Hope you had a Merry Christmas as well! --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Ride Logos

Why would you not want a ride logo in the infobox if one is available? Who decided the "current trend" is to use a photo? Is this written anywhere? Ride photos can be placed anywhere on the page — it would seem to make more sense to put the ride logo in the infobox. Do you really think the ride logo belongs in the gallery?—JlACEer (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, I don't like to see logos in a ride's infobox. If I look up a ride, the infobox should have the best picture available to show the ride. The only time I feel logos should be used in the infobox is when there's no picture available. For example, if you look up Chevrolet Corvette, I'd like to see a picture of the car so I can recognize it. The logo tells me nothing about the car, or in this case what the ride looks like.--Astros4477 (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the reasoning above, the "current trend" is actually reinforced by a suggestion on the WikiProject Roller Coasters page under Structure which reads, "An infobox, which should be accompanied by a picture that best shows what the coaster has to offer. There should ideally be a train in this picture." As far as I know, that suggestion has been there since I joined the task force in 2010. I tend to agree with it, though I'm not entirely opposed to changing it either. It might be best to raise the issue on the project's talk page and see what everyone thinks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Structure is referenced in the contents box, but when I click on it nothing happens. It seems to have disappeared.—JlACEer (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I think someone is working on merging the Roller Coaster project page with this new Task Force page. If you look at the bottom where it says "Relevant content from the former WikiProject yet to be merged", click "Show" over to the right. You'll see the missing sections there. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sorry, I was the one who was merging the projects but I see I never got around to finishing it. I will take a look into it a little later. On the topic of logos I think it is okay to have both in the infobox provided it doesn't result in a towering infobox that is longer than the article itself. Some good examples of this that come to mind are Jet Rescue and Green Lantern Coaster. Themeparkgc  Talk  21:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent GateKeeper edits

How is that original research?-- Astros4477 (Talk) 23:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Example: "Many posters were also hung up around the park and posted on Cedar Point's website."

Did a reliable source make that comment or come to that conclusion? If not, then it is an opinion formed by someone doing original research. In addition to that, the other problem is the fact that blog posts are being quoted in an article. Per WP:BLOGS, self-published sources like this should not be used. It appears they are being used to support original research. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a blog formed by the park. The person that posts on it has worked for Cedar Fair for many years and is close to the construction. It's not like I created a blog and posted this stuff, it is coming directly from the park so there's no original research.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I really goofed here! I apologize. I thought these were quotes from "posts" on a blog which would have been an issue. When I read "posters", I was thinking of "blogger", not the other kind of poster! LOL. Please disregard my stupidity. Maybe it's time I take a break from Wikipedia! --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It's all good! Spring just needs to get here faster so I can ride it!-- Astros4477 (Talk) 03:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Skydiver

Moved to Talk:Skydiver (ride)

The Book of Chance by Harold Chance has Skydiver as one word. Where did you find information that Chance Rides used Sky Diver as two words?—JlACEer (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It's listed as two words in several sources I came across. One is already cited from a reliable source in the article. and I have yet to add others. 1, 2, 3 are just a few waiting to be inserted. That second one is a technical bulletin, of which I found two others like it, and it may be the most convincing. Sky Diver is the model, but some were probably just named Skydiver as seen in pics online, which may be the reason for the term being used interchangeably in some references. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, now I'm not so sure. This source from 1979 is a big find, and it lists the ride as "Skydiver". Amusement Today also lists it the same way here, which has been posted on the Chance Morgan website. Guess I should revert those changes! It's just weird that there are so many reliable sources that have it as two words. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

To me the most compelling source is the book that was written by Harold Chance. I would think he would make sure all the ride names were correct.—JlACEer (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless, of course, the company purposely changed the name at some point. I would expect both Harold Chance and Chance Rides to get the spelling right! Nevertheless, I agree we should change it back for now. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GoneIn60. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of roller coaster rankings/archive2.
Message added 19:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I want your opinion on what should be done with the location column query. Astros4477 (Talk) 19:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Threw my opinion out there. If you agree to make the change, I can help with it when I get time either later this evening or on Sunday. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced edits

I am not seeing how adding the area "The Beginning" is unverifiable as it does exist (scroll down to the bottom of this:http://california.legoland.com/en/explore/shopping/marketplace/) Sure perhaps the fun fact about the naming is not referenced to by a site but that does not mean the whole thing is incorrect. Also Raptor Splash was removed and replaced by various amusement games run by HBL games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarviswjarvisca (talk • contribs) 04:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "The Beginning", I didn't notice that when I looked at your source earlier. That's my bad. Thanks for pointing that out. As for statements like "...based upon what a child is most likely to call the area...", those need to be sourced. Otherwise, it can be seen as original research. I see when you undid my revision, you also took this part out, so it's not an issue now.

As for Raptor Splash, a news article or some other reliable source is preferred. Such sources provide dates and are published through professional editing. YouTube citations are highly discouraged and should be used sparingly only when needed. The one you linked to doesn't specifically say anything about Raptor Splash anyway, so it certainly doesn't qualify here. Please let me know what you think before I go back in and make further changes to the article. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I know it has been removed but I am having trouble finding a citation. I suppose it isn't a big deal if it is not mentioned on the wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarviswjarvisca (talk • contribs) 05:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you'll find that locating sources for amusement parks is one of the harder things to do on Wikipedia. Happy hunting! By the way, glad to see that you are trying to contribute. Finding your way around in Wikipedia may be a bit challenging at first. Let me know if you need any help or have any questions. Also, when you post on talk pages, you should sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~) or by simply using the button in the editing toolbar that looks like a signature. See WP:SIG for more details. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey GoneIn60; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Kings Island Resort

Hi, I appreciate the editing/feedback. I'd added the dates/names of tournaments played at The Golf Center at Kings Island, using only Wikipedia as the source. The respective tournaments' names/dates on Wikipedia are accurate (I have first-hand knowledge), but would the best source to cite be something like the respective media guides for the PGA Tour and LPGA (once verified)? On the adding of the facility's former name "The Jack Nicklaus Sports Center", a Google search shows solid references to that name (beyond the myriad of unreliable/obsolete map sites, travel sites, etc.) in sources ranging from the LPGA to bios (books) on Jack Nicklaus. What would be the best source to cite? I started with the knowledge that, while working there (and as a local native), even after the tennis venue was built, the entire facility was, for the first few years, still known as the "Jack Nicklaus Golf Center." Then, to finally reflect the tennis aspect, the name of the entire (golf/tennis) facility was changed to "Jack Nicklaus Sports Center", by which it was known for many years. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triplecrown120 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Amusement Park Quarter 2, 2013 Newsletter

	WikiProject Amusement Parks Newsletter Quarter 2, 2013	581	147	5.16	49	18.2%	» Full edition
		Unassessed Articles	Coordinates Needed	WikiWork Load	Project Members	B&M articles are GA

21:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Max air giant frisbee.

I did make a change that there are 3 giant frisbees. There is one in my home country and i have riden it. For a reliable source i can give you The entry on The dutch wiki nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sledge_Hammer_(Bobbejaanland)

And The entry on The dutch site of The park www.bobbejaanland.be/nl/attraction/sledge-hammer

I'm not very good at editing a wiki for adding a source Thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.119.151.171 (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I realized there were other Giant Frisbees, but finding a reliable source seems difficult. The Dutch Wiki article you mentioned is not considered reliable, see WP:RS to understand what "reliable" is. The park's main website shows pictures, but does not specifically say it's a Giant Frisbee. I don't doubt that it is one, but we need a couple good sources before including it on Wikipedia. I will try to search for some when I have time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

RE: Sixaxis

1. "...was the official gamepad for Sony's PlayStation 3 console from the game console's launch in 2006 until 2008"

   The reason I changed this is that it doesn't really make sense the way you have it, i.e. "... was the official gamepad for the Sony Playstation 3 during the game console's launch in 2006". The main issue is the use of the word "during", which implies that the period in which it was the official controller was "the launch", and that after the launch, it was no longer the official controller. There are other (probably better) ways of expressing this than I did, but that was the best I could come up with at the time.

   If it wasn't part of the lead's introductory sentence, I'd probably have changed it to something like "The Sixaxis was introduced alongside the PlayStation 3 in 2006. It was the console's official controller until 2008, when it was succeeded by the DualShock 3".

   Perhaps a better alternative would be something like "Sixaxis (trademarked SIXAXIS) is a wireless gamepad which was produced by Sony for their PlayStation 3 video game console. It was introduced alongside the PlayStation 3 in 2006 and remained the console's official controller until 2008, when it was succeeded by the DualShock 3".

   Other notes: "PlayStation" is rendered with the "S" capitalised. This is the general consensus throughout WP:VG related pages. I believe there is also a consensus against using combined company-console titles such as Sony PlayStation or Microsoft Xbox, except where such combinations are part of the official title (e.g. Sega Saturn or Nintendo Entertainment System). I'm not sure whether this is related to a particular policy/guideline, or if it is just the stylistic choice of the Wikiproject.

2. "...incorporates the haptic technology"

   Quote: "Here, "the" is not necessary."

   While it is not necessary to the part you quoted, it is necessary overall in that sentence. The entire thing (your version) is:

   "It was succeeded in 2008 by the DualShock 3, an updated version of the wireless controller that incorporates haptic technology, or force feedback, found in DualShock and DualShock 2 controllers"

   Taking only the relevant parts, this reads as follows:

   "... that incorporates haptic technology found in DualShock and DualShock 2 controllers."

   Without the "the", the sentence implies that Sony found (i.e. discovered) Haptic technology in the DS/DS2 and put it in the DS3, which isn't what is trying to be conveyed. A possible alternative might be something like "... that, like the DualShock and DualShock 2 controllers, incorporates haptic technology."

3. "Sixaxis controllers can also be used on the PSP Go using Bluetooth; the controller..."

   I hadn't noticed the singular/plural issue, so thanks for fixing that. I have no real objection with the sentence being incorporated into the first paragraph, I just didn't really think about it when moving it up from its previous position.

Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 16:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and what WP:LINKSTYLE discourages is placing links next to each other such that they appear to be a single link, not simply linking two things that are close together. Notice that what I wrote was Sony's PlayStation 3, not Sony PlayStation 3, and as such does not suffer from this problem (the 's separates the two visually and syntactically - they are not treated as a single entity but one entity possessing another). Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 16:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I definitely rushed in my assessment of your changes and made some poor judgments in the process. So for that, I apologize. You are absolutely correct on several fronts. The lowercase "s" in the link was a typo. Thanks for correcting that. I also didn't realize a consensus was established against combining the company name with the console name. I'll keep that in mind. Taking a closer look, it would seem that [[Sony]]'s [[PlayStation 3]] would be acceptable, should it be decided to keep that phrasing (I've restored it for now). As for the other points on wording, I do like your alternative suggestions with just minor differences:

Sixaxis (trademarked SIXAXIS) is a wireless gamepad which was produced by Sony for their PlayStation 3 video game console. It was introduced alongside the PlayStation 3 in 2006 and remained the console's official controller until 2008. It was succeeded by the DualShock 3, an updated version of the wireless controller that, like the DualShock and DualShock 2 controllers, incorporates haptic technology.

Additional thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. We've all been to hasty at one time or another and there's no harm done. Anyway, your new version seems fine to me, although I'd probably remove the word wireless from the DualShock 3 sentence. To me it seems unnecessary and doesn't really add anything (it has already been established that it is wireless so there is no need to reiterate it). Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 18:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I will go forward with the changes then. Thanks for your time! --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done – I made some additional changes beyond what was proposed. Please feel free to further tweak (or undo) any of the changes I made. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Iron Rattler

Yes its confirmed. I didn't put a source as I didn't I think I'm allowed to put an Ebay site source but I will add a Facebook source.--Jpp858 (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

RE: GameCube

Hello, GoneIn60. You have new messages at Alphathon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time.

Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 12:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, GoneIn60. You have new messages at Alphathon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time.

Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 17:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

List of amusement rides

Please could you review the last 5 edits to List of amusement rides. Thanks. 82.132.245.212 (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like jcgoble3 already reverted the changes, but yes I agree that water ball shouldn't be listed. I've left a note on that editor's talk page addressing their lack of consensus on the issue. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Act of God

I accept your reasonable explanation for removal, which recognizes that Act of God is a valid legal term. The only counter I would offer is that including it does no harm to the article, other than leaving it out due to a perceived lack of Act of God line items means we have to be sure to add it back in when one does apply to the article in question. I lean towards keeping it included on all the Amusement Park Accident articles for consistency, as there are natural items that have resulted in Amusement Park injuries/deaths. SpikeJones (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Glancing at the Act of God page, I seen nothing wrong with including it as a line item, as it covers "events outside of human control", which don't have to be major natural disasters. SpikeJones (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

In the lead right before the bulleted list, it states, "Accidents listed here are caused by one of the following". I think this line is helpful, because it lets readers know that we are not defining everything that can possibly cause an accident. If we let acts of God slip by, then the scope of what the article should cover can get confusing and blow out of proportion. Do we really want to include information about minor accidents that aren't related to amusement rides? Those are the only types that I see an Act of God applying to. We can add it later should a major accident be blamed on an Act of God, but since it's unlikely, I lean towards leaving it out for now. However, I don't feel too strongly about it. If you really want it in there, then that's fine. I'll drop my opposition to it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

we (those who write/contribute/monitor the Incidents articles) do a good job of keeping the minor items out, usually as they fail the WP:Notability sniff test. We are happy that every item listed on all those pages are appropriately sourced. the "caused by one of the following" line seems incomplete w/o the Acts of God line, as that sort of falls under a catch-all for everything else that the other bullets don't cover. Anyhoo - feel free to do what you'd like, as long as you're being consistent across all the Incidents articles. SpikeJones (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, I appreciate that you have been monitoring/policing the unsourced edits in the various Incidents pages. If you browse through their histories, you'll see that I have been a major contributor to those references in the past. I'm glad someone else has joined the cause. SpikeJones (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Sometimes it feels like I spend more time policing than adding content anymore! How I miss the simpler times when I didn't know any better! :) --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Magnum XL 200 edit

As far as the edit I made about the soft drink stand I clearly remember it by seeing it with my own eyes many times I visited the park in years past. I clearly remember that at some point in the 1990's it was replaced with vending machines. That's the best I can tell you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.45.128 (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand, but first-hand accounts are not considered reliable sources. Reliable sources are published by reputable third parties, such as a newspaper or book publisher. In addition to fact-checking and accuracy, they help show that a topic or statement about that topic is notable and worth including – the more sources that exist, the better. For more help understanding the process of verifying information, see WP:V and WP:CITE. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. INeverCry 00:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Amusement Park Quarter 3, 2013 Newsletter

	WikiProject Amusement Parks Newsletter Quarter 3, 2013	463	124	5.13	50	30%	» Full edition
		Unassessed Articles	Coordinates Needed	WikiWork Load	Project Members	B&M articles are GA or FA

--EdwardsBot (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Amusement Park Newsletter Special (July 2013)

WikiProject Amusement Parks Newsletter Volume 1, Issue 3 July 2013 Special

Project News An interview involving this WikiProject will be featured in the Signpost's WikiProject Report on August 28, 2013. If there are any members who wish to take part in the interview, please go here to answer the questions. For members that use VisualEditor, as of the newsletter publishing date, most of the WikiProject's infoboxs and templates have very limited interaction with the editor. Over the next few months, code to allow full interaction with VisualEditor will be written. Currently, {{Infobox amusement park}} and {{Infobox attraction}} have code written but {{Infobox amusement park}} is not being actively used as VisualEditor has not noticed that the code is there, yet ({{Infobox attraction}} is working). Editor: Dom497 Sent out on July 18, 2013.

Dayton Metro Population

Hi. I wanted to request your assistance with the population figures for the Dayton Metro Area population. After reviewing the official U.S. Census Bureau Statistics for 2010, it is very clear that the population is 841,502 as referenced here: These figures should not be up for debate since they are published facts from a government agency. I though since you were an administrator to Wikipedia, that you might be able to help with the edit warring on this page. I would like to have the Dayton, Ohio page semi-protected for a short amount of time if possible. Thank you for any help you might be able to provide.Texas141 (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to weigh in on the article's talk page once I've had a chance to look at this more closely, but I should point out that I'm not an administrator – just an avid Wikipedian :) – so you'll want to take the request to the WP:RFP. I'm not sure there's enough evidence yet that it needs protected, however, since the issue is primarily with one editor under multiple IP addresses. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon for Ramona Park

Hello -

I am working with the East Grand Rapids MI Public Library as they embark on a GLAM project. I'm a mid-newbie, which is why I'm reaching out....

East Grand Rapids was the home to Ramona Park and to the Jack Rabbit Derby Racer [1]. As a kick-off project they would like to expand Ramona Park during an edit-a-thon. The Library is home to a local history room - a room filled to the ceiling with memorabilia, photos and artifacts from Ramona Park.

The plan is to upload much of this material via Commons (hopefully before the edit-a-thon on October 19, 2013 - coincidentally during Wikipedia Loves Libraries month).

One problem - there are few locally evident Wikipedia editors to actually show up at the library for an edit-a-thon.

Do you think if we set up a Google hangout, you might be interested enough to remote in? There is a possibility of a cool tee-shirt [2] donated by the library, too!

I might be able to provide you/this project with a preview of the historical materials - it seems to me there might be more than one article to create.

Also I've come up with a DYK candidate: Did you know that President Gerald Ford worked at Ramona Park, home to one of three derby racers in the US? (The Ford part is true, not quite sure of the derby racer stat, though!)

Thanks for your consideration, Bdcousineau (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:New Texas Giant logo.png)

Thanks for uploading File:New Texas Giant logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Do you know if this is a reliable resource http://www.ultimaterollercoaster.com/? I've seen it used on wikipedia but there are reasons why it wouldn't be. Can you clarify if it is?Wackyike (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The description of the site on its about page seems to indicate that it's an enthusiast-driven web site. It doesn't appear to be backed by a reputable publishing authority. Therefore, I'd be cautious when using it as a source and steer clear from it when possible. Now, one might argue that RCDB.com is a similar site that is enthusiast-driven and not properly backed. Yes, that's true. However, the consensus within the Wikiproject Amusement Parks community is that it's a reliable source. I've not heard the same about ultimaterollercoaster.com. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

What about this one?http://thepointol.com/millennium-force/Wackyike (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

My vote would be not to use it. The Point Online is another fan-oriented site, that although may be fairly accurate most of the time, I wouldn't consider it a reliable source for Wikipedia. That's just my opinion, of course. The best place to discuss sources like these would be at the article's talk page and/or Wikiproject Amusement Parks to make sure there is consensus. You can also take it to the RSN (reliable sources noticeboard) if you're not satisfied with the response you get from other Wikiproject members. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

One more question. I don't understand why temporary ride closures without coverage in secondary sources are not tracked. I checked the notability page, but I didn't see anything regarding that.Wackyike (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

@Wackyike:: Sorry, didn't see this post until now. Information from first-party sources can be used to back information in an article, especially if those sources have been published by third parties in the past. An amusement park website would fit this criteria. However, when it comes to a ride's status, we don't need to constantly update it, if it's only down for a few days or so. Rides close all the time due to maintenance and other minor reasons. It's when the closure makes headlines that we typically want to update the status of a ride, because then we know it's notable enough to include the status. Notability is about significant coverage in published sources, and only having one source – whether primary or secondary – sometimes isn't enough. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand first and third party sources and what they represent. Same with primary and secondary. Also, how come when you put an at symbol before my user name it triggers my notifications?Wackyike (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

@Wackyike: That's correct. I used the Reply to template to notify you that I replied here. Pretty nifty, eh? A primary source is just another way of saying 1st-party source. A secondary source is a 3rd-party source that uses one or more 1st-party sources to make a claim. You can read all about the different kinds in more detail at WP:PSTS. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Editing

I'm a coaster enthusiast, a lot like you, and I went through the articles given already when I made my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boesball (talk • contribs) 17:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

What article did you base the statements from? We need to include that as an "inline" citation. Otherwise, it looks like original research which is not permitted on Wikipedia and will be challenged by other editors. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Some of the information is used from the Beast roller coaster site. I'll keep it deleted, though. Thanks for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boesball (talk • contribs) 19:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC) @Boesball:

No problem. I'm glad you want to contribute to roller coaster articles, as many of them still need a lot of work. Please feel free to add sourced content when you can (try to avoid "peacock terms" which are used for promotion or marketing), and if you have any questions, please feel free to ask here. Also, I left you a welcome message on your talk page. There are some useful links there to get you started on Wikipedia. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you're helping me very effectively. Thanks for the encouragements and constructional critizing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boesball (talk • contribs) 04:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Supposed vandalism

Hello. I clicked an image and received a notification that there was a new message.

I wanted to let you know this particular IP address is a publicly-used Chromebook for our high school library, which are handed out at random during checkout and returned whenever finished. So, we really have no way of catching whoever did it nor is it practical to monitor the usage of this particular Chromebook. I, as another student, apologize on behalf of my school and it's 1200 students.

Thanks and sorry if I have no idea how to use this feature properly.64.8.173.129 (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)rt

Yes, as your talk page indicates, your IP range belongs to the Office of Enterprise Technology. The notification you received was just letting you know that information was posted on that talk page. If you'd like to avoid these in the future, simply create an account on Wikipedia (which is free). You will then only receive notifications based on activity under that account instead of your IP address. Please review the "Welcome" dialog box on that page for more information. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

talk:Minesweeper (ship)#Requested move 2

I have renewed the proposal to move Minesweeper (ship) to Minesweeper, due to hundreds of links to Minesweeper referring to the ship. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 01:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Xbox 360

Where were you during these past two weeks? During that time period I've been working with a number of editors to ensure that the wording is neutral while remaining faithful to the sources, and your wholesale reverting was completed indiscriminant. At this point the onus is on you to take it to the talk page. Limefrost Spiral (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

@Limefrost Spiral: I checked your contribution history and the article's history, but I don't see any evidence of collaboration between you and other editors. There isn't a time-limit on disputes either, and rest assured that I will be addressing the issues on the article's talk page. Furthermore, you removed content that I added, which was unexplained on your part. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I should add that typically I visit Wikipedia once or twice a day, but due to recent holidays, my access has been very limited the last couple weeks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I was working with User:Arkhandar during your two week absence. If you point out the content that you added that I may have removed, then I should have no problem adding it back in. Limefrost Spiral (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

@Limefrost Spiral: Are you referring to the 2 or 3 edits that Arkhandar made challenging your edits on the basis of original research? If so, I'd hardly call that "working together". Seems more like a concession than a collaboration. In any case, I've reviewed the Legacy section more closely checking all the sources. Most of the content you've added is legit with a few minor grammar/punct issues. I plan to make a few changes, and if anything turns out to be major, I'll address it on the talk page. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Edits to Arrow

I've got to say I'm not really liking the recent changes you made to Arrow. I think you've introduced a number of errors in the third paragraph. There weren't several changes of ownership, and changes of ownership don't necessarily indicate a hardship. I know you found a reference that says the company declared bankruptcy twice, but that is not correct. When Bacon and Morgan decided to retire, they sold the company to Rio Grande Industries (first change of hands). Rio Grande sold to Huss (second change of hands). Huss got into financial trouble because of their dealings with the World's Fair and Darien Lake. Huss declared bankruptcy and that is when Toomer and Company negotiated a buyout and formed Arrow Dynamics (new company or third change of hands). Arrow Dynamics eventually declared bankruptcy after the 4th dimension coaster and S&S bought the assets. So I count two changes of hands, one reorganization and then the final bankruptcy. Rutherford's book simply states that the company changed hands — he does not say several times. Therefore I do not believe the statement in third paragraph about several changes of hands and re-emerging from a second bankruptcy is correct. Unless you find a better source that actually explains when and where a bankruptcy took place prior to Huss, I would not rely on the Harvard Business Press—JlACEer (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@JlACEer: Thanks for bringing all that to my attention. We do need to find more sources to verify the information, so for now, we can revert back to some of the previous wording including getting rid of "hardship". However, I think a majority of the changes make the lead sound more professional and encyclopedic. We just need to work more on the content, so I agree with that. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Cedar Fair Railroads

I see you reverted my small additions to the Cedar Fair articles with three foot gauge railroads because you felt that the source cited is not reliable. Why do you believe it is not reliable, exactly? The table with the Crown Locomotive Works roster is based on a series of historical essays from a former Kings Island employee and a compilation of these essays can be found elsewhere on the same website at this link: http://www.trainweb.org/parktrains/Features/Crown%20Metals.html. This source is perfectly legitimate, and my changes should not have been reverted. Jackdude101 (Talk) 19:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jackdude101: TrainWeb.org doesn't appear to be a reliable source. It looks more like a personal website. Wikipedia policy cautions against using what can be viewed as a "self-published" source, which you can read more about at WP:SPS. Reliability can also be impacted by a source's editorial oversight. I'm not so sure I'd rank TrainWeb.org up there with the Washington Post, Oxford Press, or the New York Times in that respect. Do you have evidence that this source has been accepted by the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (RSN) in the past? --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: I just made the relevant entry on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (RSN), so we'll have to see what comes from that. The website definitely looks crude and amateur-like, but the information itself that the website provides appears to be legitimate. Jackdude101 (Talk) 20:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

MOS:IMAGES

I have opened a formal RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Request for comment on the deprecation of left-aligned images under sub-headings,an issue on which you commented in previous discussion there. DrKiernan (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Elements

A designer from the former Arrow Dynamics designed the same model corkscrew design in at least 10 parks between 1975-1979. In addition, some additional designs additionally include a single loop inversion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrestwoodRocks (talk • contribs) 01:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

source on the corkscrew at Silverwood

Corkscrew was actually a prototype originally built on site at Arrow Dynamics in Mountain View in Santa Clara County, California (before Arrow Dynamics' relocation to Utah). Once Arrow Dynamics completed reviewing the design, members of the Knott's family personally opted to purchase the prototype. Ten exact replicas were produced 1975–1979. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrestwoodRocks (talk • contribs) 02:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

@CrestwoodRocks: It's not that I didn't believe it's true. It just needs to be properly referenced before being added. The "Dubin" reference is a good one that should be used with a URL to the LA Times article. Also, you had the information about the replicas mentioned three times in at least one article, which isn't necessary. It shouldn't even be in the lead in most cases. Feel free to re-add the information with the source. I may swoop behind, move it around and/or make slight modifications. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Volcano, The Blast Coaster: Uncredited/Unsourced leaked information

I'd like to thank you for taking that down. I put it up immediately after a friend of mine who has intimate knowledge of Cedar Fair's future plans for Kings Dominion passed it to me via a cell-phone video he recorded during a board meeting last December during which concepts were shown for various additions and improvements for Kings Dominion were shown. After I put it up I started agonizing over the fact that some "spy" for Cedar Fair would snitch that information was being released without authorization, and my friend would be fired and possibly sued. So now, you understand why I couldn't so much as give you the name of my source, much less link the video to the article, for fear of retribution from the park and/or Cedar Fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.244.54 (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@71.191.244.54: Whether or not your friend was willing to be identified doesn't really matter, unfortunately. He/she would NOT have been considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, and the information would have still been considered original research. Sounds like it worked out for you though. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Need help with SFMM

Can you help with the dispute resolution? I have an editor who has twice deleted Orient Express from from the SFMM page. He thinks that because it disappeared from the park's website that the attraction has been removed. See "Six Flags Magic Mountain". Thanks—JlACEer (talk) 07:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@JlACEer: Looks like you guys have it pretty well covered. It's apparent that the park has historically treated the ride as a minor feature, which explains why its website doesn't list it (and hasn't for some time according to the links provided by Dom). I agree with the mediator that opening an RfC on the talk page would be a good move at this point. Cheers! --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

kings island list

If the lists are to be removed from the main page, they should be done so with information intact. The list on that page was missing much of the information in the original lists on the page. Other edits to the page were noted when removed.--Nickvet419 (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

also the only changes i made to the lists themselves were categorizing them into attraction type, and removing the heights along with adding the original list information back in from the main page.I guess the other heading discription can be left allone for now.--Nickvet419 (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@Nickvet419: Let's discuss this on each article's talk page before rushing to make changes. Nothing will be lost, as I pointed out on KI's talk page. You tend to go missing for several months at a time, and when you stop back in, you make 30-40 edits in a very short period of time. I suggest messing around in a sandbox first, get it how you like it, then simply transfer it over. You'll make fewer edits that way making it easier for the rest of us to track. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

GoneIn60, I don't have much to say about this other than that when I created the article, the goal was to mention only basic info and get to the point (yes, the height requirements may be a bit trivial) which is what the article is. The point of the article is simply to list the current rides at the park....and keep in mind I created this before the whole "notable/not-notable" thing started.--Dom497 (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

\

WikiProject Amusement Parks Article Clean-Up

Recently, an issue has been brought up regarding the notability of many articles within WikiProject Amusement Parks. As a result, a page has been created regarding this issue as well as a possible solution (which will be on-going). In a nut-shell, certain articles will be picked to be reviewed in each stage and the WikiProject members (you) will decide if the article should be deleted or kept based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

I hoping this will work and if it doesn't, oh well...I tried.

More info can be found on the linked page above.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Sent by Dom497

Hello. Thanks. Sorry, I posted that, finding out some infos about that release, but today I saw that it'll come earlier, respectively not Q4 as I expected. I don't know. How can I tell why I modified the page? Also, I have put a new topic on Resident Evil 6, and it was removed. I don't know why. Anyway, please tell me more. I'm sorry for any mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.104.9 (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

RTX is NOT Rooster teeth Expo

Go lookup rooster teeth and RTX their event held at austin, go look up what RTX stands for, its not rooster teeth expo, i can't provide a specific source but if you go and look at the companies ( rooster teeth) podcasts they clearly state RTX is NOT rooster teeth expo, the X can stand for a lot of things, its kinda like an X factor , they have lines there that are Xpress and Xperience, and the expo is not just about rooster teeth so they dont like it being unoficially called rooster teeth expo, the proof is the fact that various organizations and companies go to the RTX event, such as bungie, and maker bot ( the guys that make 3d printers) and the RT fans. RTX just means RTX its NOT an abreviation, so if you have brains you will just revert back to the changes i made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.27.116 (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand why you made the edit, and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your viewpoint. The fact of the matter is that there is a inline reliable source that references the event as Rooster Teeth Expo. If the reference is incorrect, then you should replace it with one that clarifies what RTX is and/or explains why Roster Teeth Expo is incorrect. Making changes on Wikipedia without including a reliable source will usually get reverted, as was the case in this situation. See WP:CITE for more information and visit the welcome page for other tips and guidelines. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Watch this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4TkMdbscok , the Creators of the event clearly state that RTX stands for nothing. I'm only pointing this out because i sell merch over there. Jump to 1:13:55 and you can quote Gus Sorola.

Let me just clarify that I do not disagree with you. The reason you were reverted has nothing to do with being correct or incorrect. The reason is that you didn't provide a reliable source, as stated above. While I think it's great that you've found one and shared it with me, the burden is not on other editors (such as myself) to make sure a reliable source is inserted. That burden is on the editor making the change. If you would like me to insert this link for you and reinstate the changes you made, I don't mind doing that, but for future reference you should take the time to learn how this is done. WP:REFB, WP:CITE and WP:RS are great articles to comb through for those who are new to this. There are a ton of things on Wikipedia that always need cleaned up, so it would be great if you decide to stick around and help us out! Let me know if you want me to make this change for you this time, or feel free to take a hack at it yourself after reading through those articles. Thank you! --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't really care about Wikipedia, just wanted the right facts to be stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.27.116 (talk) 22:08 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just wanted you to be aware, because it will likely happen to you again if you continue to add or change information without providing sources. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Please undo your edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Flags_Magic_Mountain

I'm not sure why the citation did not show up. It was from the Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society. If you can help with the citation showing up I would appreciate it. This story help with the history of Magic Mountain.

Magic Mountain is located in the Santa Clarita Valley. http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/sr9602.htm The L.A. Times also carried the story of the bride becoming a widow at Magic Mountain. Thank you, John

---

Feb. 5, 1978, a pair of newlyweds on their honeymoon were violently rocking the Eagles Flight sky ride, causing their bucket to plunge 50 feet to the ground. The husband died and the young bride sustained critical injuries.

Ammobox (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I found that the information already exists at the main article Incidents at Six Flags parks. If you have any further concerns, please let me know. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

RE: Walking Dead

Meh, no big. I'm from Canada so we use standard "proper" English, lol. I still think the ellipsis at the end is unnecessary, given that most readers won't understand it and think it odd unless the context is explained - which just adds to the length.

Whatever, at least we chopped the text down. That's all that matters. Thanks for the heads up. Pale Autumn (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Citing FAA File?

Do you know how to cite a file from the FAA without using a url? The reason I'm asking is because this url has gone dead: [3] has gone dead and there are no archives of it. The file tells us that Falcon's Fury was likely to be built in 2012 (opened for 2013) and that the height may have been slightly different (or the marketing department is just twisting the numbers) which I think would be good to include in the article. I plan on nominating this article for FA in the future so having a "dead ref" would be fine for GA, but not FA. What the file looked like when it was still on the website can be found here--Dom497 (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@Dom497: Sorry I didn't get a chance to look into this until now. Looks like Themeparkgc gave you the answer you were looking for. Cheers! --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Battlefield 4: Bugs, glitches and legal troubles

Hi,

I noticed you reverted my edit on the basis that the section for Bugs, glitches and legal troubles is not for "listing all the individual bugs...just talks about them in general.". While understandable, I think this particular bug is indeed notable enough for mention - at least somewhere on the page. 6 months after release, the single player portion of the game remains fundamentally broken and not referencing such a wide ranging, but also widely complained about bug, seems the wrong thing to do.

With the first sentence in the section of Bugs, glitches and legal troubles being worded as "Upon release" and the use of "Because of the widespread bugs and glitches that were present" in the final paragraph, the section implies that the game no longer experiences problems and quite obviously, that is not the case.

I look forward to your thoughts,

Thanks,

Chris

87.242.160.151 (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Halo 4 RTX

Hey there, I have no idea how the site works but there are some pages with those locks on it and I was wondering if you could do that to the halo 4 page, people keep reverting the edits and mention RTX as Rooster teeth expo (which it is not) as a matter of fact the wikipedia page for RTX doesnt even say rooster teeth expo once, I already provided a source for you aswell, if it isnt too much of a burden could you try to do something to maintain the credibility and integrity of wikipedia, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.27.116 (talk) 04:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@75.159.27.116: I don't mind helping out, but it looks like Dbrodbeck started a discussion on Halo 4's talk page. I suggest restating your case there with the source you provided me and see how the community responds. Unless someone is able to counter your source with a better one, then I don't see why your request wouldn't be allowed to go through. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Opinion Needed

Just thought you could leave your opinion here about an article that is up for deletion.--Dom497 (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Past Rides Chart

Hi, about a week ago you reverted the edit I made on the Six Flags New England article. In the article, I had edited the past rides chart to read "year closed" instead of "year removed". The reason I changed this was I felt that the time a ride was closed was more useful information than when it physically left. For example, Twister's year of removal is marked as 2013 on the chart, but it actually wasn't physically removed until this year. But, it was closed half way through the 2013 season and that's what most people probably care about. I know that all the dates weren't correct when I edited the label, and I probably should have waited to edit it until I had time to change those too.

So, I wanted to know if you'd be fine with me changing it back to the year of closure. If a ride remains SBNO for a long time before removal, then it can be addressed in the description. Also, sorry for bothering you over something kind of trivial like this! (Also, I think my ip has changed since then, so if you're wondering why it's different, that's why.) 68.9.92.11 (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@68.9.92.11: I am fine with changing it to "Year closed" as long as all entries are cited by a reliable source. If there are a few that you can't find sources for, then simply leave "Year closed" blank for those rides. Eventually someone will. Let me know if you need any help with inserting references. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Banshee

Sorry about removing the documentary...for some reason I thought I was looking at the Behemoth page....(facepalm)--Dom497 (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Haha, no prob. Some IP actually added it, and I was in the process of cleaning up the links when I saw that you removed it. No biggie! --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:New Texas Giant logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:New Texas Giant 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@Stefan2: The image was being used up until May 11, 2014, when a user removed it from the Texas Giant article without explanation. I've reverted that change and removed the notice template from the file's page. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hawker

The discussion was between an IP, [hardly] me, and you...that's it. How do you know there was no opposition? Hardly anyone replies to the talk page (from my past experiences) unless you ping them (which did not happen).--Dom497 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dom497: Well, actually there are others involved. First in that discussion, AndyTheGrump (a frequent moderator at the WP:RSN) agreed with the IP that the source doesn't appear to be reliable. Then if you look at Millennium Force's history, SovalValtos reverted the same edits I did in other articles, also saying he/she didn't agree that it was reliable. Furthermore, your comment in the discussion, "Whether this poll stays in articles or not, I do not care", put you in a neutral position.

Obviously, it is quite possible that consensus may shift in the other direction, but at the moment, it appears to be in favor of removing the poll. If you would like to obtain a more thorough consensus, you can always initiate an WP:RfC, continue the discussion at the WikiProject, or even start a new one at the WP:RSN. As always, I'm open and always willing to consider new viewpoints or suggestions! --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I will never but anything through RfC, I find it causes more trouble than good. I would continue the disscussion on the talk page but with exams coming up, I don't want to start something and then leave. Also, (just as an FYI), when you add a ping, you have to add some sort of text or else it doesn't work. The ping you tried sending me didn't go through.--Dom497 (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dom497: Didn't go through, eh? According to the template, you only need {{ping|Username}} Message text. ~~~~. Maybe it's because my signature was after the 2nd paragraph instead of the first, according to the "Limitations" section. I tried it again with only 1 paragraph this time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Exactly like you said, you only need {{ping|Username}} Message text. ~~~~. However, the template is a little picky. In your first edit, you added, "Message text. ~~~~" and in the second edit you added, "{{ping|Username}}". That isn't what the template wants; it wants the ping and text all in ONE edit. That's why it didn't work. :) --Dom497 (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks for the heads up! --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Kennywood Timeline

Hello , My comment on the Kennywood timeline was from a YouTube video called Kennywood Opening Day 5/3/14.This will show some rides in action along with an PARK EMPLOYEE, telling everyone who watches the FULL VIDEO what is new. If you decide to watch the FULL VIDEO, you will find plenty of RELIABLE iformation frm the employee of what is going on around the park. If you would like to email me more about tis, you can emal me at damiecrayne@homail.com. Thanks So much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.236.93.175 (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I watched the video, and it does appear to be a reliable source. However, keep in mind that when possible, it's best to use secondary sources over primary sources. If none exist, then this would be an acceptable alternative. See Wikipedia's guide to referencing for help identifying and adding references to an article. Then, feel free to add the information back citing your source. In the process, do not remove the hidden remarks at the beginning of that section, like you did last time around. If you follow this advice, then I don't see why your proposed edit shouldn't remain in the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Nintendo Dee Ess

Just letting you know I’ve asked about this edit on that talk page. Looking forward to learning the rationale. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The Beast

Watch a pov of the beast and it is 4:30 until stop at breacks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.3.178 (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@70.239.3.178: First of all, we prefer reliable secondary sources on Wikipedia over primary sources. Two people could watch the same video and come up with different times depending on when they believe the ride starts and stops. Also, no two rides on a roller coaster start and stop at exactly the same time. Furthermore, it would be original research to determine the ride time based on watching a video, which isn't acceptable. Instead, it is best to go with what a reliable source has already documented such as RCDB.com. Hope that helps. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand

I apologize for this but I do not have any references (such as factory barcodes or information from a park employee) on this. I just happened to notice that the new Wipeout ride at my hometown park was in place of the aging Trabant ride. While exiting the ride, I noticed that it had the Moser Rides logo on the main support column. The only reason I referred to it as a Moser Rides Wipeout is because I can not find any ride like it in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.200.232 (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@72.49.200.232: No need to apologize. Unfortunately, without verifiability, the information cannot be used at this site. You may want to read Wikipedia's policy regarding original research, and also look at the "referencing for beginners" tutorial. Hope that helps. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The Zipper

Well then, why in the blazes is every single carnival that has the Zipper enforcing a Zero Tolerance policy for single riders? One Zipper operator once even claimed to me that Zipper operators go to jail for letting people ride solo on the Zipper! Bentup1 (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not that I disagree with your claim. However, in order for it to exist on Wikipedia, it needs to be cited with a reliable source. This was not done, so I reverted your edit. First-hand accounts are considered original research and are not permitted here. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello GoneIn60,

Thunder Road

As far as I know, there is no published source for my edit on the Carowinds page. I made the edit based on my personal knowledge as an executive at the Carowinds park at the time the "Thunder Road" roller coaster opened. I can certainly see why there should be a published source for information up on Wikipedia, and so have no problem that my edit was removed. Thanks for informing me, and for explaining why you did so. My personal knowledge could be in error, of course, and so I believe you were quite within reasonable limits to remove the edit. I fully appreciate that information available worldwide on Wikipedia should be reliable.

LarryLatham — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.33.46.98 (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Vortex

I have been to canadas wonderland recently and i know a lot about it and i almost asked each employe and manager and they said vortex was 100km — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carson2345 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Carson2345: Multiple editors have left you messages on your talk page. Instead of forcing your changes through, you should be discussing the matter on each article's talk page. If you need assistance, visit some of the tutorial links on your talk page. As for Canada's Wonderland, we cannot accept original research on Wikipedia. Instead, we rely on the use of references that cite reliable sources. If you follow this guidance on Wikipedia, you will run into fewer conflicts. Hope this helps. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

What's this?

What's the deal with this: User talk:Eric.kirkey#August 2014? Do you think this person's motivation is vandalism, that's he's sitting down at the keyboard and thinking "now I'm going to screw around with the Wikipedia and mess it up"? Doesn't look like that to me. Herostratus (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Herostratus: Thank you for the objective feedback. You are right that I was quick to jump the gun and assume bad faith without taking into account that this was a new user trying to improve the articles, not damage them. I was hoping that my attempts to address the dispute on one of the article's talk pages (here) and the alerts that appear at the top would be enough to get their attention, but it's certainly possible that they did not. So, I have retracted the harsher warnings and left a comment on their talk page. Thanks again for taking the time to bring this to my attention. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. The editor was being pretty clueless, both in putting in material that didn't belong and then re-inserting it. He probably (or anyway maybe) didn't mean to edit war, maybe didn't understand where his material had gone or why or something. But of course it's really understandable to get frustrated with editors like that, and he does need to cut it out sooner or later. Herostratus (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Kings Island & Kings Dominion

I Am Sorry Of What I Whas Doeing & Thanks For The New Note

You Are Doeing Great On The Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric.kirkey (talk • contribs) 05:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Gamecube digital audio

Regarding this reversion, you may not have understood the link. It's not just saying GCN internally supported digital audio (which, of course, basically all digital platforms back to before the days of the NES do) but that specific pins on the same external DAV port used by Nintendo's official p-scan video cables (and the plugs on those cables, even if none of those cables actually took advantage of them) are assigned to and supplied with digital audio data. Furthermore, this is not mere conjecture, as a page linked right at the top of my source shows a real external digital audio interface which succeeded in getting sound out of an unmodified GCN.

As for reliability of the source in question, said site was at the forefront of the GCN hardware modding scene back in the day, and directly fueled the creation of a cottage industry in p-scan VGA cables. 72.130.58.85 (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@72.130.58.85: Thanks for the explanation. If we were writing a GCN whitepaper specifications sheet, then perhaps this point would merit some consideration. However, this is an encyclopedia, and as such, not EVERY detail needs to be included (even those with reliable sources). Per WP:V, "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". Personally, I don't see that it adds any real value to the article. To a vast majority of readers, it's existence doesn't help them understand the topic any more than if it were missing. If you feel strongly that this information should be reinstated, then I suggest taking it to the article's talk page first to obtain a consensus Hope this helps. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

New info about the Zipper (ride).

Hi. I have just recently found out that, in fact, the insurance company that serves the Windy City Amusements Inc carnival company (based in Chicagoland, Illinois) actually forbids the carnival company (Windy City Amusements) to allow people to ride single on their Zipper. Bentup1 (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Like I mentioned before (see a few sections above), you need to be able to cite some kind of publication that states this (see WP:CITE). We cannot do our own research and use Wikipedia to publish it (see WP:OR). A reliable, third party must do so, or the insurance company must publish a document stating that, both of which are accessible (published) to the general public (see WP:RS). Feel free to ask me questions here anytime, but it would be a good idea to take discussions like these over to the article's talk page to elicit opinions from others. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You undoing my change on Beavercreek HS page.

Fine. I was there and lived what I documented. Go ahead and undo my change and leave it wrong. I don't care enough to argue with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.12.63 (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You shouldn't take offense. This is how Wikipedia operates. Information that is not properly referenced by reliable sources may be challenged and removed by any editor. It may very well be true, but we cannot accept original research here. This is an encyclopedia, not an online forum. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Dynamic IP addresses

Hi GoneIn60, I've deleted the SPI you submitted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/108.5.67.109 as the IP address in the range are dynamic which means they change without the person using them being able to prevent it. You can sometimes find this out by going to the IP's contributions page then clicking on "Geolocate" at the bottom. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Error in Regards to Roller Coaster Page Edit

Hello, I am th3thrilld3m0n. I did not add any citation because the reference is my own experience and observations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.82.97.34 (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@198.82.97.34: Not sure if you're aware or not, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Information here should be referenced by reliable sources. See WP:CITE and WP:REFB for more information. Also, the welcome page has a general overview of Wikipedia to help you get started. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Walking Dead

I changed "series of railroads" because that doesn't sound professional; 'several railway lines' or many railroad branch lines sounds more professional - just trying to help make you piece sound better. You are probable a person who says "train cars" rather than railroad cars or box car etc. no offence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robspost (talk • contribs) 23:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Robspost: I'm not even sure what you mean when you stated, "just trying to help make you piece sound better". Do you mean "your piece"? If so, this isn't my piece. It's an article written from the contribution of many editors. I did not author the sentence you are trying to modify. Secondly, you didn't just change a phrase. You added "leading to Terminus", which was part of my reason for reverting. If you read the entire sentence, it's somewhat redundant to add that. And finally, there's nothing unprofessional about the term railroad. In fact, it's actually a better fit. If you look up the definition for railway, you'll find that it's often used to describe a type of railroad that operates over short distances. We have no idea if that's true or not, and therefore, railroad is actually preferred. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"they search for "Terminus", a place described as a "sanctuary for all" by many signs posted along a series of railroads."

How do they "search" for terminus when they walk along railroad tracks along which signs are posted that tell them terminus is ahead? (like following the yellow brick road). Searching for a place presumes one really doesn't quite know exactly where it is, which is not quite the case here. A series of railroads does not sound right.

One should say something like: they follow signs posted along several railroad lines, indicating that "terminus, a sanctuary for all" lies ahead of them. Multiple railroad tracks radiating from a town in different directions would never be reffered to as a "series of railroads" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robspost (talk • contribs) 03:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Robspost: Those are good points. Your original proposal was what I had an issue with. Feel free to take another stab at improving it and/or address your concern on the article's talk page to get feedback from others. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Rougarou

Hey Goneln60! I just wanted to clarify something with the Rougarou article and see if we can figure something out. I know that article cited said it would be dismantled but the park never actually said it would be. They made sure they were careful with their words and not to lie about what's going to happen. Most of the GP thinks it's a whole new ride, even some of the media thinks it's a whole new ride.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Astros4477: Astros, it's good to see you around every now and then! ThemePark and others haven't been around much, so it's been tough trying to keep these articles in check! I guess I'm not really focused on what word we choose, whether that be "dismantle", "removal", "permanent closing", etc. We can cite the actual Cedar Point press release if you prefer and change the wording. I have no issues with that. However, after the park said the last rides on Mantis were in October, it implied the likelihood that the ride was going away. This was the media's reaction to the announcement, as well as fans who were interviewed in published articles, though some did express hope that it would be redesigned/renovated instead of being removed. I'm just thinking we should retain that sentiment in the article somehow, instead of just writing it like a timeline of events. Does that make sense? --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Just saw the changes you made. They look good. Thanks! --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Help with referencing

I need help.I don't know how to cite and I tried researching. My information is 100% accurate as I have old park maps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karakildare (talk • contribs) 12:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I still need help. I'm reading and none of thus males sense, even here on your personal page. I need a walk thru for dummies on a mobile phones. PLEASE HELP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karakildare (talk • contribs) 12:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

On my gosh... HELP. I don't know how to do that at the walk thru make no sense. You seem like you know what you are doing so pleaed walk MD thru thus step by step insted of directing me somewhere and saying good luck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karakildare (talk • contribs) 13:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Unconstructive edit

I noticed you make this edit to the Roller coaster elements page. This edit, in my opinion reduced the quality of the page by providing less information. For example, your edit removed specific information from the page such as why it is also called a heartline roll, granted that there is already a section on the heartline roll earlier in the article. The information you removed helps to explain how the action works and related to the other one. I reverted your edit, but am willing to discuss your opinion. -- Orduin ^⋠T⋡ 22:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Orduin: After further research, a heartline roll does not produce the same type of effect as a zero-G roll. A heartline roll doesn't change elevation, meaning it's completely horizontal. Without the vertical change in motion, there is no zero-gravity effect. What happens during the heartline inversion is that riders experience a slow change in gravitational pull. A zero-G roll, on the other hand, typically occurs at the crest of hill, which produces the weightless effect. One coaster where this is evident is on the Banshee at Kings Island which features both elements. There is a clear distinction between the effects of both, so it makes sense the elements have two different names. I have restored much of my original edit, but this time provided references which support the description and removed the incorrect comparison to the heartline roll. If you'd like to further discuss, please respond here or start a new discussion on the article's talk page. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Banshee features an inline twist, not a heartline roll, so that was a bad example. Colossus at Thorpe Park is a better example. It features 5 heartline rolls which clearly do not provide a zero-G experience. Here's a POV video. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I wan't sure myself how they related, and had little time to do research on the subject myself. Thanks for clearing this up. -- Orduin ^⋠T⋡ 15:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

quit changing my stuff!!!

I changed the Halo origin platform because the Xbox was not the origin, it may have been the RELEASE Platform but not the origin!!!!!! If you have any questions please look up Mac World 1999 and you will see the origin!!!!!!!!! I made the change with the reference now LEAVE IT ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.166.120.96 (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. The game was first developed for both the Mac and Windows operating systems. You can read that here. However, this field (platform of origin) is not referring to development. It is referring to the series' release, which was first on the Xbox not the Mac. Hope this helps. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)