This is an archive of past discussions with JlACEer. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 > |
All Pages: | 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - ... (up to 100) |
Cedar Point Resort makes no claim on their publicity data to indicate that they have been in CONTINUOUS seasonal-operations since 1870. And, in fact, if they have indeed been in continual operation since 1870, then therefore, 2020 would actually be their 151st season (not their 150th). Please revert your edit to the prior edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:2428:E767:5385:B93F ( talk) 16:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
...the real issue is, WHY do YOU keep deleting a valid reference, there.
[If it disturbs you that the reference isn’t properly presented there (due to myself being a total novice here) ...then please correct the html code...or else allow some other ‘user’ to properly enter the correct html sequence.....but please stop deleting a VALID REFERENCE. Thank you.] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2600:1009:B146:8817:2428:E767:5385:B93F (
talk)
19:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
...aren’t you the ‘user’ who deleted the ORIGINAL reference? (Hint: although I may not know the proper html sequencing...but I know how to check the edit-history)......and normally a person (you) who removed a valid reference (and which is unquestionably now proven to be a valid reference), that person (you) would correct their (your) original oversight, by properly restoring the FULL REFERENCE (and as linked). THANKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:2428:E767:5385:B93F ( talk) 20:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
...I refer you to your original deletion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/970661033 ....please restore the CITATION...and include the full reference which I have so generously supplied my own time to locate for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:2428:E767:5385:B93F ( talk) 21:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
....I provided adequate information to you so that you could make the proper correction to the CITATION. It is you yourself who were disingenuous about your initial deletion of that citation....rather than simply making the alterations to the citation, yourself. ( and, especially interestingly, because on the Cedar Point ‘talk’ page, you cautioned someone not to rely on Cedar Point marketing publicity for ‘facts’...and yet, now, you quote that same company’s marketing, to defend your own position. Humorous, indeed.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:2428:E767:5385:B93F ( talk) 22:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
...and, perhaps you will recognize this quotation:
I've discovered that there is a lot of misinformation on Wiki and have started the task of making corrections. Please don't be upset if I make changes to things you have contributed. I will cite reliable sources whenever possible. Please keep in mind that online sources typically copy from each other, so although you may see a particular fact appear on 30 websites, it doesn't mean it is accurate. repeat: “I will cite reliable sources whenever possible.I will cite reliable sources whenever possible.I will cite reliable sources whenever possible.I will cite reliable sources whenever possible.” [....don’t you instead mean to say that you will DELETE reliable sources whenever they disprove your position....just like you attempted to delete my prior comment from this discussion...but, thank goodness (and Wiki) for edit-histories.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:2428:E767:5385:B93F ( talk) 23:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
...thank you for your personal observation that I “have gone about this all wrong”...but I think I will get some additional opinions by passing this full discussion to whomever-it-might-concern....and also including your original deletions to my 100% accurate edits to the Cedar Point wiki-entry. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:2428:E767:5385:B93F ( talk) 00:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
..by the way...it isn’t I who doesn’t know the difference between an ‘anniversary’, in contrast to a ‘season’.....but rather, it is virtually every news reporter this year who refers to 2020 as “Cedar Point’s 150th SEASON”....and even C.P.s General-manager(?) states on video that this year is their “150th Anniversary SEASON”...whatever that is supposed to imply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:2428:E767:5385:B93F ( talk) 00:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
For the IP editor's reference, a major change was made to the History section and went unnoticed (at least by me) in these edits by Ohiopioneers in December 2019. The biggest problem is that it's an eyesore to make the article seem as if it's arguing with itself, and to also interject a loosely-supported 1888 claim several sentences before the article even reaches that time period. I've restored the structure as it was when it was approved as a Good Article for now, and I properly formatted the book reference that was added. The 1888 claim was reworded and moved further down where it belongs. Hopefully, this settles things, but if not, further discussion really needs to happen on the article's talk page, where it will be properly documented, invites participation from other editors who may be watching that page, and can be easily reviewed by future editors. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 03:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with JlACEer. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 > |
All Pages: | 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - ... (up to 100) |
Cedar Point Resort makes no claim on their publicity data to indicate that they have been in CONTINUOUS seasonal-operations since 1870. And, in fact, if they have indeed been in continual operation since 1870, then therefore, 2020 would actually be their 151st season (not their 150th). Please revert your edit to the prior edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:2428:E767:5385:B93F ( talk) 16:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
...the real issue is, WHY do YOU keep deleting a valid reference, there.
[If it disturbs you that the reference isn’t properly presented there (due to myself being a total novice here) ...then please correct the html code...or else allow some other ‘user’ to properly enter the correct html sequence.....but please stop deleting a VALID REFERENCE. Thank you.] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2600:1009:B146:8817:2428:E767:5385:B93F (
talk)
19:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
...aren’t you the ‘user’ who deleted the ORIGINAL reference? (Hint: although I may not know the proper html sequencing...but I know how to check the edit-history)......and normally a person (you) who removed a valid reference (and which is unquestionably now proven to be a valid reference), that person (you) would correct their (your) original oversight, by properly restoring the FULL REFERENCE (and as linked). THANKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:2428:E767:5385:B93F ( talk) 20:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
...I refer you to your original deletion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/970661033 ....please restore the CITATION...and include the full reference which I have so generously supplied my own time to locate for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:2428:E767:5385:B93F ( talk) 21:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
....I provided adequate information to you so that you could make the proper correction to the CITATION. It is you yourself who were disingenuous about your initial deletion of that citation....rather than simply making the alterations to the citation, yourself. ( and, especially interestingly, because on the Cedar Point ‘talk’ page, you cautioned someone not to rely on Cedar Point marketing publicity for ‘facts’...and yet, now, you quote that same company’s marketing, to defend your own position. Humorous, indeed.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:2428:E767:5385:B93F ( talk) 22:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
...and, perhaps you will recognize this quotation:
I've discovered that there is a lot of misinformation on Wiki and have started the task of making corrections. Please don't be upset if I make changes to things you have contributed. I will cite reliable sources whenever possible. Please keep in mind that online sources typically copy from each other, so although you may see a particular fact appear on 30 websites, it doesn't mean it is accurate. repeat: “I will cite reliable sources whenever possible.I will cite reliable sources whenever possible.I will cite reliable sources whenever possible.I will cite reliable sources whenever possible.” [....don’t you instead mean to say that you will DELETE reliable sources whenever they disprove your position....just like you attempted to delete my prior comment from this discussion...but, thank goodness (and Wiki) for edit-histories.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:2428:E767:5385:B93F ( talk) 23:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
...thank you for your personal observation that I “have gone about this all wrong”...but I think I will get some additional opinions by passing this full discussion to whomever-it-might-concern....and also including your original deletions to my 100% accurate edits to the Cedar Point wiki-entry. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:2428:E767:5385:B93F ( talk) 00:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
..by the way...it isn’t I who doesn’t know the difference between an ‘anniversary’, in contrast to a ‘season’.....but rather, it is virtually every news reporter this year who refers to 2020 as “Cedar Point’s 150th SEASON”....and even C.P.s General-manager(?) states on video that this year is their “150th Anniversary SEASON”...whatever that is supposed to imply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:2428:E767:5385:B93F ( talk) 00:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
For the IP editor's reference, a major change was made to the History section and went unnoticed (at least by me) in these edits by Ohiopioneers in December 2019. The biggest problem is that it's an eyesore to make the article seem as if it's arguing with itself, and to also interject a loosely-supported 1888 claim several sentences before the article even reaches that time period. I've restored the structure as it was when it was approved as a Good Article for now, and I properly formatted the book reference that was added. The 1888 claim was reworded and moved further down where it belongs. Hopefully, this settles things, but if not, further discussion really needs to happen on the article's talk page, where it will be properly documented, invites participation from other editors who may be watching that page, and can be easily reviewed by future editors. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 03:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)