User talk:JlACEer/Archive 3

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 2

Archive 3

Archive 4 >

All Pages:

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

Arrow

I noticed you commented on the changes I made to the lead, but didn't have any input on the "Focus" section on the talk page right above that. Do you agree that the history of Arrow Development, Arrow-Huss, and Arrow Dynamics should all be in one article about the same company? Just curious to hear your thoughts about this. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading the comments, but at this point I am still undecided. However, I will add something to the discussion.—JlACEer (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject discussion

Just an FYI that a discussion is underway at WikiProject Amusement Parks, and your feedback would be appreciated. Thought I'd drop you a line in case the page isn't on your watchlist. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

Citing FAA File?

@Themeparkgc, McDoobAU93, and Astros4477: Would any of 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: [1] 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) 11:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would skip the URL and do it something like this:

SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment (January 2012). "Form 7460-1". Federal Aviation Administration. Government of the United States of America. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)

So what has happened is the 2012 application was withdrawn in favour of this 2013 application for the ride and one for the crane. Themeparkgc Talk 22:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Themeparkgc: Ah, that makes much more sense. Thanks for you help!--Dom497 (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chance Rides

An editor is attempting to remove references to the term "carnival" in articles mentioning Chance Rides. I noticed that one of the main sources cited is Harold Chance's book called The Book of Chance with ISBN# 0-9649065-0-3, so I've been reverting that editor for now. However, I'm not having any luck locating this book in any online ISBN databases or online book stores. I know you've supported this reference in the past. Do you have a copy of the book? Can you verify the title, author, publisher, and ISBN is correct? If it's not widely available, it may not be an acceptable source. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the edits. I can check the book when I get back to the office next week. I know it may be a difficult book to find, but what constitutes "widely available"? I have a number of amusement park books that are out of print and no longer available, but I still consider — and use them — as sources. Anyway, at first I was not sure if I had a problem with the change from carnival to transportable, but Chance's customers were primarily showmen who operated carnivals. The term transportable doesn't really seem to fit, and now that I know another amusement editor agrees, I think it should stay as carnival. Thank you for undoing the edits and for the notification. I'll check on that citation or see if there are any other sources that use the term carnival.—JlACEer

No problem. Without access to the source, it made me a little unsure about reverting, but I figured if anyone had a copy of the book it was you. As for "widely available", that's probably not really a requirement. None of the guidelines really say anything about how accessible offline sources have to be, although some essays suggest an "archived" copy of the source should exist in a publicly accessible location. So as long as that's the case, it should be fine. I would think the ISBN should at least turn up something in one of the many online databases to verify the book exists, not that I don't believe you, but just in case an editor decides to challenge it at some point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help on the New Mexico Rattler article!

Seriously, you pointed out and corrected much of the problem areas with the article.

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		For lending a hand on the the New Mexico Rattler article. Smile Lee (talk) 05:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ridecapt

In fairness, the "douchebag" comment on Ridecapt's talk page was just as much a personal attack as the ones they are leveling at you. Probably time to disassociate with the user and not interact with them. If they put up more unsourced information, other editors will take care of it. --McDoob AU93 14:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edit said (douchbaggery) where it normally says (user edit). I was just referring to that. I didn't know that such things could even be changed. Please look at the edit history of my user page.—JlACEer (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually interested in learning more about this person. When I see the Gravity Group guys in a few weeks, I will certainly inquire. His animosity is puzzling.—JlACEer (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to figure out why he's being so aggressive, too. None of your reasons for reverting his edits were personal in nature. I did extend my warning to him to add suggestions about going to the talk page and building consensus, but if he's simply relying on us taking him at his word, that ain't happening any more for him than it has for anyone else. --McDoob AU93 15:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

wet n wild accident

Here's the reference:

http://www.tripadvisor.com.au/FAQ_Answers-g2509171-d5794319-t251248-Does_anyone_know_why_the_bombora_and_half_pipe.html

Do you consider this an unreliable source? Why?

JohnAugust (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2015 (:UTC)

(talk page stalker) User-generated content, such as blogs and internet forums, are not acceptable. You can read more about the policy here: WP:USERG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoneIn60 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General reviews of the park, making criticisms, have been retained? JohnAugust (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First-hand accounts are not acceptable. If you can find a newspaper article on this incident, that would be an acceptable reference. See Wikipedia:No_original_research —JlACEer (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you'll be removing the review of the attraction on the same trip advisor site? That's also original research. I should point out I've no relationship to the people making any of those claims on trip advisor, and have never met them and don't know anything about them. JohnAugust (talk) 06:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I have removed the other Trip Advisor reference from the article on the same grounds. That should clear up any confusion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the person I was engaging with. JohnAugust (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not, but the problem should now be resolved. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was not the whole problem JohnAugust (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC at WikiProject Amusement Parks

A change to the list of available statuses for Amusement Park infoboxes is being considered at the following discussion:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks#Status fields in attraction articles.

Please share any thoughts or comments you might have there. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this notification, because you are listed as a member of WikiProject Amusement Parks

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, JlACEer. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Rattler

I noticed an IP editor adding the $10 million cost figure to the article, and it appears to be based on this source. So I was hesitant to revert it. However, should we consider renovation cost in the cost parameter of the infobox? Other coaster articles have recently had their "cost" updated as well to reflect the same kind of figure. I'm beginning to wonder if that's how it should be. The renovation cost is always going to be lower than what it would have taken to build it from scratch without reusing the existing structure. Therefore, it may be a misleading statistic. Thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The link you referenced above is for Texas Giant. SF never released the cost of Iron Rattler so I don't know where this IP user is getting this information.—JlACEer

Ah yes, didn't catch that! I went ahead and reverted it and requested page protection. So what are your thoughts regarding renovation cost being in the infobox? --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a good idea. Until we see an I-Box coaster built from scratch, we really don't know what a coaster like that costs. So far, they have all been renovations of existing wooden coasters and listing just "cost" could be misleading.—JlACEer (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Rogers

I'm surprised you reverted my spelling change (cancelled→canceled). As an Australian I'm sensitive to differences in spelling across the Atlantic and thought I'd come across a non-US spelling in what is a quintessentially US article, and surprised that an editor who I presume is American should revert it. Thinking I may have missed something I dug a little deeper and found exactly that spelling mentioned in American and British English spelling differences#Doubled consonants. Or was it the other edit "those" for "the ones"; a construction that grates on my ears nearly as much as "those ones" (possibly something to do with my high school English teachers)? Doug butler (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was undoing edits from IP user 173.49.102.84 but did not notice that you had made subsequent edits. Sorry that I undid your changes — it was not intentional. I have restored your edits.—JlACEer (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fan based Polls

You should also delete all of the Mitch Hawker polls as well considering those are fan-based as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehsbr (talk • contribs) 04:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]