User talk:2607:FB91:100B:2D6C:84D3:617C:5031:C149: Difference between revisions
→@JlACEer: Re: Tag: Reverted |
|||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
:Actually some portions of the removed text, were very pertinent to the Article, if, and I stress the word IF, they had been accurately stated. But they were not accurately stated, which is why I had posted the corrected information , and included my source references within the reason for the edit, because, as you stated, those source references were already within the CP article itself, so, based upon your own assertions, it was not necessary for me to add those pre-existing refs. However, you deleted my corrections anyway, under the sole premise that I was an "IP vandal", and afterward you separately accused me of also being intentionally abrasive. I have no idea what you meant that my referenced information was abrasive, or unless perhaps you were referring to my reason for my updated edit. In which case, I would have to now say that my reasoning in regard to my updated edit, was right on target. [[Special:Contributions/2607:FB91:100B:2D6C:84D3:617C:5031:C149|2607:FB91:100B:2D6C:84D3:617C:5031:C149]] ([[User talk:2607:FB91:100B:2D6C:84D3:617C:5031:C149|talk]]) 17:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC) |
:Actually some portions of the removed text, were very pertinent to the Article, if, and I stress the word IF, they had been accurately stated. But they were not accurately stated, which is why I had posted the corrected information , and included my source references within the reason for the edit, because, as you stated, those source references were already within the CP article itself, so, based upon your own assertions, it was not necessary for me to add those pre-existing refs. However, you deleted my corrections anyway, under the sole premise that I was an "IP vandal", and afterward you separately accused me of also being intentionally abrasive. I have no idea what you meant that my referenced information was abrasive, or unless perhaps you were referring to my reason for my updated edit. In which case, I would have to now say that my reasoning in regard to my updated edit, was right on target. [[Special:Contributions/2607:FB91:100B:2D6C:84D3:617C:5031:C149|2607:FB91:100B:2D6C:84D3:617C:5031:C149]] ([[User talk:2607:FB91:100B:2D6C:84D3:617C:5031:C149|talk]]) 17:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC) |
||
::I was referring to your summary comments, quote: " No need for me to include refs from David Francis book and Hildebrandt book and etc.etc.etc. because the paid contributors here will revert it back to the total nonsense and the no-ref way it was before, anyway." Seems abrasive to me. It also makes it look like the work of an IP vandal, thus my hasty reversal. The article in question is about Cedar Fair, which was formed decades after the first enterprises on the peninsula started. The exact date that those started — which most published experts believe to be 1870 — is not really important to this article.[[User:JlACEer|—<span style="color:#6209d1;background:#dcdcdc">'''JlACEer'''</span>]] ([[User talk:JlACEer|<span style="color:#808c8e">'''talk'''</span>]]) 18:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC) |
::I was referring to your summary comments, quote: " No need for me to include refs from David Francis book and Hildebrandt book and etc.etc.etc. because the paid contributors here will revert it back to the total nonsense and the no-ref way it was before, anyway." Seems abrasive to me. It also makes it look like the work of an IP vandal, thus my hasty reversal. The article in question is about Cedar Fair, which was formed decades after the first enterprises on the peninsula started. The exact date that those started — which most published experts believe to be 1870 — is not really important to this article.[[User:JlACEer|—<span style="color:#6209d1;background:#dcdcdc">'''JlACEer'''</span>]] ([[User talk:JlACEer|<span style="color:#808c8e">'''talk'''</span>]]) 18:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC) |
||
:::Just saw this. So can Cedar Fair be traced back at all to the companies that ran it during its first 50 years or so? I restored some content with a source, and obviously more expansion would be needed if we continue down this route, but it would seem somewhat odd to me if we didn't talk about Cedar Point's founding and early beginnings in some way if there is a connection at all. Otherwise, we may need a separate article that deals with Cedar Point Pleasure Company and/or G.A. Boeckling Company. We can be very brief about it if we keep it here, because I agree this article should focus on the modern entity Cedar Fair. --[[User:GoneIn60|GoneIn60]] ([[User talk:GoneIn60|talk]]) 19:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 19:54, 4 December 2021
Welcome!
Hello! I noticed your contributions to Cedar Fair and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
The information I restored in the Cedar Fair article is not incorrect as you state. It is, however, not pretinent to the Cedar Fair article, so I'm not going to bother reinserting it or referencing it. Those same statements, which are correct, are already referenced in the Cedar Point article. I recommend you read the links above, get yourself familiar with wikipedia, and don't be so abrasive. That type of attitude will not serve you well here. Happy editing.—JlACEer (talk) 04:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
@JlACEer
JlAcer: I hope you don't object that I am pasting your elsewhere comments, to this thread, so that those comments remain with this Article. ""The information I restored in the Cedar Fair article is not incorrect as you state. It is, however, not pertinent to the Cedar Fair article, so I'm not going to bother reinserting it or referencing it. Those same statements, which are correct, are already referenced in the Cedar Point article. I recommend you read the links above, get yourself familiar with Wikipedia, and don't be so abrasive. That type of attitude will not serve you well here. Happy editing.—JlACEer (talk) 04:53, 3 December 2021""
- Actually some portions of the removed text, were very pertinent to the Article, if, and I stress the word IF, they had been accurately stated. But they were not accurately stated, which is why I had posted the corrected information , and included my source references within the reason for the edit, because, as you stated, those source references were already within the CP article itself, so, based upon your own assertions, it was not necessary for me to add those pre-existing refs. However, you deleted my corrections anyway, under the sole premise that I was an "IP vandal", and afterward you separately accused me of also being intentionally abrasive. I have no idea what you meant that my referenced information was abrasive, or unless perhaps you were referring to my reason for my updated edit. In which case, I would have to now say that my reasoning in regard to my updated edit, was right on target. 2607:FB91:100B:2D6C:84D3:617C:5031:C149 (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- I was referring to your summary comments, quote: " No need for me to include refs from David Francis book and Hildebrandt book and etc.etc.etc. because the paid contributors here will revert it back to the total nonsense and the no-ref way it was before, anyway." Seems abrasive to me. It also makes it look like the work of an IP vandal, thus my hasty reversal. The article in question is about Cedar Fair, which was formed decades after the first enterprises on the peninsula started. The exact date that those started — which most published experts believe to be 1870 — is not really important to this article.—JlACEer (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- Just saw this. So can Cedar Fair be traced back at all to the companies that ran it during its first 50 years or so? I restored some content with a source, and obviously more expansion would be needed if we continue down this route, but it would seem somewhat odd to me if we didn't talk about Cedar Point's founding and early beginnings in some way if there is a connection at all. Otherwise, we may need a separate article that deals with Cedar Point Pleasure Company and/or G.A. Boeckling Company. We can be very brief about it if we keep it here, because I agree this article should focus on the modern entity Cedar Fair. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- I was referring to your summary comments, quote: " No need for me to include refs from David Francis book and Hildebrandt book and etc.etc.etc. because the paid contributors here will revert it back to the total nonsense and the no-ref way it was before, anyway." Seems abrasive to me. It also makes it look like the work of an IP vandal, thus my hasty reversal. The article in question is about Cedar Fair, which was formed decades after the first enterprises on the peninsula started. The exact date that those started — which most published experts believe to be 1870 — is not really important to this article.—JlACEer (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)