User talk:AGAR-05

November 2019

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to The Smiler has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: The Smiler was changed by AGAR-05 (u) (t) ANN scored at 1 on 2019-11-28T11:42:48+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm S0091. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, The Smiler, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. S0091 (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Hello, I'm GoneIn60. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to The Smiler have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. GoneIn60 (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Smiler. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: The Smiler was changed by AGAR-05 (u) (t) ANN scored at 1 on 2019-12-03T22:46:54+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary announcement

Hi AGAR-05,

please retract the announcement to continually disrupt Wikipedia in your edit summaries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AGAR-05 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i was blocked for adding true information on the smiler about the marmalisers legs and what they do, apparently that is advertising which I find hard to understand how details about a theming area of a ride is advertising

Decline reason:

Whether the content of your edits was correct or not is largely irrelevant to your block. You are blocked because your behaviour - reverting the article to your preferred version without discussion - was disruptive. In order to be unblocked, you will need to indicate your understanding of this, and explain what you will do to avoid becoming involved in such edit wars in the future. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi AGAR-05, this block is unrelated to the content of your edits. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

AGAR-05 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am unable to remove the edits on The Smiler due to me not being able to edit, I had no intent in starting an edit war and was frustrated at my edit being continually removed after supplying correct information multiple times and the edit was removed one time because I was apparently trying to advertise something which I find very confusing as to how a paragraph about the legs of the marmaliser and what they do can advertise anything. I joined Wikipedia to sort a simple problem on the smiler as it showed that the ride has 4 trains even though it has 5 which now shows on the page and ended up with an over the top indefinite block for adding some extra information. I will not add the marmaliser leg names and details to the page again but as a person who 1. Has been on the smiler and 2 understands lots of things about the ride I think that in the future if anyone has a problem with an edit on the smiler page they should ask me about it on my talk page with a good reason as to why it should not be on the page which would stop edits being continually removed and put back on to the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by AGAR-05 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Thank you very much, AGAR-05. Per our agreement in Special:Diff/930317081 and Special:Diff/930317512, you have been unblocked under the following condition:

 AGAR-05 is prohibited from directly editing The Smiler for a month. Any requested changes to the article need to be proposed at Talk:The Smiler instead.*

*Exceptions apply: See WP:BANEX for allowed edits, but please be extremely careful about these.

In this condition, I have fixed a typography error, interpreted "a month" as the shorter timespan of 30 instead of 31 days, and rounded down the time from the moment you said "yes": The restriction ends at 2020-01-10 17:00 UTC.

After the restriction expires, please do still keep the edit warring policy in mind; when in doubt, please ask or discuss on the talk page instead of reverting another editor's contribution.

As clarified above, the block was unrelated to the content of your edits. That said, an important policy to note here is probably WP:No original research. Personal experience is nice to have, and can be a good foundation, but additions to articles must never rely purely on personal experience. If you request changes at Talk:The Smiler, you should probably ideally provide reliable sources that directly support your proposed additions. If such sources do not exist, it may not be possible to add the text to Wikipedia.

I am sorry for the frustration caused by the block; I hope that my decision is understandable.

Best regards
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AGAR-05, would you agree to a voluntary condition on your unblock? The condition would be:

 "AGAR-05 is prhoibited from directly editing The Smiler for a month. Any requested changes to the article need to be proposed at Talk:The Smiler instead."

~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by AGAR-05 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Your contributions are appreciated, but one of your recent edits to Formula Rossa appears to include original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You may want to have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Furthermore, words like "iconic" shouldn't be used as a way to "puff up" the description. Stick with basic adjectives as described at WP:PEACOCK. Thank you. GoneIn60 (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I see you made recent edits at The Smiler again, wasting no time after your agreed-upon restriction expired. You are again adding content without providing a reliable source. This behavior won't get you very far and will lead you right back to where you were a few weeks ago. I sincerely suggest you visit the Teahouse to seek assistance with understanding some of Wikipedia's fundamentals and core policies, and don't hesitate to ask for help. If you'd like to talk this particular edit over, please begin a new discussion on The Smiler's talk page. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Fury 325, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. GoneIn60 (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just wondering for future edits does adding an address to a site that I found the details from count as a reliable source? AGAR-05 (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When adding information to an article, it's a good idea to provide a reliable source. The easiest way to do this, is to insert the reference as an inline citation. To understand what an inline citation is, read WP:IC. For help understanding the basics of referencing, read WP:REFB. If you still need assistance after reading those, go to the Teahouse to ask for help. Experienced editors are there that can help guide you through some of the basics and answer any questions you might have. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at The Smiler, you may be blocked from editing. GoneIn60 (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it was “dustruptive editing” how has it been at 5 trains on the page for multiple months without question? AGAR-05 (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you want to verify the amount of trains on the smiler please look at the top right of the bumper under the smiler logo on each train, it will say either 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1 or 5.1 meaning train 1,2,3,4 or 5 then row 1 or do a calculation for the rides throughput with 4 trains AGAR-05 (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"...how has it been at 5 trains on the page for multiple months without question?"

Simply because it was missed. You made a series of edits on November 28th as shown at this link, but only one of them was reverted as shown here. This was unintentional, and had other editors noticed it sooner, it would have been reverted long ago. Keep in mind that multiple editors reverted your "5 train" claim on at least 4 occasions prior to this last one sneaking in. You previously exhibited edit-warring behavior and were required to take a month off of the article to lift a block. You were also advised by ToBeFree to cite reliable sources for future edits. Yet, you returned on March 7 putting the same claim back in without a source (diff). At this point, you need to discuss this at Talk:The Smiler and list the published source(s) that agree with your claim.

"..please look at the top right of the bumper under the smiler logo on each train"

I'm sorry, but that's not how it works. In order to verify claims, editors rely on citations/references in the article. Please read Reliable sources guideline to learn more about what is and isn't acceptable, and also see WP:CITE for more information on how to insert citations. When you're ready, discuss your proposal and sources at the article's talk page. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would asking Alton towers on Twitter be a reliable link since the answer would be directly from the park? AGAR-05 (talk) 09:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia prefers secondary, independent sources. An official confirmed Twitter account may be an acceptable source for some statements (WP:ABOUTSELF). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And specifically, you can read WP:Twitter-EL. It's just an essay, but it's spot on. Wikipedia follows the sources, and the problem with Twitter is that it's not generally a reliable, long-term way to publish information. It would be taken under consideration, however. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be alright if I add a track tab to the Intamin and Gerstlauer pages with some info about what track they use for example the flat lattice triangular lattice and square lattice AGAR-05 (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just got a reply from the official Alton towers resort twitter saying that the smiler does infact have 4 trains, before this I thought it still had 5 trains but they must have removed one after the crash (possibly the train that had the passengers in it due to the damage) AGAR-05 (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

just so you are aware i added a trains tab to the smiler page, source - i got the information directly from the official alton towers resort twitter account

I don't think you're getting it. You asked a simple question, "How many trains does the Smiler have?" The answer you received was "The Smiler has 4 trains". You then proceeded to insert this (diff):

when The Smiler opened it featured 5 trains but has now been reduced to 4 trains due to the 2015 crash. due to the damage caused when trains 3 and 4 collided they were both scrapped and 1 new train was ordered from Gerstlauer which became train 4

None of that has been verified by a reliable source. And again, you didn't provide a citation with your edit. I strongly recommend you take a step back from editing on Wikipedia and click this link, WP:TWA. That will take you to an editing tutorial guide that will show you the basics. Afterwards, if you still need help with citing references, click this link: WP:TEA. That is a forum for new members where you can ask pretty much anything. Once you feel comfortable with the basics, go back to the Smiler talk page at Talk:The Smiler and post any proposed changes you might have. An experienced editor can give you feedback on whether it's acceptable, and if so, can help you insert it into the article. Please do not continue to add questionable content to the article in the meantime. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question, if I put info about the smiler like the trains being scrapped on my page (AGAR-05) will that be able to stay there or does it need a reliable source AGAR-05 (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you respond on a talk page, be sure to indent your responses with colons (:). I've been indenting for you. To answer your question, it's not generally a good idea to include original research on your user page that virtually has no chance of ever being added to an article. Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site. You can read more about how to properly use your user page at WP:USER. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you are aware and can check it I have added a 2020 refurbishment tab to the vampire, I have added this “ During the 2019/2020 winter closed season Vampire was refurbished with new queue line theming, an overhaul of the animatronic that plays the organ in the ride station, new chains for both lifthills and an update to the rides theme and announcements.” AGAR-05 (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no citation or footnote at the end of the sentence. Do you know how to add one? Click this link and read it: WP:REFB#Inserting a reference. I think it will help you understand what we're asking for and will show you how to add one. The sentence you added at Vampire (roller coaster) needs to have a reference cited. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the sentence for now, since I'm not sure when you'll get back to this. It's in the page history and can always be restored once you have a citation. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok AGAR-05 (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: September 2020

You have attempted again to insert contested information about the number of trains into The Smiler article. This is unacceptable behavior that you're well aware of. You should be discussing this on Talk:The Smiler and waiting for consensus before inserting this information again. Continued disruption at this article will not be tolerated. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is it contested if the park has officially confirmed the number of trains on the ride, you did say that you saw that tweet I sent them about how many trains the ride has and they said it has 4 AGAR-05 (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is an important policy you're overlooking here: No Original Research. To investigate something on your own and then cite the response you receive is a form of original research and cannot be accepted. What I told you before is that Twitter is "not generally a reliable, long-term way to publish information". It can be taken under consideration when it is complemented by other reliable sources, but it should not be cited on its own in most cases.

After looking over your edit again, it looks like you were simply changing the infobox to show 4 trains. This is actually acceptable, since it agrees with RCDB. I've modified the article to reflect this. However, please do not attempt to insert unsourced information about it having 5 trains originally. That would need more than a Twitter chat to be included. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok AGAR-05 (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]