User talk:JlACEer/Archive 1
 | 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 150 years
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 151st season is the 150th anniversary. See Cedar Point's 150th video. You don't need to dwell on the fact that it has not been in operation for 150 consecutive years. The page was fine the way it was written.—JlACEer (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- ...so you are essentially saying that if a married-couple divorces...and then if they re-marry each other 10 years later, that they therefore get to legitimately claim their ORIGINAL marriage date as the basis for their ‘anniversary’. Sorry, bud, but it just doesn’t work that way in the real world. [...sorry...not the best analogy....because in the case of Cedar Point resort....they are basically claiming SOMEONE ELSE’S ‘anniversary’ date, as their own.....the ‘anniversary’ of a business enterprise which DIED, but was later RESURRECTED a decade later by other, totally different, businessmen]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B146:8817:2428:E767:5385:B93F (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not saying anything of the sort. I'm just pointing out that your claim that Cedar Point hasn't marketed 150 years is in error. Clearly they have. Did you even look at the video? The fact that this was a different business has already been addressed within the article.—JlACEer (talk) 19:02, 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)
- I suggest you look again, I didn't delete it. I'm not getting into an edit war with someone who won't even bother to take the time to learn how the site works, or even bother to look at the page before replying. I also told you where to go if you needed help, but evidently, that was too much trouble as well. The citation — if you want to call it that — is still on the page. If someone else wants to fix it, they can. However, I suspect a clean-up bot will be along soon to delete it automatically.—JlACEer (talk) 20:10, 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)
- Yes, the first time, because you screwed up the page; so no, I was not going to put it back. I gave you an opportunity to enter a proper citation or to ask for help. Instead, you did the exact same thing and left the page a mess. The question you posed above is "WHY do YOU keep deleting a valid reference, there." I didn't "keep" deleting it — I did it once and when you put it back I left it there, which is precisely what I told you. As I explained, I'm not going to get into an edit war with you and I'm not going to keep engaging someone who can't even remember what they wrote. Learn how to read, learn to properly engage in a conversation, learn how to use the site, and stop wasting my time.—JlACEer (talk) 21:37, 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)
- That was not a valid citation and that is why I removed it. Stop asking me to fix your edits. You have been nothing but combative since your very first post. I might have been willing to help at one point but that ship has sailed. You need to learn to work with editors instead of constantly challenging them. Perhaps you can find another editor willing to help, but I am through with you. The other alternative would be to actually learn how to use the site yourself instead of wasting time arguing with everyone.—JlACEer (talk) 22:29, 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)
- I was trying to ignore you, but instead, you insist on attacking me personally. I stand by everything I have posted. I merely quoted CP's marketing materials because you seemed to be confused with the difference between 150 seasons and a 150th anniversary. I still advocate that we need to be cautious when using material from any park's marketing department. And for the record, I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment that the park has not been in continual operation for 150 years, but you have gone about this all wrong.—JlACEer (talk) 23:59, 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)
- The place to have that discussion would be the Talk:Cedar Point page, which is where I tried to direct you multiple times. Instead, you decided to bring your arguments to my personal page, despite the fact that I was not the first person who changed your CP edit.—JlACEer (talk) 01:54, 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)
Update
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)