Wackyike

Welcome!

Hello, Wackyike! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Dom497 (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Millennium Force

Ok, we haven't gotten off to the best start together so I'm suggesting we start fresh. Just between you and me, I want to solve this MF problem. You start with your opinion, and I'll state mine and go from there. :) --Dom497 (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that there is no clear cut answer. RCDb.com doesn't say what kind it is. I do not believe it is a twister(you made a good point about it only intersecting twice), however, I still believe it's a terrain coaster. When I think of an out and back, I believe it only goes directly out to a specific point to turn around 180 degrees(either straight or in an L shape), and comes directly back. I also believe they take up a long, but not wide area, like Nitro or Blue Streak.Wackyike (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've reverted your change to Millennium Force stating that "it is still the longest" at Cedar Point, as it changes the meaning of the sentence. This sentence conveys that although Millennium Force is not the tallest or fastest in the world, it remains "one of" the tallest and fastest in the world and is at the top of these lists. By changing to the longest at Cedar Point, it changes the meaning of the sentence to only being relevant to the coasters at Cedar Point and not world-wide, thus appearing to diminish the status of Millennium Force. Let me know if you have any questions.FirstDrop87 (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Here to help!

I have seen your edits and I just want to clarify some things. Make sure when your changing statistics to a ride, you double check with RCDB. I have reverted some edits that go against what RCDB says. It looks like we share an interest in amusement parks and Cedar Point so if you need any help, feel free to leave a message on my talk page.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 20:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

@Astros4477: I have edited based on the park website. What's wrong with that?Wackyike (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

We usually don't go by the statistics on the park's website and go by what the Roller Coaster DataBase says. It is more consistent.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 21:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

@Astros4477: But the park's website is a reliable source, right? If RCDb.com is reliable, then shouldn't the times be the same?Wackyike (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It should be, I have just found the park's website to be incorrect in the past. All parks measure the time from different points in the ride so to keep it consistent, we usually just go by what RCDB says.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 21:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You could also go even further and say that the park's website is a primary source which isn't the "favourable option" even though we use them often (Wikipedia aims for as many secondary sources as possible)--Dom497 (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

@Dom497: How come Wikipedia prefers secondary sources over primary? Is it because of notability?Wackyike (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You may want to read WP:PS if you haven't already. It will give you a better understanding of why secondary sources are typically more reliable than primary, and thus, why Wikipedia prefers them. Primary sources can be used, but usually that's when a secondary source for the information doesn't exist. As Astros4477 points out, different parks may have different ways of measuring ride time. Sticking with RCDB for all roller coaster articles provides more consistency. Hope that helps! --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: I saw how they are used because of notability and misinterpretations, but I don't understand what you mean when secondary sources and more reliable than primary. The primary sources are the main source, so shouldn't it be the other way around?Wackyike (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand the confusion. You would think that since a primary source is a first-hand account, it would be the most reliable. However, one event could have multiple first-hand accounts that differ from one another. Think of a car accident. Multiple eyewitnesses may have a slightly different recollection about what happened. A police officer would gather the facts from each viewpoint before drawing a conclusion. The eyewitnesses, of course, are primary sources. The police officer's conclusion is a secondary source. A secondary source has the advantage of being "one step removed" from an event, and by using multiple primary sources, there's less chance of bias in their analysis. Secondary sources are also more likely to be published, meaning it had editorial oversight. Therefore, when we have the choice, we prefer secondary sources. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Modified my statement above. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: I noticed you reverted my last edit to Wicked Twister. On some roller coaster articles, the location of the ride is included in the article. I do not understand what I did wrong with that edit.Wackyike (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The information about Wicked Twister being located next to Gatekeeper doesn't belong in the opening. The lead should provide a brief intro and summarize the main aspects of an article. What if another editor wanted to say a ride was located next to a hot dog stand, or the bumper cars? Does it really add value to a ride article? In my opinion, it does not, and certainly wouldn't be important enough to be mentioned in the lead. If you can find a place for it in the body of the article, then I'd probably drop my opposition to it, though I'd still feel it was unnecessary. Right now, the "History" and "Ride experience" sections aren't good places for it, and creating a new section just to mention a nearby ride wouldn't be very productive. It's fine to mention the section of the park that a ride is in, but it becomes completely subjective when describing nearby rides (e.g., which ones do you leave out, do we update the article every time a new ride is added or removed nearby, etc.) --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Offering adoption

Hey Wackyike, I'm MrScorch6200 and I am offering you adoption! If you would like me to adopt you, please say so! --MrScorch6200 (t c) 03:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

@MrScorch6200: Sure.Wackyike (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice! Any questions you have for me you can ask. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 23:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

@MrScorch6200:How does this adoption work? Where do I ask the questions?Wackyike (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Right now I am setting up a place for you and my other adoptee, Chrismorey, to collaborate and ask questions. I'll get back to both of you in a few when I'm finished. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 23:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've very sorry I missed seeing your kind offer for several years, but I've been very inactive in Wikipedia and I fear it's going to stay that way for the foreseeable future Chrismorey (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Help me

Are you allowed to delete other users' messages from your talk page(like warnings for vandalism or something similar)?Wackyike (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's taken as evidence of having seen them. Notices concerning active editing restrictions, such as blocks, may not be removed, though. See WP:BLANKING. Huon (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand that some websites have a consensus that they're reliable(like RCDB). Where can I go to find them?Wackyike (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, if you have a question about a specific source, you can go to the reliable source noticeboard and search the archives. If there is no mention of the source and you're curious, you can start a new discussion at that site to get a consensus going. Hope that helped! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

In wikiproject amusement parks, do you know which websites have a consensus that they're reliable?Wackyike (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It would probably be best to ask that at the WikiProject's talk page. Some WikiProjects keep a list of commonly used reliable sources, but at a glance I didn't see anything of that kind at WikiProject Amusement Parks. Of course WP:RS covers all topics and can also be used to judge sources. Huon (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

On BLPs, do all citations need to be inline? Also, can a banned user have its ban lifted if he/she can prove to be helpful to Wikipedia by removing BLP violations since they're allowed to?Wackyike (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb is that BLPs should have as much citation as possible. An article that is a BLP will not be deleted if it has sources but no in-line citations, however any potentially contentious or libelous content may be deleted on a line-by-line basis should that particular comment not have an in-line citation. Try reading Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

As for editors who have been banned, they can appeal the ban by contacting the Arbitration Committee (arbcom-appeals-enlists.wikimedia.org) after one year (if their ban is indefinite) or after a period of time normally stipulated by the ArbCom when the ban is put in place. Wikipedia:Banning policy contains such info. Regards, --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you allowed to revert BLP violations on pages with the 1RR or 0RR even if you exceed the limit (per WP:IAR)?

Yes and no. BLP violations are exempt from revert restrictions, but what qualifies as a BLP violation can be disputed. Save in cases so libellous/promotional as to pretty much qualify as vandalism, it's probably better to revert once and then take it to the BLP noticeboard for discussion. And if there's a source, even a weak one, then you're probably not going to be exempted from the revert rules under an argument of BLP compliance. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Adoption

Hi, I've created this page for you and my other adoptee. Please view it, bookmark it, and fill out anything it asks under your user name. Thanks. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 01:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC) This is a general message; sorry that it is not personal.

A message that I ask you to read

In the 3 years that I've been here, I have only ran into one user who was new and didn't quite understand how Wikipedia worked...but he was willing to learn and listened to our advice. In fact, several users were involved in trying to teach him. In the end, things didn't work out and he ultimately left Wikipedia, but that was only because some users suggested him to come back later (I believe he was actually a very young person in reality). Why am I telling you this? Because I would really love for you to be like him (except that part of leaving). I would love for you to listen to our advice. I would love for you to learn. I would love for you to understand what we are trying to do for you. Me, Astros4477, JIACer, GoneIn60, and FirstDrop87 have all tried to give you advice that you would be able to use in your future edits. But really....lets be honest....what have you really done? You have been ignoring us, causing more trouble than good. I know you think you right and I not once so ever hold that against you...we all think we are right; that's just how society works. And I can also see how some things we have said may have caused some misunderstanding. Yes, we said RCDB is reliable, however, it is not the bible. There are certain things that RCDB does and somethings that it doesn't. I've talked to the person who runs RCDB several times and he has a life...he can't update everything and get such precious information. Right now, he's working on getting the website to be more unique then just state the obvious facts. A very good example of this would be if Banshee is testing or not. RCDB does not list rides as "testing" [1]. Preciously why? I cannot tell you. However, there are some many other newspapers (that are just as reliable) and even a video released by Kings Island showing Banshee testing. In this case, RCDB does not go in depth to give the exact status of the ride and that's just how it works. But anyway, my point is that we are all here to help you and you can't just look at one source and assume what it says rules over everything else. You have made edits that help improve articles but there are the other edits that at one point may have been under good-faith, but now I'm just seeing as nonsense. I ask you, please give us a chance to help you become a better editor....trust me, you should of seen the crazy things I did when I first came to Wikipedia. Other user's helped me out, specifically Themeparkgc. And to this day, I am still learning. I still ask him questions and he gives me answers that help me become a better editor.

I hope you read this entire message and maybe this will create another perspective of Wikipedia. I'm here to help...we are all here to help.--Dom497 (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@Dom497: You are right about most of the stuff above, however, "we are all here to help", isn't. My adopter stopped answering my questions a while back. I believe it's because I used the help me program to answer questions when I wanted the answers more quickly (I wasn't aware that was against policy).Wackyike (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Well yes, but I will avoid talking about that because that opens a whole new can of worms (I'll at least be here to help :) ). But thanks for your understanding with everything else. :) --Dom497 (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Wackyike, please make sure you still read the section above. Thanks.--Dom497 (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For doing a great job editing, congrats! Lixxx235 (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Wackyike (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Measurement Conversions

Hey Wackyike, I just saw the recent edits you made to Inverted coaster and I wanted to let you know that when including lengths, heights, speeds, etc, it's good practice to use Template:Convert. If you need to help understanding it, take a look at Nitro (Adlabs Imagica) or ask me. :) --Dom497 (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for showing me that. I'll try to use it when needed.Wackyike (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Roller coaster articles

Thanks for going through a lot of them and updating ride times. Would you mind using the edit summary in the future just making a note of what you did? For example, "Updated ride times per RCDB". It would make it much easier on myself and others when you edit a large amount of articles in a short period of time. Thank you! --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to remember to do that.Wackyike (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Starting CVUA

Hi Wackyike, I had started the counter vandalism academy page as a subpage of my Talk Page. Get ready for some training!
TheQ Editor (Talk) 02:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Click Here

Wonder Mountain's Guardian

@Dom497: I'm not sure why you reverted my edits to Wonder Mountain Guardian's page.Wackyike (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I just realized that the park took away Fast Lane for WMG. But regarding the track length, that is a rounded off number of what the actual length is (news sources say the actual length... or at least the planned length...).--Dom497 (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Your Recent Edits

Hey Wackyike,

I have some things that I want to let you know:

1) A Hyper Coaster is the name of a B&M model. Hypercoaster is the name based off height. (Technically, even Leviathan is a Hyper Coaster).

2) I have reverted a few of your recent edits or modified them slightly. BEFORE REVERTED THEM, please review the changes I made and if you would like an explanation of why I did what I did, just ping me here. Two of the most common things I reverted/changed was the "... - Custom" you added to the models of some B&M coasters. This isn't really need as only if the coaster has been cloned it becomes "its own model". Also, please remember to use capitals and spaces where appropriate.

3) Remember what I told you before...RCDB is not the bible. Not everything has to be included based of the one website and just because it calls non-cloned roller coasters as "Customs", that doesn't mean we have to do it here.

Remember, if you have any questions just ping me! Thanks!--Dom497 (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dom497:One question. On Wikipedia roller coaster articles, how do we define hypercoasters? I noticed that there are different definitions on what a hypercoaster is at its respective Wikipedia page.Wackyike (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand exactly what you are asking but I'll try; let me know if I didn't answer the question!

The definition in the Hypercoaster article is correct. In articles, I generally don't say that its a Hypercoaster; rather its specific model. If the height parameters is inputted in the roller coaster infobox, the template automatically categorizes the roller coaster into its respective classification (hyper, giga, strata, etc). And just as a little fun fact, hyper/giga/strata are all Cedar Fair terms that have become worldwide terms (Kingda Ka is actually a "Accelerator Coaster without Inversions" according to Intamin)

Example: "Leviathan is a steel Hyper Coaster roller coaster at...." --> I don't say "Leviathan is a steel Giga roller coaster at..."--Dom497 (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dom497:What I was asking is do we define a hypercoaster solely by height or if other factors determine what a hyper coaster is. For example, Xcelerator could be considered one, depending on how Wikipedia defines a hypercoaster.Wackyike (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. The template defines the classification solely off of the height...I know this shouldn't be the case as Xcelerator is apparently a Hypercoaster (even though it goes against the definition of a hypercoaster per the hypercoaster article...). I tried once to get this changed but nothing ever came of it. You can try contacting Themeparkgc or leaving a message on the WikiProject talk page (and pinging a few people) to bring up the issue and see if the template can be changed. I just looked at the code that categorizes the article and it shouldn't be too hard to fix (just need to create a new parameter such as "Is coaster launched = yes/no"...I just don't want to do anything until everyone agrees.--Dom497 (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dom497:One more question, what is the policy about archiving discussions on the Wikiproject Amusement Parks talk page?Wackyike (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Ummm, as far as I know, there isn't much of a policy. A bot archives the topic if its been inactive for over 6 months (I find this time frame kinda excessive but it can be changed easily).--Dom497 (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Themeparkgc:Do you know if the template can be changed as per above?Wackyike (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess we have three options:

1. Categorise coasters on a case-by-case basis manually, removing those that don't meet the criteria for the categories
2. Scrap this categorisation tree altogether. Reasons being:

• They all originated from Cedar Fair marketing department
• If a Polercoaster gets built, will there be Category:Polercoasters? If so, will subsequent coasters exceeding 400 feet also be labelled Polercoasters?
• We could have categories for manufacturer models without confusion, e.g. Category:Hyper Coasters for B&M, Category:Giga Coasters for Intamin, etc

1. Invent new parameters which we will need to go and add to every infobox to handle the specifics of height-based categorisation.

I'm thinking we ditch the automatic height categorisation from the infobox, with the above list being my order of preference. What do @Dom497: and @Wackyike: think? Themeparkgc  Talk  01:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@Themeparkgc: Ok, so here's what I'm thinking:

1. Doing this would take a long time, there are over 700 articles that we would have to adjust manually.
2. Honestly, I'm all for this.
3. Same issue as number 1.

The only efficient way I see to do numbers 1 or 3 is to create a bot and number 2 makes much more sense.

I am fine with whatever you guys decide.Wackyike (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Invertigo

@Dom497:I see you reverted my edit to the Invertigo roller coaster page. The park's website doesn't say Stinger is currently SBNO, nor does RCDB. Usually the park's website says when a ride is not operating.Wackyike (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I've updated the article to reflect that the status is unknown.--Dom497 (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@GoneIn60:I understand why you reverted that edit I made to Invertigo (roller coaster). However, if you notice here http://rcdb.com/r.htm?ot=5&st=313&page=5it says that the Arrow Dynamics custom looping coasters (ex. Corkscrew at Cedar Point) are still in production when that company is defunct. Doesn't that question the reliability about the claim on rcdb about whether Invertigos are still being made (even when they don't appear to be on Vekoma's website)?Wackyike (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

This is the same issue we have with small, insignificant rides at amusement parks. When their removal isn't reported by a reliable source, it's more difficult to get them out of the "current attractions" list. Not being present on a website isn't enough to reach the conclusion of "discontinued". Doing so would be crossing the line with WP's policy on original research.

Most likely, you're right though. Vekoma only released a batch of these in the late 90s and none since. However, the status should remain "In production" or have no status at all. No status might be the better compromise here until a source is found for discontinued. Putting a note on the talk page when you make potentially controversial changes like this is also a good idea. It gives others the notion that you're acting in good faith. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, Wackyike, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. I noticed that you started using WP:Stiki recently and made a few edits with it. I wanted to know your opinion of the tool, including the interface as well as your experience with it. Thanks, happy editing. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Rsrikanth05: The tool is very good. What I would prefer is the ability to choose the warning so that when I revert a revision I don't have to get on Twinkle to warn the user who made the bad edit. Other than that it's very good.Wackyike (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you.

	The roller coaster booster Award.
	For all your hard work improving roller coaster related articles. I officially present to you this award. TheQ Editor (Talk) 18:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for my second barnstar!Wackyike (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

I'm glad to see you as a reviewer! MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 22:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!Wackyike (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

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) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 13:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

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

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Wackyike. 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)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RSW. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Wackyike. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Wackyike. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Amusement Park notification

There are recently-posted discussions at WikiProject Amusement Parks you may be interested in contributing to, located here: WT:WikiProject Amusement Parks. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: You are receiving this notification, because you are listed as a participant of WikiProject Amusement Parks.

WikiProject Amusement Parks discussion

Hello Wackyike! Your input is requested for a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks#Draft proposal for the future of WP:APARKS. Any feedback is welcome. Thank you.

You are receiving this message as your username is listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Amusement Parks/Participants

Adog (Talk・Cont) 02:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Amusement Parks reliable source discussion

Hi, Wackyike. Your input is requested at WikiProject Amusement Parks, as there is a discussion about the reliability of some sources which can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amusement Parks#Reliable source discussion. Thank you!

Note: You recieved this notification because you are listed as a participant for WikiProject Amusement Parks.

Harobouri ^{T • C (he/him)} 17:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)