Talk:Cedar Fair: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 04:13, 5 December 2021 editSineBot (talk \| contribs)Bots2,555,318 editsm Signing comment by 2607:FB91:100B:2D6C:84D3:617C:5031:C149 - "→Early history: "Tag: Reverted← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:14, 5 December 2021 edit undo2607:fb91:100b:2d6c:84d3:617c:5031:c149 (talk) →@JlAcer Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web editNext edit →
Line 135:		Line 135:
	:::The comment, "explain why you don't feel my corrections are pertinent" can and should be discussed here. The "IP Vandal" reasoning was already explained on your talk page, and there's a link to that comment here in this thread. If further back and forth is needed concerning that issue, then this is not the appropriate forum to continue that discussion. --] (]) 20:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)		:::The comment, "explain why you don't feel my corrections are pertinent" can and should be discussed here. The "IP Vandal" reasoning was already explained on your talk page, and there's a link to that comment here in this thread. If further back and forth is needed concerning that issue, then this is not the appropriate forum to continue that discussion. --] (]) 20:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
	::::This is the text that was deleted: "] opened in 1870 as a recreational area. The park was developed over the years rarely changing management. The park belonged to the Cedar Point Pleasure Company." YOU (unnamed IP user) DELETED it — NOT ME — YOU. I RESTORED it, then you DELETED it again. It was at that point that I decided the deleted material (1870 beginnings) may not be pertinent and certainly was not worth my time to argue over. This is the problem that we have had in the past. You can't follow along with how things transpired. I never said the information you added was not pertinent. I didn't think the information YOU DELETED needed to remain. That is why I left your edit in place. Do you understand that? YOU DELETED the text, not I. I never stated that anything that you added was not pertinent. I said the deleted text (1870...) may not be pertinent. In any event, I am not going to continue to engage you. You need to step away again. You are clearly not here to improve this article, all you want to do is debate. You take words out of context, you misinterpret others, then you ask questions and demand explanations for things that didn't even happen.] (]) 22:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)		::::This is the text that was deleted: "] opened in 1870 as a recreational area. The park was developed over the years rarely changing management. The park belonged to the Cedar Point Pleasure Company." YOU (unnamed IP user) DELETED it — NOT ME — YOU. I RESTORED it, then you DELETED it again. It was at that point that I decided the deleted material (1870 beginnings) may not be pertinent and certainly was not worth my time to argue over. This is the problem that we have had in the past. You can't follow along with how things transpired. I never said the information you added was not pertinent. I didn't think the information YOU DELETED needed to remain. That is why I left your edit in place. Do you understand that? YOU DELETED the text, not I. I never stated that anything that you added was not pertinent. I said the deleted text (1870...) may not be pertinent. In any event, I am not going to continue to engage you. You need to step away again. You are clearly not here to improve this article, all you want to do is debate. You take words out of context, you misinterpret others, then you ask questions and demand explanations for things that didn't even happen.] (]) 22:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
			::::Since I am probably going to be banned for personal attacks anyway: you are damn right I deleted it, you moron. It was blatantly false, which anyone higher than a moron could have noticed if they had ever bothered to check ANY sources. Duhhhh.
			And by the way, it's hilarious how quickly one Wikipedian total screw-up came instantly to the rescue of Wikipedian screw-up #2....you both are pathetic if either of you believe you are assets to this website. Take a big hint: if you aren't already employed by Cedar Fair to sabotage these Articles, you certainly BOTH ought to be on Cedar Fair's payroll. And no, that's not an insinuation. That's a direct observation due to your own admission that you work for a "trade magazine". Therefore the odds are very high that you are already biased in favor of Cedar Fair and etc., and you should have been automatically restricted from editing anything on Misplaced Pages related to your own employment. And maybe that's exactly why Screw-up #1 rushed to your rescue when you blatantly screwed up when I showed up here. HILARIOUS.

Revision as of 04:14, 5 December 2021

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cedar Fair article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Ohio Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio (assessed as Low-importance).

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors on August 30, 2012.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Amusement Parks: Cedar Fair High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Amusement Parks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Amusement parks on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Amusement ParksWikipedia:WikiProject Amusement ParksTemplate:WikiProject Amusement Parksamusement park
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Cedar Fair Entertainment Company task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Gilroy Gardens

Although Gilroy Gardens was sold to the City of Gilroy, it remains under the operation of the Cedar Fair Entertainment Company, contrary to popular belief.

Gilroy (formerly Bonfante) Gardens is not a Cedar Fair owned park. It is owned by a not for profit board of directors. Cedar Fair does, however, manage the park under a contract with the board that they purchased when they bought out Paramount Parks. I have clarified that fact in the article. Dblevins2 03:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

CoastersNSich (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The Mercury News article appears to be behind a paywall now, and the Gilroy Gardens site (dot org, not dot com) doesn't mention Cedar Falls. I was able to find a reference to Gilroy Gardens on the Cedar Falls official site, though, which I assume to be current. It's not a neutral source, but the best neutral source I could find was a years-old press release, which isn't much better. I've updated the article with the cite. JeffLicquia (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Star Trek: The Experience

Cedar Fair will also be managing this as they will with Bonfonte (as they once did with the KC @ Mall of America). I've edited the article.

Cedar Fair Entertainment Company

While officially the company's name is still Cedar Fair, L.P., they are now referring to themselves as Cedar Fair Entertainment Company, reflecting the fact that they own more than just rides. They also have water parks, live shows, restaurants, two marinas, six hotels, and two campgrounds.

192.85.50.2 22:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Jeff Harper

Peanuts, Politics

Someone might want to incorporate some info about Cedar Fair's parks' use of the Peanuts characters.

Also, does anyone know of any documented political involvement/bias (campaign contributions, etc.) by Cedar Fair? I notice quite a bit of stereotypically conservative tendencies at Worlds of Fun. Among these include the "Cedar Fair Image" of clean-shaven, short-haired males, with no exceptions, and the playing of God Bless America every single night park-wide at closing time. --Xyzzyva 07:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

2010 Ride Additions

The current 2009 section is quickly becoming outdated. Kings Dominion on thier website announced a new ride for 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.121.18.98 (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cf3.png

Image:Cf3.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I am removing the external links to the fan sites for Cedar Fair's parks. These links already appear on each of the parks pages on Misplaced Pages and do not contribute to anything on this page. I am leaving the fan site for Cedar Fair, as that applies to this page.TPOLMike (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Lawsuit and Settlement against Cedar Fair

Not sure if this is capable of being mentioned in the article itself, but recently Cedar Fair is in the midst of settling a lawsuit against a former employee. The settlement amount is $9 million.

Proof and information regarding the lawsuit and settlement is located here: https://www.cedarfairsettlement.com/ssl/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.51.55 (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute Resolution

From what I can discern, there is little bias in the text of the article. In fact, there is little text in which bias could be present. I will remove the tag for neutrality disputes (and the advertorialistic bias claims) in ten days if no one objects. After this time, objections may still be raised, in which case the tag will be reimplemented. The lack of citations and references tag will remain in place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poxywallow (talk • contribs) 02:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

New CEO and References to Charlotte

On October 22, 2017 Cleveland.com discussed the transition of outgoing Cedar Fair CEO Matt Ouimet and incoming CEO Richard Zimmerman... profiling both to some degree and giving some interesting hints toward future projects. Information regarding the transition needs to be added to the article. Additionally it was stated that the new CEO will be based out of the company's corporate offices in Charlotte North Carolina instead of the "Executive Offices" in Sandusky, OH. This statement directly contradicts the sentence in this article that states that Cedar Fair shut down Paramount Park's corporate offices in Charlotte NC in 2006 and relocated operations to Sandusky Ohio. I review the source that was cited in that statement and there is Zero mention of the old Paramount Parks offices being closed in the source. This new information regarding the new CEO implies that the old Paramount Park offices were kept after the acquisition. Additionally based on the wording of this new article it also implies that the old Paramount Park offices were not only kept, but became the companies corporate offices and the office in Sandusky became the companies Executive Office. These discrepancies will need to be corrected. The article can be found here: http://www.cleveland.com/travel/index.ssf/2017/10/outgoing_incoming_cedar_fair_c.html

Changes made. Cedar Fair has regional offices in several states including the former Paramount offices in North Carolina.—JlACEer (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Cedar Fair Entertainment Company → Cedar Fair – per WP:COMMONNAME. The current title is clearly the company's official name, but since the common name of an entity is preferred on Misplaced Pages I am requesting this move. The query "Cedar Fair" -"Cedar Fair Entertainment Company" gets approximately four times as many results as "Cedar Fair Entertainment Company" in a Google News search. Many instances of the latter are straight from press releases anyway. I believe this shows "Cedar Fair" is the common name. Themeparkgc Talk 07:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Support It would match the Six Flags article too.--Astros4477 (talk) 12:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Cedar Fair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Wasserfest at Schlitterbahn Galveston

Should Wasserfest at Schlitterbahn Galveston be counted as indoor waterpark?DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

"Era"????

Are these "Era" time-periods, truly technical divisions? Or are these "Era" divisions merely colloquial references arbitrarily assigned by CP fanatics? Anyway I am sure we can clean up this whole Article along with the CP business-enterprise Article, when time permits. In the interim, I am still attempting to locate a copy of that publication about CP's racist past as mentioned by another editor on the CP talk page. Based upon what that other editor mentioned about its contents, it may very well clear up many of these questions, especially the questionably accurate ones. With any luck, maybe I can acquire copy of it, in time for the mass overhaul needed on both of these Articles, early next year. 2607:FB91:100B:2D6C:84D3:617C:5031:C149 (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

"A period is defined as a large interval of time which has a specific characteristic and is important in history and the life of man. An era is a long period of time which is marked by the beginning and end of a significant event. In most of Asia, an era marks the period of each emperor or king's reign." http://www.differencebetween.net › ... Difference Between Era and Period - Differencebetween.net ------ and WIKIdiff states that "an era is a time period of indeterminate length" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:100B:2D6C:84D3:617C:5031:C149 (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Therefore, not only do these Cedar Fair "era" divisions seem to be arbitrarily assigned by CP fanatics, but the editors here are apparently using the terminology "era" in a very questionable and NON-encyclopedic manner. In the very least, the word "era" should probably not appear in these sub-headings?. NOTE: this Article is not a blog, and if blogging is the actual goal of any editors here, there are other websites designed for that sort of fandom activity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:100B:2D6C:84D3:617C:5031:C149 (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Early history

Per this discussion, apparently there may be a need for broader discussion concerning Cedar Fair's early history. 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)

When Cedar Point refers to its own history (as written by Cedar Fair), it seems to mention and bring up the older entities that were consumed and eventually became absorbed by Cedar Fair. If that's legit, then it would seem to make sense to include the earlier iterations as a prequel historic perspective to give readers some background. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@gonein60: just as a minor technical correction, to my knowledge there was no such company as the Cedar Point Pleasure Company. That seems to be a conflagration of the actual legal name of the Cedar Point Pleasure RESORT Company, which was the predessor company of the "Cedar Point Pleasure Resort Company of Indiana". So be sure to check the David Frances book and etc. for confirmation of these official legal names. It's time these faulty facts get removed at least from Misplaced Pages, wouldn't you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:100B:2D6C:84D3:617C:5031:C149 (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

What are you referring to? The article currently states "Cedar Point Pleasure Resort Company" and "Cedar Point Pleasure Resort Company of Indiana", respectively. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to your above statement,, and also the CEDAR POINT article. Also @gonein60: the odd statement you just now made in your article edit. I am not aware that even Cedar Fair itself claims that any public business operated anywhere upon the CP peninsula in 1873, 1874, 1875, 1876, or 1877. Please let's not be sloppy with wild editing assertions, but if in doubt then instead let common-sense reign. Ok??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:100B:2D6C:84D3:617C:5031:C149 (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

That was simply a typo on my part here. When I restored article content, I got it right. Also feel free to correct it on the Cedar Point article, or discuss it on that talk page if needed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

"the odd statement you just now made in your article edit"

What statement are you referring to and what change are you proposing? The content in the article follows the Francis book source and how it refers to the 1870s as a part of the park's "rustic beginnings". This statement is provided for context, leading up to the formation of CPPRC. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

According to Francis, the popularity of the peninsula "grew slowly" in the 1870s. Your own statement seems quite an embellished leap from that. Such as "success". What 1870s success are you referencing? Not from Francis, nor any other published source that I have seen. Nor does Francis state that any of that "slow growth" occured during 1873-1877. Anyway this article is a technical article about the business proceedings of Cedar Fair. So be sure your editing assertions match what Cedar Fair asserts about their own business predecessors, not what historians said. Reserve the historians' versions for the Cedar Point article. Or if perhaps you discover a discrepancy between Cedar Fair's assertions and other reliable sources, it is your obligation as a Wikipedian, to present the opposing viewpoints here in this Article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:100B:2D6C:84D3:617C:5031:C149 (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

anyway I have already expended too much of my time at the moment, so I must attend to other, and more pressing matters. When I am able to resume here, I will assess what progress has been made. In the meanwhile, it is actually the Cedar Point article which needs more attention, as per my many suggestions there. But it's certainly your prerogative to devote your time to this Cedar Fair article, instead of the article that is probably much more accessed by the public, than this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:100B:2D6C:84D3:617C:5031:C149 (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

oh, in all fairness, I should caution you, that if you decide to do your Misplaced Pages duty and you duly post any conflicting information which would potentially damage Cedar Fair's reputation in any way, they will undoubtedly not like it, and not like you. Perhaps even in a big way. Are you certain that you have the courage to do your Misplaced Pages duty? That's a rhetorical question, obviously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:100B:2D6C:84D3:617C:5031:C149 (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't expect other editors to do the work for you. You just wrote paragraphs over one very small issue, the word "success". If you are able to formulate better phrasing with the passion and time you expend on these talk pages, simply do it. If there's a problem with your attempts, we'll discuss it. It really is that simple. Misplaced Pages is an active work in progress. All editors are encouraged to be bold and fix it themselves instead of just talking about it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

"So be sure your editing assertions match what Cedar Fair asserts about their own business predecessors"

Hard stop. You need to be made aware of WP:PROMOTION which clearly states:

Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources ... Misplaced Pages articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts.

So in other words, we do not base company articles solely on the way they perceive themselves. We include information published by independent, third-party sources. Secondary sources are particularly strong in that regard, as they are one step removed (or more) from the article's subject. If you are saying we should ignore them to protect a company's image, then that of course would be in violation of WP policy. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm saying, that from what I can see, your, both, past activities in the Cedar Point article, demonstrate a biased tilt in favor of Cedar Fair. As a result, I don't expect much actual progress there, or here, from either of you. Prove me wrong. And also, don't pretend that you haven't repeatedly impeded multiple contributors' efforts to constructively edit these Articles, by forcing incessant discussions about edits, where no discussion was ever necessary. Your hypocrisy is so glaring, that I honestly cannot understand why either of you have gotten away with your nonsense for so very very long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:100B:2D6C:84D3:617C:5031:C149 (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe your problem is that you don't like what sources have written, or you don't like the requirements behind what passes as a reliable source on Misplaced Pages. All you have to do is edit where you believe improvement is needed and provide a reliable source to back any new claims not supported by existing sources. You don't need to resort to discussion first. Be bold and edit, and be sure to cite those sources. Also as a reminder, assume good faith is essential here if you really are interested in contributing and collaboration. Comments like "I don't expect much actual progress there, or here, from either of you" contradicts AGF. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

If you need help understanding how to cite on Misplaced Pages, we can help, or you can also ask for assistance at WP:TEA. You can also look over WP:REFB, which even has a video that shows you how it's done. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Forgot to mention earlier, but there's a historical marker inside the park, erected by several entities including Ohio History Connection (formerly The Ohio Historical Society). It says "Cedar Point became a popular beach resort in the late 1870s". Other sources have noted this as well. So I don't think it's a stretch by any imagination to call the park's growth in the 1870s a success. Nevertheless, the statement has been modified to remove that phrase, so this is a moot point for now. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Since I am probably going to be banned for personal attacks anyway: you are damn right I deleted it, you moron. It was blatantly false, which anyone higher than a moron could have noticed if they had ever bothered to check ANY sources. Duhhhh.

And by the way, it's hilarious how quickly one Wikipedian total screw-up came instantly to the rescue of Wikipedian screw-up #2....you both are pathetic if either of you believe you are assets to this website. Take a big hint: if you aren't already employed by Cedar Fair to sabotage these Articles, you certainly BOTH ought to be on Cedar Fair's payroll. And no, that's not an insinuation. That's a direct observation due to your own admission that you work for a "trade magazine". Therefore the odds are very high that you are already biased in favor of Cedar Fair and etc., and you should have been automatically restricted from editing anything on Misplaced Pages related to your own employment. And maybe that's exactly why Screw-up #1 rushed to your rescue when you blatantly screwed up when I showed up here. HILARIOUS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:100B:2D6C:84D3:617C:5031:C149 (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@JlAcer

For JIAcer, regarding your recent deletion of pertinent information which I attempted to post to the Article as corrections to faulty prior edits. Some portions of the faulty text were very pertinent to the article, if, and I stress the word IF, that prior text has 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 asserted on my talk page, 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". Can you please explain your "IP vandal" reasoning, here on this thread? And also please explain why you don't feel that my corrections were pertinent. Also please explain why the former, faulty information is no longer pertinent, because apparently all prior editors accepted that former information as being pertinent, despite being faulty. What now suddenly changes the pertinence of the prior official legal predecessor names of the Cedar Fair company? Thank you. 2607:FB91:100B:2D6C:84D3:617C:5031:C149 (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The comment was explained to you here. We can use this talk page to discuss article content issues including the edits you were trying to make, but it should not be used to discuss a behavioral dispute that you may have or be insinuating. Take that to your talk page, JlACEer's talk page, or to WP:ANI. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@gonein60: all of my above comments were in direct relation to improvement of the article. Including any behavioral issues with others, as you called them. I could care less how someone behaves elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. But, in my opinion, specific behavior in regard to specific subjects surely belongs attached to that same subject, so that other editors of a specific Article are aware of that behavior concerning that specific subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:100B:2D6C:84D3:617C:5031:C149 (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The comment, "explain why you don't feel my corrections are pertinent" can and should be discussed here. The "IP Vandal" reasoning was already explained on your talk page, and there's a link to that comment here in this thread. If further back and forth is needed concerning that issue, then this is not the appropriate forum to continue that discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

This is the text that was deleted: "Cedar Point opened in 1870 as a recreational area. The park was developed over the years rarely changing management. The park belonged to the Cedar Point Pleasure Company." YOU (unnamed IP user) DELETED it — NOT ME — YOU. I RESTORED it, then you DELETED it again. It was at that point that I decided the deleted material (1870 beginnings) may not be pertinent and certainly was not worth my time to argue over. This is the problem that we have had in the past. You can't follow along with how things transpired. I never said the information you added was not pertinent. I didn't think the information YOU DELETED needed to remain. That is why I left your edit in place. Do you understand that? YOU DELETED the text, not I. I never stated that anything that you added was not pertinent. I said the deleted text (1870...) may not be pertinent. In any event, I am not going to continue to engage you. You need to step away again. You are clearly not here to improve this article, all you want to do is debate. You take words out of context, you misinterpret others, then you ask questions and demand explanations for things that didn't even happen.—JlACEer (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Categories: