User talk:DReifGalaxyM31
|
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
Orphaned non-free image File:Howard 09.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Howard 09.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 10[edit]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Harlem Line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hudson Line.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Six Flags
Please refrain from editing Six Flags until after the move discussion has been closed.DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Ongoing disruption[edit]
DReifGalaxyM31, there have been multiple attempts over the years (dating as far back as 2014) to explain some of the mistakes you are making in your efforts to contribute to a vast number of articles. Edits like this one have several issues, including the introduction of unsourced claims and the addition of unencyclopedic descriptions of scenic views which are subjective in nature. Then there's edits like this one at Kings Island, where you changed the link to reflect the current name, although the context of the sentence refers to the name of the park in 1989. You probably meant well, but these changes are not helpful and have been reverted.
Several editors, including myself, have made it clear we are here to assist you and have even advised that there are places you can go to seek additional help, such as the Teahouse, where experienced editors can answer any questions you might have. Despite the multiple attempts to reach out and assume good faith, you have never responded, not once. This has led to escalation at ANI, followed by two blocks, and then some additional warnings. Please start responding here on your talk page (or article talk pages) when issues are brought to your attention, or make an effort to ask for assistance. Continuing to ignore these warnings will lead to swift action considering your editing history. Again, feel free to reach out to me here or on my talk page if there's anything I can do to help. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- I digress that communication isn't really my greatest skillset, and given some personality things of mine, I also have a bad habit of not realizing when my actions might come off the wrong way. This is something I struggle with a lot both in real life and online. DReifGalaxyM31 (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Completely understand, but hopefully you are noticing the alert notifications when edits are being reverted and the edit summary comments explaining why. I've noticed that despite the explanation sometimes, you'll repeat similar edits on other articles. I do see that you contribute in other realms, such as subjects dealing with ski resorts, railways, and air travel, as seen in edits like these: 1, 2, and 3. So I'm sure there are a lot of beneficial edits you're making to other areas on Wikipedia.Just remember when it comes to ride descriptions to treat them like plot summaries for books and film. They don't necessarily require inline citations unless you add a specific measurement or claim (such as "block brakes" in that Beast edit). You should also avoid adding subjective observations about the view while riding or objects that riders will pass, unless the objects were intended to be seen by riders. For example on The Beast at Kings Island, it makes sense to mention the mineshaft prop, but the empty location where Vortex once stood makes less sense. Typical details like "left turn", "drop", etc., are all straight-forward, objective descriptions that are fine to add. Hopefully that helps and thanks for responding. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- That certainly helps. DReifGalaxyM31 (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Completely understand, but hopefully you are noticing the alert notifications when edits are being reverted and the edit summary comments explaining why. I've noticed that despite the explanation sometimes, you'll repeat similar edits on other articles. I do see that you contribute in other realms, such as subjects dealing with ski resorts, railways, and air travel, as seen in edits like these: 1, 2, and 3. So I'm sure there are a lot of beneficial edits you're making to other areas on Wikipedia.Just remember when it comes to ride descriptions to treat them like plot summaries for books and film. They don't necessarily require inline citations unless you add a specific measurement or claim (such as "block brakes" in that Beast edit). You should also avoid adding subjective observations about the view while riding or objects that riders will pass, unless the objects were intended to be seen by riders. For example on The Beast at Kings Island, it makes sense to mention the mineshaft prop, but the empty location where Vortex once stood makes less sense. Typical details like "left turn", "drop", etc., are all straight-forward, objective descriptions that are fine to add. Hopefully that helps and thanks for responding. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)