Ridelover71504

October 2015

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Cedar Point, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. GoneIn60 (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Cedar Point

First of all, if you read the entire sentence in the lead section, it says "Other attractions near the park...", so that would include Castaway Bay. It is not incorrect to leave that intact. Also, read the ENTIRE history section. The 2nd paragraph mentions 1870 during Cedar Point's early existence. It didn't become an amusement park until the 1897 purchase. Prior to that, it was a summer picnic grove destination as described in the text. Keep in mind that the summary in the article is taken from reliable sources which are cited throughout the article. This is an important part of Wikipedia (see WP:V and WP:CITE for more information). When you add/change information, make sure it's accurately reflected in the sources. If it's not, then you are expected to cite the sources you are getting the information from. Your efforts are appreciated, but please consider discussing the issue on the article's talk page, especially when multiple editors have reverted your edits. We strive for consensus when there is a dispute. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Cedar Point. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. McDoobAU93 13:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cedar Point. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. GoneIn60 (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

May 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cedar Point. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. RunnyAmiga (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

IronGargoyle (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ridelover71504, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

TJH2018talk 00:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)