Talk:Falcon's Fury

Acceleration?
How can the acceleration be 3.5 Gs? Free fall will result in an acceleration of 1 G by definition. TundraGreen (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The Gs are probably coming from when riders hit the brake-run (similar to when the parachute opens while skydiving?)...even if just a split second.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 00:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If we do not know the figure should not be in here. What are we telling our readers? It is in the text, with refs.  it should say maximum acceleration thpough.Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent Edits/Reverts
Welcome to Wikipedia, I appreciate you both trying to help improve this article but the edits you have made don't meet Wikipedia's requirements.


 * Lambourghini: I understand that you think the picture you keep trying to put in the article is perfectly OK, however, it is not. Anything uploaded to Facebook belongs to Facebook and therefore is licensed under full copyright. You can read this article for more info. Also, the picture you have uploaded has been deleted twice so I ask you not to upload it again. As I said on your talk page, there are several pictures on Flickr that can be used, its just a matter of contacting the people who uploaded them and asking them to change the license(s) to one that is allowed on Wikipedia.


 * AshtonAdair1999: I see that you may know some more precise information about the stats of the ride then what has been released to the newspapers. Unfortunately, this is considered original research and should not be present in any Wikipedia article. For example, you may know that the actual speed of the ride is 61 mph, however, 60mph is the published speed and we have to use that as that is what Busch Gardens has said as well as the newspapers. In other words, there is no way to tell if you are lying or telling the truth (I am NOT assuming that you lied) which is the main reason the info you keep adding to the article is not allowed.

If either of you have any questions, please post them here and I will respond as soon as I can. Also, before reverting edits, please post here why you think it should be reverted so we don't end up reverting each other's edits (like we're doing now).-- Dom497 ( talk ) 22:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Adding Quote To Article
I want to place a quote (similar to the SheiKra article) under the "Ride experience" section. When I tried to do that, the quote ended up displaying in the reference section. Everything I've tried hasn't worked. Any ideas?

-- Dom497 ( talk ) 14:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The quote box has been placed in the "Ride experience" section and seems to work okay. Let me know if you have any more problems with it.  Of course, you should be able to place it anywhere you want. –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 15:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * On my computer the quote box is still showing up in the reference section. To everyone else I pinged, where do you see the quote box?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 20:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * For me, it shows up at the bottom of the "Reception" section, just above "References". Using widescreen monitor, too. Any thought of moving it into the "History" section? -- McDoob  AU93  21:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Even when I do that, it's still in the reference section.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 21:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Try this: remove most all of the optional parameters, leaving just the "Quote" and "Source" fields. When I did that during an edit test, it appeared in the proper section. Then, you can try and find out what parameter is breaking it. -- McDoob  AU93  21:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Tried that and I'm still getting the same result...-- Dom497 ( talk ) 13:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, have you thought about trying a different format? Take a look at this diff and how the quote was entered as part of the prose, but is still segregated out. This might be a better option. -- McDoob AU93  13:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I thought of doing that before but I've never been a fan of that style. Either way, I'll change it for now and re-open the help request to see if anyone can fix the template. Thanks for your help!-- Dom497 ( talk ) 13:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's technically possible to enforce the quote box being in the right section by use of the clear template, but that will create a lot of whitespace. An alternative would be to try and fiddle with the number, size and/or placement of the images. Huon (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I was just thinking the exact same thing. I just realized that the images were techinally placed in the History section so the quote box was getting pushed down to the end of the 3rd image. I moved all the images below the quote box and the box now shows where I've wanted. Thanks for everyone's help and suggestions!-- Dom497 ( talk ) 17:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit to correct CS1 errors
Please explain how the link to this FAA report is incorrect? It is clearly marked with the case number, 2013-ASO-1842-OE, and so appears to be the correct report. Please help me to understand. Is the FAA in the habit of incorrectly labeling their reports? –  Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 09:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Gotta go with Dom497 on this one. I clicked on the link you provided here and the one you added to the article that Dom undid. Both take me to the same case number and permit number. And the project is the same too ... a transmission line for the Tennessee Valley Authority, not a tower ride for Busch Gardens Tampa. -- McDoob  AU93  13:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's what I think happened. Even as an enthusiast it still amazes me how much power amusement parks have. When the file saying that the tower was supposed to be built in 2013 was discovered I see the possibility that Busch asked the FAA to remove the file to keep the ride a secret for the time being. Then, the FAA simply gave the same ID to another project to help cover it up or just because the file technically no longer exists in public records. When I first added the reference to the article, the file did not exist. I spent an hour or two going through internet and FAA archives trying to figure out the ID and the closest I got to figuring it out was when I found an ID (located for the Tampa area) that listed the exact same height measurements as the current file; so I just assumed that it must be for Falcon's Fury.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 13:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * They don't have that much power. Using the park's coordinates, I did another search and found it here, instead here, for reals (the first was for the temporary permit for the construction crane). -- McDoob  AU93  13:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The second link you provided is ref 11. The file for ref 10 is gone...long gone. Only proof that it every existed is here which isn't the most reliable source to use.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 13:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Now I see the issue, so here's my two cents. Something seems bogus with the ParkRumors info. The FAA doesn't issue a permit, then rescind it and give the number to a completely different project in another state. Once the permit number is issued, that's it. Further, why would they include the old permit number if they had reissued it? Based on the relative unreliability of the parent source (ParkRumors), I think this entire sentence may be suspect and should be removed. -- McDoob  AU93  14:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm going to go on the defense regarding the removal of the sentance. Remember that I said I assumed the case number...I could be wrong. With that, maybe we should re-name the ref to the case ID of the url (ParkRumors FAA link). There is no denying that the permit existed at some point becuase I don't think ParkRumors would create a fake permit...-- Dom497 ( talk ) 15:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Further digging. Paine had the number wrong (2013, when it should be 2012). Researching the proper number takes me to a page saying the permit was superseded by the 2013 permit. So it did exist, yes, but it's been replaced. As to ParkRumors, they're not a reliable source, which doesn't mean they made it up, but their lack of reliability throws the story into question, even if it may well be true. I think we're better off removing the sentence. The section flows fine without it. -- McDoob  AU93  15:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm think we should leave it for now. If the GA/FA reviewers question it, I'll just remove it then.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 19:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for the lesson. Since there is disagreement, I tend to go with the sentence removal.  It can be transferred here to the talk page for now; on the other hand, if the #10 reference is removed, and only the #11 reference kept, would that satisfy the situation?  Please keep in mind that a "cite web" reference citation  must  have a uniform resource locator (URL).  Otherwise, how is it a "cite web" citation? –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 02:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

On that note, I've added the url.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 03:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That does not look like a report on anything specific. As McDoobAU93 pointed out the 2012 report was superceded by the 2013 report, which means that citation #11 covers the sentence with no need for citation #10.  So isn't citation #10 superfluous, and shouldn't it be removed? –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 02:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That's because the url is dead. You said I had to put a url, so I did; remember the file no longer "exists"! Even though the 2012 report was replaced by the 2013 report, if we removed ref 10, then there would be nothing supporting the fact that there even was a 2012 report. Really, the only proof from ref 11 is that the "Prior Study" section says "2012-ASO-1842-OE" which is why I think it's safer to keep ref 10. Thoughts? Added later: After thinking it over, given that references don't have to be online, both refs should stay because technically I am citing info from the 2012 file (regarding precisely when the tower was originally supposed to go up...December 2012).-- Dom497 ( talk ) 03:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Readers don't read minds. Please try to wear the tinted eyewear of a reader who knows nothing of these things.  They read the paragraph, they click on citation #10, then they click on the link.  Do they find anything at all helpful at that URL?  If you like, the citation can be tagged with Failed verification; however, wouldn't it be better if citation #10 were simply removed?  On the second line of the report linked in citation #11 the prior 2012 study is mentioned, so that should be enough – that should really be enough, shouldn't it? –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 14:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Citation 10 cannot be removed. I am citing specific information that can only be found in ref 10 (when the file existed)..."According to the Federal Aviation Administration, the tower was supposed to be erected in December 2012, however, for unknown reasons, the project was delayed and the erection was rescheduled to the second half of 2013". Regarding when readers click on the url, you said a url needed to given so I put one; there was a reason why I left the url out in the first place. And adding the failed verification tag would be a lie. The information is verifiable, just no longer on the internet. All you got to do is call/email the FAA and ask the right questions. Also, according to the template documentation, that tag can only be used if it meets 4 criteria (in this case, #4 isn't true). This is why the dead ref template is better (and I've added it).-- Dom497 ( talk ) 23:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Then the bottom line is that if a reliable source cannot be cited that directly supports the information as it is given, the information must be removed. When I reminded you that a Cite web reference citation requires a URL, I did not mean just any URL.  You might as well have linked to the Harry Potter website for all the good that URL does.  The material and dead reference must be removed in a few days if a reliable source has not been found by then. –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 00:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok first, I just want to clarify with you that I'm not arguing (sometimes my tone through the internet comes up that way), I'm just trying to get on the same page as you and vise versa.
 * Second, "Then the bottom line is that if a reliable source cannot be cited that directly supports the information as it is given, the information must be removed." - But a reliable source is included. I would think the FAA is pretty reliable. Again, it does not matter if the source is available online. Having the source online just makes it easier to verify.
 * Third, "When I reminded you that a Cite web reference citation requires a URL, I did not mean just any URL." - I did not put just any url; I put the url where the file/permit was formerly located.
 * Fourthly, "The material and dead reference must be removed in a few days if a reliable source has not been found by then." - This goes against this, and this. Also, per this, I have asked and filed a request to see if another reliable source with the same info can be found.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 03:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * There are actually three parts to the definition of "reliable source". I forgive you for implying that I'm stupid.  Also, the dead link page you cite is neither policy nor guideline, and there are those of us who disagree with keeping a dead link around, because there is a tendency to forget about it rather than to do something about it.  I do commend you for making this request and perhaps others that I don't know about.  Don't get your hopes up, because probably like yourself, I've put some serious time into trying to find an alternative source for that claim, and I've been a researcher most of my life.  I did come across a theme park news service that had stories about the ride that dated back to 21 Sep 2011, but those stories did not back up the claim that the ride was to be installed by Dec 2012.  The first firm date they stated in a news report dated 4 Feb 2013 was that construction would begin "around" July 2013.  There was nothing in any of those news clips that backed up the claim.


 * This brings us to the next step. There appear to be two options for us.  What we seem to have here is a content dispute; I feel that we should strike a compromise between removing the claim altogether and keeping the claim; the claim should be brought here to the talk page where it can remain until a solid, reliable source can be found to replace the dead link as per the policy.  While to allow the claim to stay in the article until such a source can be found is not strictly against policy, in my opinion it is not recommended.  If you are unwilling to compromise and bring the claim here to the talk page, then we shall have to take this to the next level of dispute resolution.  Since the claim in the article is the "status quo", beginning that next step would fall on me.  Is it too much for me to hope that you would save both of us all that and agree to transfer the claim here to the talk page? –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 16:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I never said you were stupid...no one's stupid. I tried saying this before but a new reliable source will never be found...99.9% sure about that. The park will never admit to delaying the project so the FAA permit was all we had. Also, like I said before, the reference is still likely verifiable (call the FAA) just that it would be a quest and a half. On that note, you may start the dispute resolution if you wish. (and no it is not to much to ask, I just still don't see the reason why this ref needs to be removed...it's like a book...not online but still verifiable).-- Dom497 ( talk ) 16:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I wrote that you had  implied , not "said" (big difference) that I was stupid with your FAA-as-a-reliable-source statement. WP:RS gives Wikipedia's three-part definition, and being a reliable publisher is only one of those three parts.  It's becoming clear that you and I have a communications problem.  Another example is:
 * If that is so, if it really is not too much to ask, then you would have transferred the claim here to the talk page, rather than to contradict yourself with:
 * ...and still not transfer the claim and ref to this talk page. Both the reference citation and the claim need to be removed precisely because the reference is not like an offline book.  Offline books can be found and read.  Have you confirmed that it's just an easy call to the FAA to get a copy?  So how do you know it's so easy?  If it's so easy, then why haven't you done so?  It is wrong to put that off on others to do.  And it is wrong to keep the claim in the article until and unless the claim can be verified.
 * Then by all means, verify it – and do please transfer it here to the talk page while it awaits verification. As you said yourself, "no it is not too much to ask." –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 20:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As a message to you and me, stop with the attitude. Just stop. This has become absolutely ridiculous. On that note, I'm going to try to pretend that we never started giving attitude to each other in the first place...
 * I never said it was easy to verify. In fact, in the comment I posted at 12:54pm today, I said it would be a quest and a half to verify. After reviewing this entire discussion I realize how some things can become twisted across the internet. When I said, "all you have to do is call the FAA", I wasn't implying that it would be easy; in fact, the way I see what I wrote is that all you have to do is call the FAA, that's it, you literally just have to call, I never said if it would be hard or easy to get information during the call (at the time). That's just how I talk...it's me.
 * Regarding the "it's not to much to ask" thing, in my eyes, it wasn't to much to ask, again, quite literally it wasn't to much to ask. You asked that the claim be moved here...that's not much to ask for. But do I agree with what your asking for? No.
 * And one more thing, I will go ahead and make the effort to verify the source (I'm still against moving the claim here). My only issue is how on earth are you going to trust me (if I do get it verified) as I will be going through email (phone call isn't happening for outside-of-wiki reasons) and after all this, I don't see how you would trust me.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 01:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The only "attitude" I think I've expressed is that 1) you don't seem to want to follow Wikipedia's verification policy, and 2) we appear to have a communications problem. As for #2, that's no big deal as long as we don't completely stop communicating.  Where #1 is concerned, the policy is clear.  A claim in this article is being challenged and should be transferred to this talk page until it can be verified.  I tried to get you to do it, since I did not want to get into an editing conflict with you.  I said earlier that a few days in this case is not too long to wait for verification, but if, say, ten days pass and there is still no dead-link fix, then the claim must be transferred out of the article and to this talk page.  If I could have found just one reliable source that confirmed the claim, there would be no problem.  If the claim is truly valid, then one would think that there would be more than just one deleted report on the internet to verify the claim.  I found NO news reports, NO archived pages of any kind and NO reliable sources anywhere that support the claim that the ride was to be completed in December 2012.  Not having found anything, I have to accept that the claim is false until and unless you can find something I have not been able to find. –   Paine Ellsworth   <b style="font-size:x-small; color:blue;">C LIMAX !</b> 22:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'M DONE. You seem to be ignoring everything I've been saying and for that reason, I am not going to waste my time constantly repeating myself. Do what ever the hell you want.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 02:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You're DONE? Not entirely certain what you mean by that.  And sorry you feel that way.  Ten days.  I've researched this for many hours over a three-day period and came up with nothing helpful.  I will be happily surprised if you can do better! –   Paine Ellsworth   <b style="font-size:x-small; color:blue;">C LIMAX !</b> 22:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "I've researched this for many hours over a three-day period and came up with nothing helpful. I will be happily surprised if you can do better!" - Pure evidence that you are ignoring me. Anyway, you still haven't answered my question, "And one more thing, I will go ahead and make the effort to verify the source (I'm still against moving the claim here). My only issue is how on earth are you going to trust me (if I do get it verified) as I will be going through email (phone call isn't happening for outside-of-wiki reasons) and after all this, I don't see how you would trust me."-- Dom497  ( talk ) 00:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If trusting you is the itchy issue for you, please allow me to scratch it – trust and faith in each other is not necessary (although sometimes helpful). That's why there are policies and guidelines, and I trust those for the most part.  The best-case scenario would be for the FAA to archive a copy of the superceded report.  Then it would be accessible and the claim would be verifiable within Wikipedia policy.  If the FAA archives the report, then we're home free.  If they won't archive the report, then another reliable source will have to be found to verify the claim.  I trust you implicitly to understand. –   Paine    13:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I think we're "home free". The following is the reply I got today from the FAA:
 * After looking into it, it seems like to get "an answer" I would have to pay (sorry, I'm committed to wiki, but not committed enough to pay). But it does seem like the permit is likely archived. You can take a look at the website here if you want.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 18:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * EDIT: If you are really really really seeking for verification, after looking into it some more, it seems like we could submit a request, but that would be taking a chance of not getting charged (according to this there is the possibility of not getting charged) On that note, it seems like we would fall under the third category. I guess we could send in a request and tell them that if it takes longer than two hours (which is the limit before they start charging you and I don't see how it should take more than 5 minutes!...but we are talking about the government!) to stop and just give up....-- Dom497 ( talk ) 18:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If trusting you is the itchy issue for you, please allow me to scratch it – trust and faith in each other is not necessary (although sometimes helpful). That's why there are policies and guidelines, and I trust those for the most part.  The best-case scenario would be for the FAA to archive a copy of the superceded report.  Then it would be accessible and the claim would be verifiable within Wikipedia policy.  If the FAA archives the report, then we're home free.  If they won't archive the report, then another reliable source will have to be found to verify the claim.  I trust you implicitly to understand. –   Paine    13:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I think we're "home free". The following is the reply I got today from the FAA:
 * After looking into it, it seems like to get "an answer" I would have to pay (sorry, I'm committed to wiki, but not committed enough to pay). But it does seem like the permit is likely archived. You can take a look at the website here if you want.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 18:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * EDIT: If you are really really really seeking for verification, after looking into it some more, it seems like we could submit a request, but that would be taking a chance of not getting charged (according to this there is the possibility of not getting charged) On that note, it seems like we would fall under the third category. I guess we could send in a request and tell them that if it takes longer than two hours (which is the limit before they start charging you and I don't see how it should take more than 5 minutes!...but we are talking about the government!) to stop and just give up....-- Dom497 ( talk ) 18:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * EDIT: If you are really really really seeking for verification, after looking into it some more, it seems like we could submit a request, but that would be taking a chance of not getting charged (according to this there is the possibility of not getting charged) On that note, it seems like we would fall under the third category. I guess we could send in a request and tell them that if it takes longer than two hours (which is the limit before they start charging you and I don't see how it should take more than 5 minutes!...but we are talking about the government!) to stop and just give up....-- Dom497 ( talk ) 18:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Update: 2012 completion statement
(with cc. to The Rambling Man) – First of all, let me congratulate you for the achievement of GA status and wish you great good fortune on the arduous trek to FA! It's easy to see that you worked hard on this article, and it is so much better than it was when I first read it.

Now to the update: As I mentioned below, I have made an attempt to go through the FOIA and get the FAA to release and archive a copy of 1842. I began this on August 12th and have not yet received a response. So I'm afraid that the hopeful thought of confirming the Dec. 2012 completion date in a short period of time has not flowered, and it will take longer than expected. I did take a look at the permit link that's been added and found that the earliest permit, 380286-1, shows fees paid in Feb. 2012, which does make it entirely feasible that the project could be completed by Dec. 2012 and open to the public in 2013. So while the permits do not explicitly corroborate the Dec. 2012 claim, they certainly make the claim much easier to believe and accept. Again, kudos for the hard work and the article's attainment of GA status! When the response to my inquiry arrives (yes, I'm still hopeful), I'll let you know. Joys! –  Paine Ellsworth   <b style="font-size:x-small; color:blue;">C LIMAX !</b> 18:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I was wondering why you never replied! :P Anyway, thanks for attempting to verify the ref...its the government, they'll probably take 2 years to reply!!!-- Dom497 ( talk ) 18:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've had to deal with our government all my life, so you're preachin' to the choir.  And just to make a note, your citation to the permit #3 gives a slightly different fees-paid date in March, 2012, so you may want to mention permit #1 along with #3 (since it is permit #1 that shows the earlier date in Feb., 2012).  Anyway, when the FOIA responds, we'll hopefully be able to liven up that dead link. –   Paine    08:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed the ref name. Also, do you think it would be worth anything to add that the city signed off on the ride on August 1 (when the ride received its certificate of occupancy)?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 18:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm neutral on that and will leave it up to you. Joys! –  Paine    18:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Still nothing?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 23:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * They said it might take several weeks – just hope I can last long enough. –   Paine    23:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Any updates? I seriously thought whether they have an archive of the info or not, they would still reply....-- Dom497 ( talk ) 15:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, Dom497! No, sorry, there's nothing new.  I haven't followed up because this went on the back burner when you found the source with the permit info.  This article has come a long way, and to help it become a Featured Article, the reference citation that is a "dead link", #13 I believe, is no longer needed and can be deleted.  You found a better reliable source that supports the claim.  Another possible choice would be to alter the dead-link citation as follows:


 * ...and yields:


 * This changes the "Cite web" to "Cite report", so a URL is not required. This also gets rid of the "action=" parameter, which causes a CS1 error of "unknown parameter" – this omits the "url=" and "accessdate=" parameters, which are not required in "Cite report" type citations – and this includes the "postscript=" parameter with a brief explanation about our ongoing investigation.  And, of course, there is no longer any need for the "dead link" template.  It's up to you, so do what you think is good for this article, and best of luck with your FA quest! –   Paine    19:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Copy Editing
Did some work per the GoCE request. Mainly edited comma usage, conjunctions and clarified a few small things Pariah (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! But I don't agree with some of your changes as they simply make no sense. You also seem to have changed some sentences to start with the word "However..." but in other cases, you change sentences to ",however,..." instead of starting a new sentance. Which way is the right way?-- Dom497 ( talk ) 00:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you give me some examples of what made no sense? I'll look at the diffs and try to provide justifications for what I did. Regarding the 'howevers,' if I remember correctly, I changed a couple to separate sentences to improve context i.e. 'John was going to leave with Jayne. However, he left with Alice' makes better sense than 'John was going to leave with Jayne, however, he left with Alice.' If read a certain way the latter can be a little confusing, because 'however' seems to reference something before that isn't there. Does that make any sense? It's a contextual thing, not a grammatical error, so it's hard to explain. This is hair splitting and not a content issue, so I'm not going to try to force my side but I'd like to be able to keep my edits if they weren't oversights and we can agree. Pariah (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Falcon's Fury was originally planned to open in 2013, and construction started in that year. However, the project was delayed one year, with a scheduled opening date of May 1, 2014." - When I read that, it makes no sense. I've reworded that sentence in the lead. For the queue edit, you just added excessive info. It should be obvious that if your in a standby queue, you don't have a pass to skip the line. If you are still having trouble understanding this I'm going to ask you stop the copyedit. In no way am I disapproving your work....this is how everyone learns and you have to start somewhere, but I plan on nominating this article for FA and those reviews get really picky. I've already gone through one FA review, so I know what to expect and how they like articles to be written. It's my fault for not being descriptive enough on the request page, but I was actually looking to have a more experienced editor copyedit the article as they usually understand the FA standards and what is expected of the article. Again, I'm not disapproving your work. I'm just trying to get through this entire process as fast as I can (because I go back to school in less than a week) and having a "new" editor review this article is just going to make me submit a second request as I don't want to nominate the article for FA, go through a one month review process, have the article fail, and then go through it all again (wayyyyy to much time!). For one last time, I'm not disapproving your work, I still want to copyedit articles, but in my opinion, copyediting articles going for FA isn't the place to learn/gain experience.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 02:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I'll admit that there are probably better ways to express "Falcon's Fury was originally planned to open in 2013, and construction started in that year. However, the project was delayed one year, with a scheduled opening date of May 1, 2014." I was trying to focus on proofreading and not change the content the article, and refrain from rewriting things as much as possible. The original was Falcon's Fury was originally planned to open in 2013 but the project was delayed one year. Construction started in 2013, with a scheduled opening date of May 1, 2014 which was obviously wrong. I noticed you didn't revert it to the original, so even if my edit wasn't the best way to put it, it got it noticed and changed. As for the other, Falcon's Fury has two shaded queue lines: the standby queue (that can hold guests for approximately 45 minutes), and the Quick Queue (for guests with passes that allows them to bypass the queues for most of the major attractions at the park). This was a little unclear to me; I just made the sentence easier to understand. You didn't seem to have an issue with my other edits, unless you reverted them later, I didn't check all the diffs. And as your slightly condescending dismissal of my efforts, my account is new and I haven't edited in a few years, sure. I have had other accounts in the past however, and although the game has changed some I'm still quite familiar with the MOS and various Wikipedia policies. A majority of what I did was obvious corrections so I don't see what your problem with my participation is. I worked very intently trying to make the article better. Regardless, I am through, I will go find somewhere else that's less judgmental and more receptive to my help. Pariah24 (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "You're getting to the point where instead of making an attraction more popular by having it achieve some type of record, you're actually tolerances the audience for that." That's what he said? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)