User talk:2600:1009:B14A:EF3:56B:711A:47BA:67D2

September 2020
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Cedar Point. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. GoneIn60 (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
 * in reply to gonein60: if my dozens of edits on the Cedar Point page, were so disruptive, then why did you restore over half of them (after you had deleted them) already ( and i suspect you will be prompted to restore even more of them, in due time). p.s. please read wiki conduct rules about "gaming the system" which i courteously posted the direct link upon your talk page. thank you. and have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B14A:EF3:56B:711A:47BA:67D2 (talk) 22:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The non-disruptive changes were restored. When the number of unhelpful changes greatly outweighs the number of useful edits, it's quicker to do a full revert and restore the smaller number of acceptable edits (and it's a very small number). You participated on the talk page and are well aware of what has been contested, yet you went ahead and rammed them into the article anyway. In addition, you didn't provide any sources. Ignoring discussion and our Verifiability policy is not in your best interest and has now crossed a threshold into disruptive territory. You will be held accountable moving forward. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * [p.s., obviously I am encouraging you to cause me to be "held accountable", for a reason (duh). The reason which, i have already clearly stated, above, and also on your talk page. Thank you.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B14A:EF3:56B:711A:47BA:67D2 (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

You have been politely asked twice now to refrain from posting on my talk page and instead to take any relevant concerns you may have to the talk page of the article in question. If you continue to post on my talk page without permission, this may be seen as a form of harassment and/or disruptive behavior, either of which could lead to the loss of editing privileges. See WP:NOBAN for more information. If you have any questions about the guideline you've been referred to, or why you've been warned, ask for help at the Teahouse. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. It appears you are purposefully harassing another editor. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on User talk:GoneIn60, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. GoneIn60 (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

to (Miss?)gonein60: as you know, here in the Dayton area, we have a saying: "he who deletes wiki mssgs, has something-to-hide". Point being, YOU wont see ME deleting anything from my talk page. [and, besides, i really dont know why you are exerting any effort to attack me directly. Why not simply use this as a perfect example of why non-registered users shouldn't be welcome to post to the 'articles'? ( because clearly you have a pre-existing peeve, bias, nonobjectivity, one-sidedness, partiality, prejudice, tendentiousness about such things).] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B14A:EF3:56B:711A:47BA:67D2 (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)