User talk:EastCoasterBoi

April 2024
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Sesame Place Philadelphia, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, You're reverting my edits claiming that they have "unsourced changes" and while yes at first there were no sources to my changes, I have went and made sure those changed are sourced. However, you continue to revert edits still claiming they are not sourced even after I put sources in for my changes. And now with you response to my edits you now also claim that they "did not appear to be constructive" which leads me to be very confused on what you find that remains either not sourced or not "constructive" that leads you to continue to revert my edits. My edits are made to make the page more accurate and up to date with the current (or seasonal) availability of attractions, and shows as well as providing further information on these offerings if possible, and giving a better understanding of some aspects of the park. I'm just doing what I can as a local of the area to provide helpful information with the knowledge I have of the park's recent updates over the previous years, as I have with no issue to those that may use the page for whatever they need. I ask that you please tell me what you find of my changes that isn't reasonably sourced or is not considered constructive so I can provide the proper source or explanation if needed. Thank you. EastCoasterBoi (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you would claim that you had sources for all of your additions when it is very clear to anyone that looks in the article history that you did not. Please read through WP:RS to make sure you understand the requirements for reliable sourcing on Wikipedia. I would also suggest a look at WP:NOT, particularly the part about how Wikipedia is not a repository for piles of indiscriminate information. I saw only one source that you added, and it was a primary source anyway (the park's own website at sesameplace.com), so make sure you understand the difference between that and reliable secondary sources. Thanks. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your concern for the quality of the article. Each addition I made was supported by a different source, with each source providing the proper information for the change. While yes, the I did focus on the primary source for the additions, I ensured that each addition had its own link leading to specific pages within the website where the information for each source was found. I understand the importance of secondary sources for Wikipedia articles. However, in some cases, especially for specific topics, secondary sources are not always available. In such instances, primary sources from reliable sources such as the official website can still provide helpful information. I aim to improve the article and I am open to adding more sources to my additions if possible, however, given the limited availability of secondary sources, my contributions can still be in line with Wikipedia's guidelines, and and I believe the sources I have provided are still able to support the additional information.
 * Feel free to reach out if you still have any concerns. Thank you! EastCoasterBoi (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Once again, it's extremely easy to check your previous statement. Anyone who clicks that link can see that what you just said is, to put it bluntly, not true. I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish with this approach. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I apologize if there is any confusion regarding the sources I provided. You say you're not sure what I hope to accomplish with this approach and at the moment, I wonder the same to you. What I hope to accomplish is to ensure that each addition to the article was supported by relevant information from the park's official website. I understand your diligence in verifying the sources, and I'm committed to ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the information added to the Wikipedia article. Once again, as I said previously, There is not much secondary sources for these topics which is why I rely on the primary source which has links to different pages within the website, my sources do not use the exact same page, and although it still relies on the primary source in this case it still can fill in line with guidelines, yet you're still arguing saying its not true. If you actually clicked the links to the sources I provided maybe you would actually see its all not the same exact page and that the sources are relevant to each given topic. EastCoasterBoi (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)