User talk:Myk Streja/Archives/Archive 1

__NOINDEX__

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Swelling (polymer science)


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Swelling (polymer science) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.

Proposed deletion of Swelling (polymer science)


The article Swelling (polymer science) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * This article has gone through several incarnations, none of which followed the guidelines. Unless an article appears that follows these guidelines, this page will be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  - Myk Streja (Talk to me) 05:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

There were a couple of people who were editing this article other than the author. Those of you who did the redirect and the total blanking, be aware, that is not how it's done. There is a process which you are now seeing. If you had not deleted the plagerized text, the article would have qualified for a speedy deletion. Use the process. Read the deletion policy. - Myk Streja (Talk to me) 05:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Talkback
DES (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

nowiki coding
The problem at Talk:Simon Cohen was you wrote  not. HTML tags like "nowiki", need to be terminated with "/nowiki". DES (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out . One of those things, you know?

Lost My Talk Page
Apparently there are some children out there willing to vandalize at will. [Name redacted], during what should have been a perfectly normal PROD, moved the deleted page's talk page to mine, wiping out what I had and replacing it with junk. I disagreed with him about the way he was handling the deletion. If anyone is expecting a reply from me, please try again.  - Myk Streja (Talk to me) 11:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This was a time I was not proud of. I made some mistakes and another made some mistakes... Hopefully never again. — Myk Streja ( who? ) 20:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

May 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:RHaworth‎. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. &mdash; O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  8:23 am, May 25, 2017 (UTC−4)


 * Incidentally 'your' user talk page is now at User talk:Swelling (polymer science), for some reason. &mdash; O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  8:26 am, May 25, 2017 (UTC−4)


 * That problem with my page is what redacted did to me. He deleted the Swelling (polymer science) page as per a discussion prior to deletion, but he moved User talk:Swelling (polymer science) to my talk page, wiping out all the conversations I had there. Here's the history log from User talk:Swelling (polymer science):


 * (cur | prev) 08:51, 25 May 2017‎ redacted (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (6,505 bytes) (0)‎ . . (redacted moved page Talk:Swelling (polymer science) to User talk:Myk Streja without leaving a redirect) (undo | thank)


 * I tried to fix it by undoing it, but it failed. I tried moving the page back and remembered too late about the redirect that would be installed. I fixed that. I think you jumped the gun, reprimanding me. I remember flame wars from the FidoNet days. What I said on his page was mild and I won't bother writing to him again: he's not worth it. Don't ever again lecture me about "good faith". If you can tell me that he has a way to recover my talk page, I will apologize.  - Myk Streja (Talk to me) 14:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I see your point, and no need to return to FidoNet ;) about good faith, it's about intentions rather than acts you see. So, in this particular case, it's whether he intended to muck you around by mooving your page to a transparantly bizarre location (which I have to say I doubt!). However, I don't blame you for being frustrated; one way or another, a rather convoluted- not to say Byzantine- number of movements seem to have occured! &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  14:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

, I don't mean to dump this on you, but you seem to be the go-to guy:


 * (cur | prev) 23:09, 25 May 2017‎ redacted (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (6,426 bytes) (0)‎ . . (redacted moved page User talk:Swelling (polymer science) to User talk:Myk Streja without leaving a redirect) (undo | thank)
 * (cur | prev) 23:08, 25 May 2017‎ redacted (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (6,426 bytes) (0)‎ . . (redacted moved page User talk:Myk Streja to User talk:Swelling (polymer science) without leaving a redirect) (undo | thank)

Dude, I don't want to go to war, but if I have to ... we remember FidoNet, don't we? <b style="color:#009900"> - Myk Streja</b> (<b style="color:#00ff00">Talk to me</b>) 23:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Fortuna (neé Flame Off)
Would you mind explaining the meaning of "semper crescis, aut decrescis"? I can figure out what semper means. Fortuna=Luck? Imperatrix=? Mundi=World? Maybe? BTW, go visit Supa Sirisingh if you get a chance. That was a tough one to work on. <b style="color:#009900"> - Myk Streja</b> (<b style="color:#00ff00">Talk to me</b>) 14:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * More or less right. "Fortune, Empress [Imperatrix= Empress, as in Imperator, Emperor] of the world [mundi=world, as in today's 'mondial, Le Monde] etc]" then a comparison to the moon, and then 'semper crescis, aut decrescis', 'always increasing or decreasing'- or, because it's the moon, always waxing or waning. So [[Lady Luck, she comes and goes! Not my own work I hasten to add: see our article O Fortuna, and this YouTube is a great version of it live. DA DA DA DA! Etc. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  14:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Forgot to say- great improvement from diff! Nice one. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  14:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Myk Streja, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! DES (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Supa Sirisingh
<I>(message posted on Big Iron's talk page, copied here for his reply):</i> It didn't occur to me until I realized that I had spent more than ten hours on Supa Sirisingh that I had co-opt your project. I didn't mean to, but there it is. I'll leave it alone if you want it back. Sorry. <b style="color:#009900"> - Myk Streja</b> (<b style="color:#00ff00">Talk to me</b>) 15:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your improvements to the article. Wikipedia is all about collaboration: I don't own this article just because I started it so there is no need or reason to take anything back. All the best. --Big_iron (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, boss. Some people (like me) can get possessive about things. I would totally understand if you felt I had stepped on your toes. The topic was rather unique and I could see you claiming unspoken ownership. Your tone tells me you don't. Anyway, I have sent message through Facebook to her to get those final off details straightened out. Should be done soon. <b style="color:#009900"> - Myk Streja</b> (<b style="color:#00ff00">Talk to me</b>) 17:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

James Torlakson
Why did you change to  at the end of the section heading 'Work'? The first version takes up less room, is easier to remember and it works. — Myk Streja [ who? ] 00:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Myk_Streja. This happens to be one of the many "General Fix" changes that are "built in" to AWB. To be honest, I've never been asked about it before – always taken it for granted. I guess it's less cryptic to inexperienced editors than finding when they are editing. I have no strong opinions either way, but I am a little dubious about the idea of  being easier to remember than . Feel free to revert if you like :) — Hebrides (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for answering. It makes sense, but as it's allowed by the usage documentation of the tag, I will still use it. — Myk Streja [ who? ] 21:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Ted Kaczynski Early Life
Thank you for the compliment. Yes, I did provide sources for the edits in his "Early Life" section. ChicagoEric (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out communicating between to wiki editors. I did get your last message about taking out "citation needed" sections throughout Ted Kaczynski's page...very good! Any suggestions are appreciated, this is my second or third "go" at editing. The reason why I chose Kaczynski because I grew up in Evergreen Park, lived only a few blocks away from where he did, and was a senior at Evergreen Park high school in April of 1996 when the news broke of his arrest. It was crazy for awhile at school. Also, I bowled with Ted's science teacher, Paul Jenkins. ChicagoEric (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, Communicating is pretty much like this: leaving messages to each other on the Talk Page  where the message started . Also, when you're replying, be sure to indent like I did with this message. For each layer of reply, you add one colon to the start. If your reply has more than one paragraph, you need to repeat the indent for each paragraph. If a message goes beyond six indents, the template  gets used to reset the indents. If this message gets that long, I'll demonstrate it. Also, when replying, put this template at the beginning of your message:  Not trying to be obvious, replace Username with the username of who you're writing to. Uppercase, spaces or punctuation matter. Doing this 'pings' the user to let him know to look for the message. Of course, writing on my Talk Page automatically pings me, but it's a good habit to get into. Another good habit is to preview anything you are editing, messages or articles, before saving. Once you hit the preview button (or press Shift+Alt+P), scroll down to see what the editing you've done will look like. Then fix it or save it.


 * Not that it was a good thing that it happened, but I think it's kinda neat that you lived where he did. Must be a small town for you to connect with his science teacher. Does he ever talk about Ted? I had the pleasure of knowing Bruce Springsteen when he was a senior in high school and I was a freshman. We weren't friends and I'm pretty sure he didn't even know I existed. I was only a frosh after all. I thought he was a burnout. Just goes to show, you never can tell.


 * You might want to get started on your User Page and open up your talk page so that your username and talkpage don't show up red . You get taken more seriously if you have a presence on Wikipedia. And it can be fun. If you want help, just shout out. If you want a real simple starter page, I can do something for you. Won't be much, but it will be okay. Check out My Userpage. I've got a bunch of good links for new users.


 * P.S. Be prepared to spend a lot of time when you really get into editing. I spent a half-hour composing this message. ;) — Myk Streja  ( who? ) 01:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Wow, I really appreciate you taking the time out to explain this to me. Thank you for all the information, I will practice with this, and "pay it forward" to someone else when I get better! I'll also create a User page. Believe it or not, Evergreen Park wouldn't be considered a small town, it's actually a bustling small suburb of Chicago. We're completely surrounded by Chicago. But, Evergreen Parkers tend to know Evergreen Parkers. I met Paul Jenkins in the fall of 1996 just after the news broke of TK's arrest. I bowled on the same team as him. He mentioned that he was interviewed by a few outlets, as a matter of fact, I'm going to try and search for the interviews.  Jenkins died about 5 years ago.  I recall him saying that Ted was very quiet and very smart.   It's wild that you went to school with "The Boss". No, you can't judge a book by it's cover, a lesson I've learned over and over again!  Hope to talk to you soon! ChicagoEric (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I was just going through my messages in preparation of archiving some of the more useless articles (no, not this one) when I noticed that you had included the tlx when sending a reply to me. I should have told you about taking that out. Sorry, my bad. One other thing is indenting when replying to a message. You count the colons (:) in front of the last reply and add one. If you're the first to reply, you add one colon (0+1). If you try to use spaces to indent, this is what will happen:
 * if there's one or more colons before two or more spaces, all are ignored,

if there are no colons in front of one or more spaces, the first space causes the text to be inclosed in a quote box like this and the rest cause an indent.
 * When you start a new paragraph, you need to put the colons in place again to maintain the indent of your reply. I'm sure I missed something else, but I think I've nattered on long enough. Have fun. — Myk Streja ( who? ) 01:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

AIV
Hello Myk. If you believe an editor is the cause of obvious vandalism you can file a notice at WP:AIV. Remember to be short and to the point. The process is straightforward, just follow the directions given at the page, and let an admin take care of it. Hope this helps.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I had a discussion with User:Abraham, B.S. about the infoboxes. He recalls the original community debate on the spirit of WP:INFOBOXFLAG and apparently the new guy is in the right removing those flags. :( I don't like it, but I'm not going to fight it. We just need to keep an eye on this noobie guy. (He's been a user for 2 days?) — Myk Streja ( who? ) 19:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Nubies
Myk, I saw your note to Alyssa at User talk:Alyssa Nutter, when I left her one of my own (below yours). Just FYI. Oddjob84 (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think she's a vandal by the traditional meaning, but she does seem reckless. I've noted her history of making an edit, go off to assault some other roller coaster, then come back and redo her edit to the original. (Note that I didn't say "undo" No revert messages in the history) I'm hoping she'll slow down before a more stringent editor or an admin spots her. Just in case, we can have an admin intervene, but that should be a last resort. — Myk Streja ( who? ) 03:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think she is a vandal either. I have chalked it up to her being new, and am trying to get her to engage in a discussion.  If she will, I will try to help channel her energy.  I had actually written the Removed? piece when she was (apparently) editing from an IP address. Oddjob84 (talk) 11:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I've compared the user contributions of 69.47.136.111 to Alyssa Nutter: Alyssa takes up exactly where the IP address left off. The IP was banned for 48 hours for edit warring (account creation blocked) and it shows in the contributions record. The IP account edits up to June 14th, then makes one last edit on June 19th. Three minutes later Alyssa starts editing. The pattern of editing is the same: quick and dirty edits on amusement parks with an emphasis on roller coasters. How she (presumptious based on username) can find these pages so fast and make the edits she does makes me think she's using a bot. Worst thing is that research tends to favor her edits. She never cites her information which is what is causing most of my doubt. It didn't take long to stop her the first time; I believe the admin are already aware of her continued activities. — Myk Streja  ( who? ) 20:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Myk, I just logged on and noticed she has attracted the attention of a couple more editors and two admins. They have blocked her for the present.  Oddjob84 (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

First Ban
What happened to Disney Junior – Live on Stage? I noticed that Jim1138 handed out a warning about edit warring on that article. Did the article get deleted during the war after all that? — Myk Streja ( who? ) 01:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It was a typo. I didn't copy the last char - Disney Junior – Live on Stage! and not Disney Junior – Live on Stage. I just picked one out of the many articles she was edit warring on. Anyone know if those rides and building are demolished? Are there a lot of structures standing with closed signs attached? The problem is that I don't know if they are all removed. And now that I think of it, it would seem unlikely there are any sources. Suggestions? Jim1138 (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I should have checked better. As for Alyssa's editing: I checked about ten of her/his changes. Most were unverifiable, one was spot on with a reliable source, and several were just flat out wrong. S/he is reckless and, I think, just guessing most of the time. A number of times, she goes back as re-edits herself back to the original. The speed of the edits makes me think there's a bot involved. Just finding those articles so fast is worrisome.


 * I suggest you keep on eye on her contributtions, as will I, and if the pattern continues after this latest ban is lifted, then I think it will be time to contact an administrator and ask for an indefinite ban on both accounts. The IP address 69.47.136.111 is definitely connected to her. Tell me something, do those warnings that are posted on her talk page automatically alert any prowling admins of a problem? — Myk Streja ( who? ) 11:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Probably should watch the articles as well. If it is a bot, it is surprising that s/he would be doing that sort of thing. Disney coi perhaps?
 * It would seem that most the attractions would be torn down. Though access might be changed to make them behind the scenes or a false front added. I am not sure how one would verify that as I doubt Disney would publish it. Go in and take photos perhaps? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Alyssa Nutter has edited Six Flags site as well, and I recall a site called Lakemont Park in Pennsylvania which had a roller coaster called Little Leaper that she pounced on. A quick tussle with another editor and she moved on. By the way, she did edits on both sites. The amount of time to check out every change she made, and verify it, is staggering.I'm thinking I'll take a snapshot of her contributions and pick at it in my spare time. Stopping her is up to the admons. Regardless, she has engaged in edit warring twice, once as an IP user and again as a regular user. — Myk Streja  ( who? ) 21:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * S/he changed the Disneyland from closed to removed. https://disneyland.disney.go.com/dining/disney-california-adventure/ariels-grotto-restaurant/ would suggest it is open. Jim1138 (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I hate to be the one to point this out, but the website you quoted is for the Ariel's Grotto located in Disney California Adventure Park, Paradise Pier, and the infobox indicates it is in fact operating at that location. There were four Grotto's and the one in Disneyland was replaced. Sorry, but she's right on this one.


 * P.S. Do I need to ping you or are you watching this page?

You're not going to like this. I went through almost 30 entries in her contributions page -- every time she was right. Removed, standing not operating, just closed, didn't matter. What now? — Myk Streja ( who? ) 06:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Pinging is probably a good idea. Well, at least I didn't undo the Ariel's Grotto edit. I'm constantly frustrated by the lack of communication by some editors. If you think it a good idea, I would volunteer to restore her edits. Though, I don't really think it matters if it is labeled closed or removed. How did you determine that her edits were correct? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I did a Google search for any articles about each page. Sometimes I dug around in the theme park home pages or looked for blogs of people that had visited the physical sites ... tourists. Probably not RS but good enough to know the truth. You will note that prior entries were unsourced and unchallenged in all categories of the infoboxes. I'm actually beginning to admire Alyssa, if only she would communicate with the rest of us. Her silence will be her downfall. — Myk Streja ( who? ) 13:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Unsourced seems to be the rule rather than the exception for many categories of articles. Unfortunately, communication is rather important. For what it's worth, I left a message to this on 's talk page. It seems that much of that goes unread. Probably overwhelm, though sometimes indignation. I want articles to be accurate, and venerability seems rather important to this. So, what does one do in these cases? Wikimedia should develop AI to challenge an editor's edit before it is saved and ask/demand a source. Something to challenge a bad ES would also be nice. Or, maybe have AI do everything and we can be told to "get a life" somewhere else. Alyssa Nutter has been quiet. Another frustrated newbie we unfortunately won't hear from again? Or maybe fortunately; we might never know. Jim1138 (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Would sourcing infobox data in the main body be good enough? I would agree with you about chasing her off except for that one thing: the speed of her edits. She's not a newbie. — Myk Streja ( who? ) 19:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Myk - In the body would be fine especially for non-contentious information. One can use wp:NAMEDREFS too. - is this the "courtesy notice" point? I can be a bit dense sometimes. :oP Jim1138 (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No, just that she's back, and now banned for a week (see below). Oddjob84 (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Myk: She's baack....  69.47.136.111 just edited Pirates 4-D, same changes as before.  Oddjob84 (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Courtesy notification, see above.Oddjob84 (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Second Ban
I see. And the IP has been banned for a week, this time for disruptive editing without providing reliable sources. (I keep wanting to type resources.) She hasn't logged in at the Nutter account yet, but she's gotta know she's being watched. If you read above, you'll know that Jim and I have been checking into her edits: trouble is, they were all accurate but unsourced. I'm personally concerned with how she did it. There's another user, Huberthoff, who is doing the same damn thing to flags in infoboxes, also going way too fast, 240 edits in six days... Just took a moment to check on him: it has been discovered that he was the sockpuppet of a user named (oh man) Charles lindberg. He's been banned indefinitely. I'm beginning to have doubts about Nutter again. Well, we've done our part and made User:Ponyo aware of her. It's up to Ponyo to stop her now. — Myk Streja ( who? ) 01:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Aw, damn, she's earned another ban already, probably based on her activities on the IP address. Well, that's all folks! — Myk Streja ( who? ) 01:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, on Pirates 4-D, while her edits are also unsourced, 3 of the 4 of them are wrong. Oddjob84 (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * She got cocky. Oops. ;) Now we need to hunt down all those changes and revert them. Gonna be fun! — Myk Streja ( who? ) 03:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * She was also wrong about Six Flags Fright Fest. A special event cannot be "removed", rather, it is not held, which would be "closed".  The park is still open.  Oddjob84 (talk) 07:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * An editor named seems to be more familiar with the theme park articles then me. I've been trying to catch-up with the edits by 68.47.136.111, but it seems that sometimes she was right. I may be causing another problem so I'm gonna let GoneIn60 clean this one up. So, to anyone who cares will know, I got this far on the IP contributions page, starting from the first edit: 68.47.136.111 caught up to 23:59, June 9, 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . Mr. Toad's Wild Ride. Hopefully, when the ban lifts, she will be more communicative. — Myk Streja  ( who? ) 15:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Messed up the ping on the first try; please see the message directly above. — Myk Streja ( who? ) 17:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Your revert on Six Flags Fright Fest was absolutely correct. It came to my attention because it is on my watchlist (I did a big edit on it a while back).  FYI, themed entertainment, excluding roller coasters, is my specialty.  Oddjob84 (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Everybody needs a hobby. ;) I claim no authority on theme or amusement parks whatsoever, but I know how to do a search. Why not roller coasters? I loved 'em as a kid. — Myk Streja ( who? ) 17:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I spent most of my professional career on shows, events and such. I did a few ride systems, but personally, I never enjoyed being beaten around by a machine, especially one I can't control.  I added some discussion over on WikiProject Amusement Parks just now.  In fact you and I had an edit conflict.  I lost.  Oddjob84 (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Didn't lose by much I see. Nicely said, by the way. — Myk Streja ( who? ) 00:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping. Many of your reverts were correct, and I support them. There were just a handful that actually were legit and didn't need reverted, so I undid those. I haven't looked at every edit yet, but one common thing getting overlooked here is the proper parameters for the status field in an infobox. A recent discussion at WikiProject Amusement Parks determined that "Removed" in the infobox would signify a ride or attraction that is both closed and no longer standing. "Closed", on the other hand, would represent attractions that may still be standing but are no longer in operation. Either status can exist to represent a retired ride, but "Removed" is preferred when applicable. Hope that helps! --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, it eases my wounded pride to know that I didn't screw up too badly this time. <jk> Thanks for the info. — Myk Streja ( who? ) 18:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Our Friend Dahmer
Sorry if my initial explanation for adjustment sounded terse. All I did was remove a duplicate link to the author, which were two or three lines apart on the same article.--Kieronoldham (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This is what I saw when it popped up on my watchlist:

03:42, June 22, 2017‎ Kieronoldham (talk | contribs)‎. . (130,570 bytes) (-16)‎. . (→‎Books: 1st piece of largely trivial crap to seep through. I'll personally do no more other than rm. duplicate link.)
 * The second part of the summary states exactly what you did in your edit. However, the reason for those references being so close together like that was because someone put {[citation needed}} in the paragraph. Now that I see it, it does look better.
 * The first part was derogatory and uncalled for, and in all honesty, distracting. I didn't persue the actual edit; instead I reacted to your statement. Please be mindful of what you put in the edit summary, it can strain good faith and civility. Perhaps it's not the best source used, but someone thought it worthy and it passed muster.
 * On another subject, except for the last issue, your contributions are impressive. Okay, after checking out your user page, more than impressive. I'm sorry we got off on the wrong foot, but you now how it is. — Myk Streja ( who? ) 20:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I know, . I realized so almost immediately after I made the edit and did regret it. I know it's ultimately no excuse but I'm severely epileptic and had had a severe seizure a few hours prior and I always repeatedly bang the top rear of my head onto the ground if nobody's around or they don't know what to do and it always leaves me irritable. I'm sorry. Anyhow yeah I did contribute extensively to this article and the British equivalent to Dahmer, Dennis Nilsen. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, . I read about your TLE, (and yes, I did a wikisearch to find out what it is), and I sympathize with you. I endured a limb loss (long story) and I can understand being frustrated when no one is around to help. As long as you didn't intend to offend, we're good. Kinda wish there was a way to re-edit the summaries, yes? There's a few out there I wish I could take back. ;) — Myk Streja  ( who? ) 22:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Messed up the ping in the previous message, trying again> :( — Myk Streja  ( who? ) 22:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Got it, . Thanks. There are a few edit summaries made throughout the years that I wish I could change, but I still know a few editors who make them as standard. Have a good weekend. P.S. TLE doesn't stop me editing true crime on here or giving advice and support upon epilepsy support vlogs.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Subpages
Thanks, Myk. I hadn't thought of that... actually, I didn't know how it worked. If you want to see the result, you can get to it via a link on my talk page. Oh, and "...delete this message after you read it.... ✅. By the way, I meant to ask, what sort of topics do you like editing?  Oddjob84 (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw the link in your talk page. Just so you know, if a troll is going to vandalize your page, and it does happen - I've seen it, they love to get into extensively built private pages. I'll leave the code for hiding a link in text in the Parts Bin topic in a bit.✅
 * As for what topics I like to edit, I'm a bit omnivorous. I'll chew on anything. I've helped out with Ted_Kaczynski, Charice Pempengco, John Clarence Butler, Accordian, WikiProject_Television/Lost_task_force... now that I list them, there's more than I thought. If you need help with something, let me know. I've written stuff under a penname for an online story site (no, I won't tell you where, it was also an erotic site) so I have a writer's eye. Doesn't always help keep things encyclopedic, but I can edit.
 * I patrol various lists looking for vandals or AfDs and I end up helping an article get a leg up. And I fight when I find them ... I get into trouble that way and start fights. Had my page wiped, he claimed it was an accident. Hmph.
 * I like that done template, I'll have to add it to the scrap pile. — Myk Streja  ( who? ) 14:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have lately been tearing through a bunch of the themed entertainment pages on Halloween. I'm currently working on Haunted attraction (simulated) which really needed some help.  Take a look and see if this interests you.  I'm really only working on the "History" section right now (see Talk/Proposed Edits....).  Oddjob84 (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's another (simpler) way to hide a link. You may know this one from editing, it allows you to hyperlink on Wikipedia without using the absolutely correct page name. ✅  Oddjob84 (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * One problem is that it is limited to Wikipedia links. I have links to WikiMedia as well, and from here, in most cases, you have to use the full address. The second problem is the link color. That was what the   code was all about, making it invisible.  — Myk Streja  ( who? ) 01:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I used your codes on my parts bin page. It works well.  Oddjob84 (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Haunted Castle (Six Flags Great Adventure)
While working on that Halloween article I mentioned, I found this: Haunted Castle (Six Flags Great Adventure). I notice you had been there reverting Alyssa, but did you read the article? It really needs a good edit. I also dropped a couple of good new citations on the talk page. Oddjob84 (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ye gods! I remember that place. I grew up in the area and I took a date there once when it first opened. I was a senior in high school. Let me tell you, taking a girl to a haunted house is a good way to get her close. Got my first real kiss that night.


 * Okay, let me wipe the tears from my eyes... That's better. When I reverted Alyssa, I was chasing a vandal so I never looked at the article, only the diff reports. For memories sake, I will dust up the article a bit. I'll put it on my hot list. — Myk Streja  ( who? ) 20:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Big improvement already! Oddjob84 (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I spent a few hours on it last night. The biggest problem is the article is more about the fire, much less about the attraction. I put in some stuff, most notably the fact that it started out as the Haunted House and became the Haunted Castle the following year. Feel free to jump in anytime. FWIW, I thought the building inspector and the management of Six Flags should have been sent to prison. — Myk Streja  ( who? ) 19:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Sadusky: [laughing] "Someone's got to go to prison, Ben." -National Treasure  I agree.  Eight deaths, and no one's responsible?  Oddjob84 (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * By the way, I notice there is a tag asking for pictures. There are a few great ones in the NFPA article I cited on the Talk Page, but I haven't figured out whether they are copyrighted.  Can you tell?  Oddjob84 (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I already looked, as I stated in the talk page. I'll start the process and see what we get. — Myk Streja  ( who? ) 20:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I've been waiting to try that code. Ah, I hadn't been to the Talk Page. Glad you liked the citation. Oddjob84 (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I've received a response from the lawyer at the NFPA site. I gave him some requested info just a short while ago. The Fourth of July holiday is approaching so I may not get a response for a few days. I got lucky with the Castle image, it's in the public domain. BTW, when you reply, count the colons and add one to your reply, 'kay? — Myk Streja  ( who? ) 04:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Sometime you must tell me how you went about asking for permission. Check Talk:Haunted Castle (Six Flags Great Adventure) (Fatalies section commented out), I left you a note there.  Oddjob84 (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Wise guy. Give a kid a piece of code... ;)


 * For the NFPA image, I went to www.nfpa.org and started a chat session. She gave me the lawyer's email address. I lost it. I went to the bottom of the page and followed the "Contact us" links until I found it again. Then I asked real nice (I'm not kidding here) and he asked for specifics. Now we wait for him to confirm the copyright and maybe give us license. The Castle image I got back from an old friend who's a Disneyphile. I sent him the equivalent of an eCard: I took a digital photo of a postcard from GA of the Castle and sent it to him. Oddly enough, after nearly twenty years, he still had it. (My stepdad had one of the very first Canon digital cameras. The picture's been 'shopped to square the edges.) I've been told that most of the time it's just a matter of asking. So far that's been true. — Myk Streja  ( who? ) 13:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm pleased you caught the humor. Not everyone "gets" graphic puns (or wordplay, for that matter).  Thanks for the info on requesting copyright permission.  I will file that idea.  On another topic, when you have a minute, would you look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Amusement_Parks (Quick Consensus) and then Haunted attraction (simulated)? (I took this to here) I looked at WP:WBA, and don't see where it applies, but I do tend to go on too long and get a bit professorial.  I have removed the maintenance tags from the article, as I am done for the present (pending tasks on the Talk page), so feel free to polish up anything that could use it.  Oddjob84 (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Haunted Castle (Six Flags Great Adventure) Oddjob84 (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Why can't they leave my babies alone.  — Myk Streja  ( what? ) 19:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I've done what I can for now. I think it's good but not great. More research on the top part would be nice. After going through the references for the fire, it's easy to see that there was some information massaging going on, possibly on both sides. Sticking to The NY Times was probably a good idea in trying to keep neutrality. I think the Castle is no more and no less notable than anything Disney came up with. — Myk Streja ( what? ) 18:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Really, I like what you have done with the place. As to its notability, see Haunted attraction (simulated) below.  Editing that is what brought this one to my attention in the first place.  BTW, I see I have inadvertently gored your ox on this one (discussion with Gonein60 on the title).  Sorry.  Oddjob84 (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It happens. No worries. — Myk Streja  ( what? ) 01:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It's time for you to mind the store over at WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. I'm at the point of becoming seriously annoyed, and need a break.  Oddjob84 (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised it took this long. I've said my piece, further defense is simply repetitive. Seriously though, thank you for coming to bat with me. GoneIn60 seems to be impartial but I detect the presence of several deletionists in the mob. — Myk Streja  ( when? ) 21:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * As an addendum, have you seen what GoneIn60 posted and how DIYeditor answered him? Ugh! Time to step back. (How did it get so heated?) — Myk Streja  ( when? ) 21:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * That post was from me answering GoneIn60 (above). Hadn't seen the reply, but not surprised.  I'm done with them.  Oddjob84 (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, I lied. I couldn't resist a smackdown.  Oddjob84 (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, I liked it, but for reasons of sanity it's time to stand away. Me, I'm going to find a really raunchy anime site and sit back with my headphones on listening to Imagine Dragons and Nickelback and Celtic Woman. I'll jump back in in the morning. — Myk Streja  ( when? ) 01:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Jake Zyrus/Charise Pempengco
Hello,

I probably made a mistake when I started this discussion. I was trying to stop an editing war, and I successed, but now I've started a policy war. The discussion has become rather heated at times. A consensus seems to be arising from the mess I created. FWIW, the "discussion" subtopic came first, then the "survey" section.

Here's what I'm asking: could you take over and close this thing? David in DC has declared the topic to be evil (a little dramatic), and others have said we have no right to buck policy. Still others have declared that policies are guidelines, and that a consensus can be decided without violating policy. What do you say? Will you close this for us? — Myk Streja ( what? ) 19:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see that there is anything to close, it isn't set up as a proper Request for Comment.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Could you possibly just hat it, then, Ponyo, since it has been superceded by events? Newimpartial (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay then. I have made a RfC. Thank you. — Myk Streja  ( what? ) 21:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Not crazy about being mentioned here without any notice. Be that as it may, I wasn't being dramatic. I was referencing an essay I expected experienced editors to recognize: Polls are evil. See also WP:!VOTE and, especially, WP:DEM. David in DC (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * So it's okay to make an obscure reference designed to go over less experienced users' heads, but you don't like me mentioning it here. I might have appreciated the joke if you had wikied it there. I'm guessing that I hit several hot buttons with that whole affair over there. Don't worry, I'm done with it. As I said, I thought I was doing good, but I guess not. Thanks for that. — Myk Streja  ( what? ) 17:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

My user page
Hello Myk, I created a user page if you want to check it out. Thanks again, I'm going to add a picture ChicagoEric (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Very nice. Looks just like a biography page. Be careful about personal information, this is still the Internet after all. There is one thing, though: I'll bet that some editor is going to find your page and try to tell you that biographies have to be about notable individuals. Someone may even tag it or ask for your inline citations.  If that happens, just gently tell the person to eff off, then call me in to retaliate on your behalf. Together we'll smother the guy. Honestly though, it is a nice page, and well presented. You should pick someone notable you that know and respect, or maybe someone notorious, and submit a biography yourself. Just be sure no one has submitted one already. I promise to help with copyediting and proofing, just don't expect much original prose from me. I'm better with fantasy and science fiction.


 * By the way, have you seen Ted Kaczynski's website lately? Hrodvarsson, who has opted not to create a userpage, has been doing yeoman's work on the article, and he has perhaps got it nearly to Feature Article status. I'm going to submit it once he stops working on it. — Myk Streja  ( what? ) 20:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the compliments. Like I said, I was trying to find examples of user pages and I came across some that look similiar to mine, like a biography.  I'm going to make the proper adjustments to take my name out of it.  I'm sorry, I feel kind of slow.  I did see that Hrodvarsson has been working on Ted's page and I think it's great that it's almost at Feature article status. Maybe I kicked started interest. ChicagoEric (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Don't feel bad, at least it's not credit card info you're posting. Have you looked at mine yet?


 * Hrodvarsson, hmm, it makes me wonder if his name is Hrod Varsson or H. Rodvarsson. I figure if he (or she, could be Helga) can keep up the pace, another week or two will do it.  — Myk Streja  ( what? ) 19:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Haunted attraction (simulated)?
Forgot to do this:

This will need its own heading so I brought it down here.

I went and looked.

The lead looks good to me. An image would be good here, actually. Something unusual and rare, like an overhead shot of a corn maze, would be good. Caspar the Friendly Ghost would not. Too commercial.

Skipping past the "History" header for now, let's look at the actual attractions. They are laid out like encyclopedia articles should be, but they do need some editing. I went over the first section, "Haunted house/mansion/castle", and gave it a good trimming. Looks better and you can see how an image can be useful. Nice shot of a noted attraction, big enough to see, small enough that it didn't crowd out the article. The rest will be similar, and will benefit from images as we find them.

''Just a brief aside: You, sir, are a bastard. I have done nothing but copyedit various amusement sites since you started pointing me in different directions. A point in case is this site we're looking at. I started with Dark ride which led me to Fear of the dark which led me to Nyctophobia. I have edited each article in passing and now two hours have vanished down the rabbit hole. And I have a merger to handle. The amateurs that started it bungled the game two years ago. Time to lay it out.''

Now let's look at that "History" section. OMG, it's a travelogue. Okay, maybe not, but it does read like an essay or a magazine article. It's very florid and expressive. It tries to evoke emotion, not impart knowledge. It needs a lot of work, and it will be half its size when it's done. It took me a half hour to proof the first source in that section, and all that for a quote from the article that's not really encyclopedic. You got this one, right? — Myk Streja ( what? ) 01:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I have images for this article, I just have to dig them out. I hated the lead in this piece, it has nothing to do with Caspar, Munsters or any of the rest.  I wasn't inclined to mess with it until the rest of the article unfolded.  As to the attractions:  much better, maybe small adjustments once History settles down.


 * As to History, I'm sure you know I wrote most of it. When I got there, it said "we don't know where haunted attractions come from".  That set me off.  Yes, I know what is there is too much and probably too pedantic. I expected it needs a good edit.  Incidentally, it also needs two more paragraphs to be finished (two missing points). Do not take the positions of the references too literally.  The references do cover all the claims, but the section badly needs the use of short references to clear up the attributions.  I intended to get back to this.  The problem with this section, and this article in general, it that it is a central reference (along with Halloween) for a couple of dozen amusement articles on simulated haunting.  Halloween Horror Nights, Six Flags Fright Fest, Fright Fest, Fright Nights, and a bunch more will have to use this article as a hub.  We need to get it right.


 * OK, I owe you for jumping in, but you have to admit, this is pretty interesting stuff, particularly when it starts spreading out to tertiary topics like Dark Ride and various phobias. Go do your merger.  This stuff is pretty stable for the present.  Although I will point out (if you look at page view usage statistics) that these topics are about to get really, really busy in about six weeks, with the inevitable vandalism and amateur edits to follow.  Oddjob84 (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I looked at the lead again, and it does feel, I don't know, bulky? The second sentence in the first paragraph is a lengthy list of possible locations for haunts. The second paragraph is the same, or rather it's two lists. The third paragraph is perfect. I think we need to find a way to move the lists down into the article body, possibly into the "Types of haunted attractions" header.


 * Keep in mind that I didn't say the History section was bad, it's just not encyclopedic.


 * You don't owe me, I'm just easily distracted. I'm actually a patroller by inclination. I currently have 114 articles I keep on eye on, and that's not including userpages and talkpages. Look at John Clarence Butler. That article was going to be deleted. Me and a Marine saved it and raised it up. It's still a work in progress. By working on it, we attracted others (ever see starlings feed?) I've mediated three edit wars, one ended well, to my point of view. As long as I'm helping, I'm willing. — Myk Streja  ( what? ) 13:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, the lead is too long. A bit of it doesn't belong, but moving most of it down will fix it.  I know my writing is fine, (hell, I taught English just after college), but among the perhaps dozen writing styles I can do, "encyclopedic" isn't one of them.  I'm not really sure what that is, and judging from the WP help on the topic (and other articles), not many here do either.  I do, however, know it when I see it.  Oddjob84 (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I know it when I see it. Why does that sound familiar? Anyway, there's the rub. What you do is you take perfectly good prose and strip out all of the superlative adjectives and extraneous adverbs and viola! you have an article. There are just so many opinions running around, sometimes I just lay back and let them run on, and when it all calms down, I do what I want anyway. Have you been to the Six Flags page lately?


 * So, you taught English, huh? Makes me wonder what you think of a rank amateur like myself.   — Myk Streja  ( what? ) 20:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I have been to the Six Flags Haunted Castle page both recently and today. I like the article a lot.  I figured I'd let the Talk discussion settle down a bit before rejoining it.  You know, the three of us agree at about the 90% level.  The remainder is a small thing.  As to English, your writing is well above amateur.  However, I'm not certain it is really necessary to make an encyclopedic entry deadly boring.  I think there is some room, on a voluntary platform of thousands of writers, for a bit of style and tone variation, as long as the truth is not a casualty.  ("I know it when I see it" = Supreme Court decision on pornography.) Oddjob84 (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I can be a stubborn old mule (Taurus) when I think I'm right, I'm just not always so good at expressing myself. Hopefully GoneIn60 backs off a little, but I doubt it. I've seen that user get brutal with idiots, and he's been nice so far. He's challeged one of the sources I've used. I think it's good, but he states it's a fan-generated site. Hmmph. So is Wikipedia. Oh well. I'll do what I can. — Myk Streja  ( what? ) 01:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Re: a reversion you made for Illegitimi non carborundum
Yesterday, I inadvertently deleted a bunch of your work. The deletions did not appear in my preview before I submitted, I think because we were editing it at the same time and I saved an out-of-date version. I was only trying to add a reference made in the movie "Zoot Suit" (1981). I've re-added it and verified that I haven't overwritten anything else. Thanks! Jimmuhk (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It happens, no worries. It actually helped, to be honest. I looked over what I done and realized I had created redundant references. The wikilinks took care of the sources. Nice addition, by the way. — Myk Streja  ( when? ) 17:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The decline of Halloween
I had a thought that might relate to the rise of haunted attractions.

From my point of view, it was in the late 70s when parents, and the general population, became more cautious about the "goodies" their children were bringing home. Even though the neighbors were usually known to each other, there were always those that were held in low regard and weren't to be trusted. In the 80s the media suddenly increased the awareness of some of the dirty "tricks" being perpetrated by misguided individuals in a horrible reversal of the trick-or-treat mentality. Razor blades in apples (remember those nearly paper-thin double-edged Wilkinson safety blades?), oranges injected with gin or vodka, drugged or poisoned candy, hash brownies or coookies, etc. Then the curfews began. Soon after, it became unfashionable for high school-aged children to go trick-or-treating. The maximum socially acceptable age decreased to the point that only elementary school-aged kids were dressing up. Today, you see parents walking their very young children in safe locations. That left the older children and young adults seeking other venues to celebrate Halloween. Like haunted attractions of all kinds. An American tradition evolved away from the free-for-all that it had been and something was lost. — Myk Streja ( aack! ) 19:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I would certainly not dispute your analysis. It does ring true, though I have not read any "authorities" mentioning that idea.  You can also add the rise of trick-or-treat in shopping malls, and for that matter, at Main Street USA in Walt Disney World.  Perhaps we should write a book.  Trick-or-treat is mostly dated to the Depression, and Haunted Houses began in the late 1950s.  The professional houses started just behind the charity houses, say, early 1970s.  The big league got rolling about 1985.  So, your idea matches the timeline.  I don't guess I have mentioned it, but I designed five haunted houses during my career.  Oddjob84 (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't recall any authorities mentioning my hypothesis, which, by the way, were just the rambling memories of an old man. That's why I made sure to say it was only my point of view. Your timeline is impressive, I wasn't aware that the American tradition had such a short history. I do know that Halloween traces back to Samhain and similar pagan beliefs, and protecting yourself from evil influences.


 * Five haunted houses, eh? Nice. I hadn't got the impression that you were so involved in the industry. Write a book? Sounds like work to me. An article on Wikipedia? That could happen. Just gotta figure out how to make it notable without sounding like original research. Maybe a section in Halloween would be more appropriate. OMG, I just read that the original jack o'lantern was a turnip! LOL! I also just found this in the Halloween article. Maybe I can write a tie-in. That part is definitely thin. — Myk Streja  ( aack! ) 13:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Seriously, I like your theory. The fact that no authorities mention it is due to the thinness of the authorities.  Well, the timeline above is for trick-or-treat and the start of haunted attractions.  Halloween itself got here in the late 19th century, with immigrants, and began to go mainstream by 1905 or so.  It is a very short history anyway.  What is fascinating is that we have exported haunted attractions back to the rest of the world.  They really started here, and didn't show up elsewhere in any numbers until around 2000.  My involvement was really part of my entertainment industry career.  I wasn't really a "haunted house professional".  Oddjob84 (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You like my theory? You'll love this one: Anglicans like to sensationalize their holidays if they can. Christmas was a solemn holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus, which happens to be about the time of winter solstice, and also honored St. Nicklaus. Guess what? Okay, how about Easter. The Christians confiscated the celebration of the vernal equinox and then somebody softens it by introducing fuzzy little bunnies, which oddly enough goes back to the renewal celebrations of the equinox: baby bunnies and ducklings, eggs and green grass. How about St. Valentine's Day? Reportedly the connection with St. Valentine and romantic love was perpetrated by Chaucer in his stories back in the 1300s. Modern day offerings have made it expensive. Roses, fine chocolates, dinners out... and diamond rings. How about Mardi Gras? That's supposed to be the feast before Lent, originally intended to use up the food that would spoil during the fasting. Now it's an opportunity for young women to bare their breasts to strangers. (Not that I mind, you understand.)


 * I saved the best for last: New Years Day. Everyone acts like it has some special meaning, but it's just another day. The Roman's decided to start the calendar year on a day about two weeks after winter solstice and it means what? Maybe the Chinese have it right. Or the Hindus.


 * Enough ranting. I'm not saying that all holidays are not worth celebrating, just that the celebrants should be aware of the origins and believe, and behave, accordingly.  — Myk Streja  ( aack! ) 19:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Ahh, that one's not really theory, and others thought of it first. The Christians (and especially the Catholics) have been co-opting other people's holidays for centuries.  It was something of a policy in the Vatican.   Oddjob84 (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * If you look carefully, I never said it was my theory, only that you would love it. I drag that out when certain people -IRL- have gotten on my nerves.


 * Anyway, I honestly can't see anyway to write an article without it sounding like a newspaper feature. According to policy, I would have to find someone who had already come up with this theory and written about it. Anything I would do would be original research and synthesis. Doesn't mean I won't keep my eyes open, but I'm not hunting it down. Want to know what I'm doing now? I'm verifying and archiving all the sources in Haunted attraction (simulated). So far so good. — Myk Streja  ( aack! ) 22:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have been off-and-on improving sources (placing the long-form citations) which I guess is sort of verifying. You'll have to show me how to archive sometime.  I looked at a couple of your citations, but that type citation isn't familiar.  Oddjob84 (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

For web citations, I use Template:Cite web, for books, I use Template:Cite book, for journals, I use Template:Cite journal. A good starting point if you really want the technical poop is Citation templates. I have been advised that using the cite vs citation is a personal choice, but it's best to follow whatever style the article already has. If you want quick and dirty, go <b style="color:red">here</b> and click on [show] on the gold Cite templates bar. You can copy and paste directly without editing the section. You will notice that the journal and magazine are same, just substitute magazine for journal in the parameters. I think you can figure out where to delete stuff after the paste operation. Any parameters you don't use should also be removed.

Oops, almost forgot the archiving.
 * The website of choice is . Before archiving, check to see if someone else has beat you to it. Just type or paste the url into the center input box and patiently wait for it to search the database.
 * If it comes up empty (bright red Hrm. shows up), go back one page or re-enter the main page, then put the entry in the input box on the lower right (Save Page Now). Wait for it to finish loading, then highlight and copy the url in the address bar of your browser. That is the archive-url. Do I have to say it? The archive-date is the day it was archived. (doh!) The dead-url should equal no unless the link is dead. Setting dead-url to yes forces the system to present the archive-url as the main url for the citation.
 * If it does find the url, you will be presented with a time-line bar graph partitioned in years. Select the year nearest the age of the citation or article, then check the calendar at the bottom. Select the highlighted date nearest the citation and make note of the date. When the page finishes loading, be sure it looks like what you want. Copy the url and paste it in archive-url.
 * If Wayback fails you (about one time in a hundred), go to . It's much harder to use, and I can't tutor you on that one. Hope this helps. Just remember to set dead-url=no if the website still exists. — Myk Streja  ( aack! ) 04:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the description. I'm going to copy it out so I can look it over more carefully. Back to our main topic: Since you are into Samhain, here's a bit you may not know about....  In 601, Pope Gregory I wrote a letter, which eventually became a doctrine called "syncretism". In the letter, he was specifically instructing an abbot who was on his way to convert the Celts, to co-opt the pagan feasts, and apparently he had Samhain in mind. By 609, Syncretism was used to change the Pantheon in Rome to Christian purposes. It's a winding road, but no accident All Saints' Day and All Souls' Day ended up November 1 and 7. Oddjob84 (talk) 00:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * And therein lies the start of another rant. Let's just say... no, never mind. But that is how Christianity got so big: they are the Borg. I know where my faith lies, and I'm like many Catholics. I keep my gods in my heart but I don't go to worship as often as I "should". It never occurred to me that there was an actual word to describe the practice. And there is the new thing I learned today. Thanks. — Myk Streja  ( aack! ) 01:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I went to parochial school for 12 years. At age 7, while studying catechism, I remember thinking "this really doesn't make any sense".  The birth of skepticism.  Oddjob84 (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)