User talk:Myk Streja/Archives/Archive 2

__NOINDEX__

If You Have A Moment
Would you take a look at Wakayama Marina City, the image for Viking Adventure? I cannot get it to display the caption, and the border is missing as well. Oddjob84 (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Minor typo: you capitalized thumb in the parameters. Since the format doesn't recognize Thumb, it ignores it. — Myk Streja  ( when? ) 14:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's been kicking my ass for a couple of days. Oddjob84 (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I also made some formatting changes to the two Kuroshio sections that put the images at the top right of the section and stopped the overlap into the next section. — Myk Streja  ( when? ) 14:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * If you wouldn't mind revisiting, I screwed your format up by adding more images. It was not immediately obvious as to how you did the format.  BTW, don't bother with High Dive and Viking Adventure.  I have an image for Seafari to insert.  Oddjob84 (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Not a problem and you screwed up nothing. Try looking at the edit history and compare what I added. I'm using the template to make a clear space for the image to live in within the section. It needs to be on a line by itself. I put the extra line in there for clarity but it doesn't need the extra carriage return to work. It does have to be at the end of the section, kind of like a curb in a parking lot. (If you look at the raw text for this message, remember not to use the tlx transclusion code when you add clear to the article.) Click on the blue clear to see the help article. How's that?  — Myk Streja  ( when? ) 20:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * PS You'll get a kick out of this: I'm trying to port a French Wikipedia article over, and I got a French Welcome message in my talkpage over there. Can't read French.  — Myk Streja  ( when? ) 20:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

==Haunted Castle (Six Flags Great Adventure)

Myk, I did some cleanup on the Talk Page of the article. Oddjob84 (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * How do the Brits say it...? Cheers, mate!  — Myk Streja  ( when? ) 13:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Dude! I didn't realize you archived stuff! That's generally considered bad form if there's a bot in place. — Myk Streja  ( when? ) 18:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I do when the bots are doing a crap job. There's stuff going back 10-15 years littering the talk pages.  Besides, where does it say there is a bot?  Judging from the age of some of these pages, it doesn't get around much.  Oddjob84 (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * There's a little brown box with the title Archive on it (I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I just want to be clear). On that box is this statement:  The bot judges age by the date of the latest entry. You really want to confuse the bot? Sign your stuff with three tildes.  — Myk Streja  ( when? ) 17:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I actually did take the trouble to look up policy on archiving before I did any... I don't recall anything about being nice to bots. There were plenty of instructions about how and when to do it.  This "...generally considered bad form...." business sounds like something made up by those same jokers who hang out at AfC, RSN and FFD.  Oddjob84 (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, the phrasing is mine (Dustin Hoffman as Capt. Hook), and I say that from experience dealing with doing the same thing myself. Refactoring talk pages is something I do to my own all the time, but the only thing I do outside of that is add indents. I sometimes let my mouth get ahead of my brain so take it for what it's worth. — Myk Streja  ( when? ) 19:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page - part II
Yes, I just took a look at it. I like your banners...obviously it's way different at mine which makes me sort of believe mine isn't all that good. ChicagoEric (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Mine's no better, just different. I would however suggest you not expand it any further. I can see some idiot filing to have your page deleted because this isn't Facebook. That section about Wikipedia Favorites actually is not a bad idea, though. Thin out the top section to something less self-promotional (if this was your CV, I would hire you) and you should be fine. Take out the details and leave generalities. The Early life section is a nice touch.


 * Those 'banners' are called userboxes. They're addictive, be careful.


 * I had to add a banner to your page. One of the important things that banner does is prevent the proxy servers from indexing your page, ie Google. When I figure out a less intrusive way to do it, I'll change the banner.


 * One last thing, I'm not sure but I think you added your message to me by going into the archive. If that's what you did, please don't. Start a new topic in the mainspace. If that's not what you did, I apologize and I will have to start a bug report. My talk page got seriously scrammed.  — Myk Streja  ( aack! ) 20:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, that didn't take long. I fixed it so the banner is gone, and Google won't see your page.  — Myk Streja  ( aack! ) 20:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for the information! I appreciate you taking the time out to explain some thing to  a perfect stranger. Thanks for the compliment about hiring me if it were a CV! Yes, I'm going to thin out the top section because you're right, it's way too self promoting.  I actually copied and pasted much of that from my bio on my university page, with some editing.  I will attempt to use the banners. I'm sorry about a message going to your archived, I'm not even sure if I did that, if so, total accident.  The way Wikipedia sets up communication between users is very different.   Talk to you soon! ChicagoEric (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Stunt Show
While editing Wakayama Marina City, I went to place a link on the term "stunt show", which redirects to "stunt performer", which has no mention of theme park stunt shows at all. Is it worth creating a new page, or adding to Stunt performer? Besides Viking Adventure, here's a few examples of what I mean: Indiana Jones Epic Stunt Spectacular!, Waterworld: A Live Sea War Spectacular. There is nothing, even the disambiguation pages, which gathers these together. If I didn't know they existed, I might never find them. Oddjob84 (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Another thought, maybe convert the redirect page to an actual page. There are actually only two kinds of stunt shows. Oddjob84 (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Creating an article in place of a redirect is one of the things usually mentioned during discussions about redirecting a stub. I'm checking out the history of this redirect to see if I can find the original article. It seems to have been merged into Knott's Berry Farm's Wild West Stunt show. — Myk Streja  ( when? ) 19:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * There are a lot more of them than a handful. I could probably  give you a history of them off the top of my head.  Oddjob84 (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Figured this might need its own header.


 * The history didn't pan out. I could wish I could reach out and slap some of these editors. The summary claimed a move was made, but a zero byte move just isn't plausible. I'll keep digging but this article likely needs writing. If you do it, I'll help, but I have no prior knowledge to start on. Copyedit and proofreading is all I can offer. Oh, and some research if I'm pointed in the right direction. One thing, it will need to be started in a sandbox or it will get reverted or speedy deleted. It must be more than a stub. — Myk Streja  ( when? ) 19:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I have already started it. It's here:  User:Oddjob84/sandbox2 Oddjob84 (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Good. The original editor created the article as a redirect to Knott's Berry Farm. An Rfd forced the change to Stunt Performers. Some people got no idea. — Myk Streja  ( when? ) 20:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Part I
Myk, if you look here: User:Oddjob84/sandbox, the first two paragraphs are ready for edit and inclusion in the article. They both fold into sections you have already improved, so if you would care to massage them, I'm done. I will deal with the third paragraph, which goes into "History". Oddjob84 (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I took a pass at the first two sections. I get the feeling they're not finished. The prose is good, I only found some minor probllems, like why Canada and Mexico would be considered overseas to Six Flags. — Myk Streja  ( aack! ) 13:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Part II
I meant the color of the Wikimedia Commons "Halloween" banner at the bottom of the Article. No problem, it looks great as it is. I have moved it to the article, and I did change the title to align it with the section it serves. I also left "instructions" on the talk page. Feel free to make any adjustments you think are needed. I think I will have the second table out today. Oddjob84 (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I like how long the bar is. It's bisectiong the article. I'm gonna try something in the sandbox, you use it if you agree with it. — Myk Streja  ( aack! ) 19:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, I dropped the second table into the article. I have started a third table which I anticipate will go under the one I just placed, under the same heading. The difference is one is for permanent (all year) attractions and the new one for seasonal attractions. I did this because I think this table will be a maintenance nightmare with lots of notability challenges. Better all the s*** in one bag. I really have mixed emotions about placing this one at all, but I don't see how we can not do so in fairness. There actually are notable single-site seasonal houses (there are two on the list already). Any thoughts on this? I'd like to place this third one sooner than later to avoid having to repair the others.
 * If the shorter bar works, just go ahead and use it. Oddjob84 (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll go ahead and make the change.
 * I agree with the dual tables. Notability challenges? You might get a couple of test challenges, but nothing major. IMO. The fact is, you are adding facts. As long as you can source them, we're good. — Myk Streja  ( aack! ) 20:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, the third table is there. I couldn't get the short banner to work on that one. Oddjob84 (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You know how to check a diff report (I'm not being smart, I don't know what your experience is). If you look, you'll see I added a pipe character. A simple table consists of {| for the start of the table, a | for the place to put the contents (the column character), and |} on a line by itself to end the table. I did the same thing you did, I kept forgetting to put the column delimiter in. Oops. There's got to be a better way to do this. I'll keep looking. — Myk Streja  ( aack! ) 20:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I do know how to use a diff report, but it didn't occur to me to use it for this purpose. Sigh. I placed the fourth list this morning for Dark Rides, but this one may need your touch. Since there is already a list in the parent article, I just placed a short sentence with the link. Can you put the lavender bar over that so it appears on the page like the other lists? Oddjob84 (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I've noticed that the opening dates and the locations don't always line up as you might like with the change of the size of the list. Buzz Lightyear is one. I'm gonna mess around with it in my sandbox to see if I can force a lineup without breaking the sort function. — Myk Streja  ( aack! ) 15:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that the opening dates and the locations don't always line up as you might like with the change of the size of the list. Buzz Lightyear is one. I'm gonna mess around with it in my sandbox to see if I can force a lineup without breaking the sort function. — Myk Streja  ( aack! ) 15:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I found another way to fix the line up. Looks better now. BTW, where did you get the input for the table in Dark Rides? The only source in the table was from 2015, and three of the attractions listed used a deprecated sort template. — Myk Streja  ( aack! ) 22:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually I meant on our page: Haunted attraction (simulated).  I did a hack there to show you what I meant.  I looks like it should, sort of....  BTW, any way to have the list on the main page auto-open when you use the link from our page?Oddjob84 (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. Okay, well, what's there can't stay, but now that I've seen it, I'll revert it. I think this may be a job for ambox (Article Message Box). I'll get on it in a bit. I got a date. Aw, damn, I'm running late. — Myk Streja  ( aack! ) 22:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I knew it was wrong, but at least you know what I meant. AmBox is probably right, I looked, but couldn't make it work.  Oddjob84 (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Alright, I took another look at ambox: it's an alert template and won't work for this. I'll keep sorting through my stuff and see what I can find. — Myk Streja  ( aack! ) 01:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I got something done, but I'm not completely happy with it. I couldn't get a white inner border, but otherwise it seems to do the job. — Myk Streja  ( aack! ) 02:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Haunted Attraction (simulated) Extreme Houses?
Myk, I wanted to start this discussion here, rather on the article talk page, as it might get contentious. I am wondering if we need a new header in the article, perhaps called Recent Trends, to account for the rise of Extreme Haunted Houses. I have seen all-naked houses, torture houses, and a sort of "locked room" escape thing, with consequences. We could just ignore this, as recommends, cover it as controversial, or just state the facts. Here are a few. Any thoughts? Oddjob84 (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Staying encyclopedic would almost demand these types of attractions get mentioned. However, I believe this should be treated very carefully. It needs to be balanced so that no one believes Wikipedia supports these types of features, but it needs to be clear just how brutal they are. Think of it this way: Do you recall the film "Night of the Living Dead"? The one from 1968? Think of how zombie movies are now. Much more graphic. Today's audiences have become inured to gore and violence. The article should make mention of this type of attraction as a subheader under "Types..." as "Extreme haunted attractions", and the paragraph should start out something like "A recent trend in haunted attractions is to take the feature a little further down the path of horror and make the guest a part of the tour, sometimes to the extent of physical and emotional injury." It needs to show that the more jaded haunted enthusiasts are seeking a more intense experience. If a time-line for the rise of these attractions in available, it should be included. Definitely no pictures, though. If it's only haunted house types, substitute as needed. Make sure it stays as the last one mentioned under that main header. — Myk Streja  ( aack! ) 20:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a plan. I have set up a header in my sandbox and pasted the above there.  I will start fooling with it, jump in any time you like.  Oddjob84 (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Just looked at your sandbox and I noticed an odd juxtaposition: The section "History" seems almost to lead up to the possibility of extreme houses. "...it didn’t take much more than a couple of boos and a bowl of spaghetti guts to spook visitors." Almost points up what I said about this being the last in the list. — Myk Streja  ( aack! ) 21:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * That little bit of "History" was meant to be the last paragraph in the History section of the article. I just haven't gotten back to edit and source it.  The extreme houses do seem to be in an evolution.Oddjob84 (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I changed the header to level 3. I honestly believe it should be placed after Midnight spook/ghost shows, under the level 2 header Types of haunted attractions. It should show up as 2.14 Extreme Haunted Houses in the table of contents. BTW, I removed Spinning Tunnel from the section because it's not a type of haunted attraction. I'll see if I can get it placed as a mention in the article, kinda like fog machines, but I'll have to find a source first. — Myk Streja  ( aack! ) 03:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * All of that makes perfect sense. I just altered the List "rules" on the Talk Page.  You might have a look.  I have noted an uptick in the number of edits on the Halloween pages I monitor (besides you and I), which means people are beginning to think about the "holiday".  Did you know Halloween is the second most popular holiday in the US, behind Christmas?  Anyway, we need to get our Halloween pages reasonably stable, 'cause the amateurs are on the way....  Oddjob84 (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I have started clearing out my sandbox and moving it to the article (so I can concentrate on the Extreme Section). There are additions to History, Business Environment, and I dropped in International Perspective. Feel free to edit. If anything looks like it needs support, place a, and I'll get back to it. I have plenty of citations. Oddjob84 (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The first time I saw that statistic, I was amazed. I thought for sure Easter and Thanksgiving would be second and third. I'll give the article a glance, but the sandbox looked good so I'm sure you did fine in the article. — Myk Streja  ( who,me? ) 21:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, the Extreme House section is in the Article. Oddjob84 (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I saw that. I've been in picking at it already. — Myk Streja  ( who,me? ) 21:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I am thinking about generating a table of haunted attractions. There is already a List of reportedly haunted locations, but it covers "real" rather than simulated locations. Thoughts? Oddjob84 (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Good idea. The problem would be that it would need an update patrol to keep it current. — Myk Streja  ( aack! ) 13:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I am likely to patrol it anyway.... I have a sample going on my sandbox page. Take a look and make suggestions before I get too far along. I have figured out two things; first, It needs to be a hiding-type table, and secondly, there will probably be more than one. This one is of "the big league", which will probably live under the Haunted Theme Park (screampark) heading. The "professional" and charity haunts would have to be separate tables. However, these would run into notability and very heavy maintenance problems as everyone with a backyard haunt adds them in. Oddjob84 (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, I left you a note here: Talk:Haunted attraction (simulated). Oddjob84 (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Myk, please check out the edits on Haunted attraction (simulated) by Doogie1001. They may be bogus. I followed the links, and they lead to the same home haunt business. May be promotional? Oddjob84 (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ Removed Doogie's edits as promotional. I checked his contributions: he created the account then edited the article and that's all he did. Probably go away after this. I'm gonna leave a welcome packet with a warning about promotional edits, just in case. — Myk Streja  ( aack! ) 18:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Would you take a look at this: Frightmare Halloween Festival. It came up as I searched Wikpedia for articles to go in the first table. I'm disinclined to use it, and frankly can't figure out how it got through AfC. Also please look at that first table, it's about ready to go into the article. Particularly look at the "parameters" above the table, which is how I filtered the it. For comparison, there is the start of a second table below, with parameters. (In my sandbox.) Oddjob84 (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It never went to AfC, the article was plopped down in mainspace unchecked. It should have been AfD'd a while ago. It's now on the list. Oh, and no, I wouldn't recommend you put it on your list. I'll get back to ya after I go over the tables. Could I recommend for reasons of continuity that you name the list "List of haunted attractions (simulated)"? Lists have their own place in the MoS, and it's not quite the same as for articles.  — Myk Streja  ( aack! ) 01:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I thought it looked pretty bogus. Let's talk about titles after you review. I'm pretty sure there will be 2~4 tables in that article. Check the second one I already started, I think you will see where I'm headed. Oddjob84 (talk) 01:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I've taken a look already. Me likey. Ahem, I'm going to put something around your table, let me know what you think, or just revert it. It will be about ten minutes to get ready. — Myk Streja  ( aack! ) 01:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I've wrapped the list in two different edit sessions. As I said, if you don't like it, just undo it through the edit history. — Myk Streja  ( aack! ) 01:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I like them both, for different reasons. Now here's where the designer in me surfaces. The first one should be lavender or purple, which will match the images already on the page. The Halloween banner at the bottom is the right color. Also, the "show" out at extreme right is too hard to find, it should be to the left. The second table is cool because it fades in (ghost? get it?) and I like the layout. Now, could you combine the two for a home run? Oddjob84 (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * One more note: I read somewhere that since Wikipedia is viewed on different devices (eg. smartphones) pages should bias left to make sure important things display. Oddjob84 (talk) 02:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The first wrapper is easy to change. It is now lavender and the show/hide button is on the left. I can center the title but you did say things should bias left. The second wrapper is a function of the table and I don't know how to change the way it is. Sorry about that, but the fade is part of the table. You said something about the "Halloween banner". What banner? — Myk Streja  ( aack! ) 04:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Wolverine625336995
This is my last try. you really need to check your talk page. Something tells me you have in the past and now is a good time to check again before all your hard work is lost. — Myk Streja ( aack! ) 15:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Part I
I'm already sorry I looked at this. See Howl-O-Scream (Busch Gardens Tampa Bay). This is the worst-written large article I have ever seen. I know you are busy with Vortex and Shocktoberfest, so just take a look, then ignore it. I'm going to do a table to suck up all of the questionably notable dreck, then I'll call you to bring the bulldozer for a copy edit (if you are interested). This one also suffers from some systemic problems. Howl-O-Scream also runs at two other Busch parks which don't have specific articles for Halloween, just mentions in the main article. The Howl-O-Scream article doesn't cover them. The Busch Gardens Tampa article (even the title is wrong) also has a mention, which is unsourced. Even the disambiguation page is problematic. Just FYI. Oddjob84 (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Already rolling. See my sandbox for the tables. Started a Talk topic, re-wrote the lead to conform with the rest of Halloween. By the way, I saw a discussion you had with another editor about a name change. If I recall, he fixed it, but didn't tell you why. Here's the why: WP:MOVE, for future reference. Oddjob84 (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * With that page, I would start over from scratch, saving the usable refs. The very first ref was a dead link, but my OCD made me rescue it. I didn't have the heart to check any others. The article itself reads like a pamphlet from the park. I got a guy attacking the Unabomber article, but no one looked at this one? (This is me sitting at the keyboard shaking my head sadly) I guess that's a good thing, else there would be nothing to save.


 * I looked up your sandbox. What's up with the refs? Number one leads to a 404 (Missing Page). If you use this one I think it leads to where you want to go. The deadlink really is. This link still works but I don't know if it helps.


 * About my dustup with Legacypac, I kinda understood what he meant after I followed the redirects back. The link to Move gave me the technical. Thanks. — Myk Streja  ( who,me? ) 02:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * You know, I had a truly paranoid moment when you referred to Vortex... then I realized you meant the theater. I've placed spinning tunnels into the lead section of Haunted Attractions then I hunted down the article for them. It's a lot like the Busch problem, but shorter ... and the most commonly used name for the tunnel is Vortex tunnel, named for the same reason that copy machines were called Xerox machines. See Vortex Tunnels to see what I mean. — Myk Streja  ( who,me? ) 02:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding the refs in the sandbox: I copied out the collapsing tables from Halloween Horror Nights to try to bring some uniformity to the haunt articles.  Those six refs are left over from HHN, I left them as placeholders until I get around to sourcing those tables.  Since they are bad anyway, that means they need to be fixed in the HHN article.  A word about this:  I re-wrote the HHN article, but I specifically disavowed any responsibility for those tables (they are yours, if you want them).  The reason is this:  since I have been monitoring the Halloween articles, I have noticed that all of the amateur edits, all the IP edits, and all the edit wars get going over those tables.  Unless someone does something really egregious, I tend to ignore edits in those tables.  They are poorly sourced anyway, but they at least provide the vandals with a sandbox.  Oddjob84 (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) I nearly fell out of my seat laughing about that sandbox comment. I loved it. I should have known you had the HHN refs figured out, but I just figured you did a C&P and hadn't gotten back to them. (When do you sleep?!) I'll just butt out until you ask me to join in. And before you say it, you have invited me several times and I stayed inbounds. A sandbox is a man's playground. — Myk Streja  ( who,me? ) 18:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding the article itself: From experience, I can tell you it's a bad idea to start over from scratch.  You will attract almost immediate blowback.  What I have already started doing is rewriting from the top down, reusing anything already there that's useful, and driving the trash downward in the article.  By the time you finally haul the trash, no one bothers you.  Judging from the number of IP edits, I am willing to bet someone from the park wrote most of the article.  If you follow the Hollywood table in HHN, you will quickly conclude that USH Marketing is doing those edits.  All of this is why I have been concentrating on the themed entertainment articles.  I think anyone coming here to learn about a topic should be given the facts, absent the marketing crap and the fanboy enthusiasm.  Oddjob84 (talk) 12:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * 2) I would never have thought of that, although, based on recent experience I should have. Three of us started trying to take the Unabomber article to Featured Article Status, and suddenly someone comes out of the woodwork and wants to challenge sources that have already passed a Good Article review. He's trying to avoid an RfC: my speculation is that he knows his claim is spurious and he wants to avoid a concensus.
 * You know, if you provide the information, I could get those IPs locked out as sockpuppets. That's COI editing and it's against policy. — Myk Streja  ( who,me? ) 18:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding Vortex tunnels: Yes, I am familiar.  In fact, the entrance to the High Dive dark ride in Porto Europa uses one.  That's the reason for the big door the ride vehicles go through on the lift hill.  Once it closes behind the boat, the vortex tunnel comes on (fog and lighting effect) for the rest of the trip up the lift.  Oddjob84 (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Sure as hell, I use the word "egregious", and have to edit that table: Talk:Halloween Horror Nights Oddjob84 (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * 3) I would never deny you the use of a totally appropriate word. BTW, I left a warning welcome on Halloween2017's talk page. He created the account and made only those two edits. Obviously he had no idea what he was doing, he was just copying what he could find. I like that he thought he could use the category formatting. Bet he never comes back, but I'll be watching. I wonder if he's bragging to his buddies that he left an ad on Wikipedia.  — Myk Streja  ( who,me? ) 18:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Heads up I know it's not proper etiquette on WP to answer messages inline, but I will this time because you wrote so many messages. I'll number them for clarity only. — Myk Streja ( who,me? ) 18:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Part II
Nah. It would be meaningless to lock those IPs for COI. The IPs are 24 digits, often vary by a few of the least significant numbers, and are part of a fixed IP set in the Los Angeles area. It would be like whack-a-mole. Besides, the information is usually correct, although not sourced, and nearly always about the coming attraction, not the past one. Oddjob84 (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Take a look at Talk:Howl-O-Scream (Busch Gardens Tampa Bay). This is another of my means of avoiding edit wars.  Say what you intend to do, give it some time, then do it.  Normally, no one bothers to comment in advance.  If they show up screaming later, you point out that they had a chance to object previously. Oddjob84 (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, Myk you are definitely invited to come play with Howl-O-Scream. I dropped in the tables.  The new "History" section is definitely fair game.  It contains leftovers from the lead, some of which are redundant.  Don't mess with anything below the old 1999 section (yet).  Actually, that 1999 section belongs in "History".  Oddjob84 (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Um, you do know the link you sent me was the DAB page, right? So I went to the Tampa Bay page. Very nice. I had to take a run at it because I really think the information for 1999 belongs in History. But you said that, didn't you. Heh, I didn't see anything past the link and dove right in. All done now. I gave the rest a quick once over. I'll take another run at it later with fresh eyes. Good work, dude. — Myk Streja  ( who,me? ) 22:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I keep forgetting we haven't changed the name yet. No wonder no one can find anything on WP.  Here's a nice little appetizer for later.  It doesn't need any help, but can be expanded and pulled into the Halloween orbit:  Halloween Spooktacular. Oddjob84 (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I am amazed that no one has gone after this one. It must be too cute to bother. The infobox is bigger than the text! Yeah, this one can live without us for now. Keeping an eye on it is warranted. It would be like kicking a puppy to tag this one up. For as short as it is, it's well done, though. I couldn't help making some tweaks and ended up backing out of one. I'll experiment with it later. — Myk Streja  ( who,me? ) 13:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I made one little edit too.


 * Take a look here: User:Oddjob84/sandbox. The area between the title and the temporary separator consists of 5 paragraphs covering year 2000.  I rewrote the first, and the others are as they were.  What I think we can do is eliminate the last four entirely.  The tables contain most of the useful information, and the rest seems like superfluous marketing gunk.  The contents of paragraph 1 can be referenced, and serve as a summary of the tables. Take a careful look.  If this seems like a plan, I will rewrite the remaining years in the same way.  Chances are we may get some friction from fans, but I think this is more like it.  What do you think?  Oddjob84 (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I tweaked the first paragraph, and I totally agree that the remaining four should go. The plan is a go. That article contains way too much verbiage and you have the touch to make it right. If you get it done before September, you'll likely not get much flak about it. For myself, if I were a fan, I'd appreciate the streamlining. Just the fact, ma'am.

I couldn't resist. I went back to Spooktacular and added stuff to external links. — Myk Streja ( who,me? ) 03:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw Spooktacular. I should have the Howl-O-Scream text done in a week.  Oddjob84 (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't know where you find the time. My girl friend has been occupying my time lately; don't get more than an hour a day recently. I did get something done with Spinning tunnel. The Unabomber article has settled down, for now. I need to get back to the Haunted Castle; the Vortex Theatre can wait a bit. You've got Howl-O-Scream and Busch Gardens under control. Is Haunted attraction (simulated) done? Damn, there seems to be a lot on the table. — Myk Streja  ( who,me? ) 13:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm retired, remember? And my wife is understanding.  Haunted attraction (simulated) is done if you're ready to take that banner down.  We do need to update the attraction paragraph on the Halloween page, though (see below).  Oddjob84 (talk) 02:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Crap. This is going to be harder than I thought.  Writing it isn't a problem, it's the references.  I started referencing a chunk, and ALL of the references are primary sources, either pages from the Busch site or written by one of their marketing girls. I figured someone from the park was at the bottom of this article.  Out of the first 30 refs, maybe 3 are usable, and they are dodgy.  Oddjob84 (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I took down the banner at HA(s). While I was there I gave it a quick once over. The link to the Dark Rides list looked tacky with new eyes, so I changed it. Dark Ride I think it looks better considering the old one was not an actual header to a list.
 * I honestly don't remember you telling me you were retired, but that's just me. I forget things sometimes. I'll get the Halloween section, you sound super busy.
 * I took a look-see. Man, you were not kidding. They used each year's pamphlet to write the article. Check out SeaWorld_Orlando and look at their sources. This seems to be acceptable sourcing for this category of articles. Of course, the alternative is to call the article for original research and COI violation. The show itself is notable, right? Hasn't it been chosen by the community-at-large as best Halloween production, or a least in the top ten? I checked out the project pages and I doubt we'll get help there.
 * Check out this and look for the comment from DGG (weak keep) then look at this. Read the bullet header Primary sources, then pay close attention to the Policy statement. You can use primary sources for facts about the subject of the primary source. Take out the marketing fluff and you're good to go. — Myk Streja  ( who,me? ) 03:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Halloween (Haunted attractions)
I really hope you don't want me to use all of that. Since there is already a whole article to complement the section, it really should be only a paragraph, and a short one at that. You know, a teaser to the main article. I'll be sure it contains enough to stand alone. I know you got your work cut out for you with Howl-O-Scream, so if you don't mind I'll do what I can with this and let you approve of the final cut. — Myk Streja ( who,me? ) 20:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * No, of course I don't expect you to use all of that. I just cut/pasted the on-point sections which contained the thoughts you might cover. I expected you would just distill a sentence out for each thought. They can go to the main article for in-depth information. Sorry, it's just my way of working; I will pull a whole section in and edit it down to a couple of lines. There are really only four thoughts there. That's why I'm so fast on things like Howl-O-Scream. Oddjob84 (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Whew! < > You had me worried for a moment there. Okay, that's the way I planned on using what you placed here. I actually had the first(second) paragraph boiled down to a timeline sort of, and the other down to a sentence. I'm not yet sure how I'll do the rest, but it will come to me. I just need to remind myself that it all doesn't need to be done now. Soon is soon enough. (I really am OCD and I have to watch I don't try to do too much all at once.) — Myk Streja  ( who,me? ) 22:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Go here to see my first draft. Some of it may be familiar. You'll note I left out the statistics of how many houses or how much money is made. I don't feel that's the point of the section. I left out the technical details because those are best covered by HA(s). Let me know what you think. — Myk Streja ( who,me? ) 03:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It looks good, Myk. I fixed one word. Drop it into the article when you are ready. I do want to check the Wikilinks, but I'll do that when it goes live. Oddjob84 (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * You know, I need a name for you and I can't quite get the nerve to call you Odd, no matter how true that might be (and I'm an Odd Thomas fan).
 * I dropped it in. — Myk Streja  ( who,me? ) 22:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, Oddjob was the cat's name. Oddjob84 (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Why didn't I remember that? Okay, Oddjob it is. — Myk Streja  ( who,me? ) 01:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm closing the sandbox where I edited the section and moved the talk page for historical reasons. (My bot will eventually archive it.


 * I see the article is attracting critics. I'm reverting one as we speak. BTW, I see you found stuff after I bared my shorts to the world.  — Myk Streja  ( who,me? ) 03:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I see your friend User talk:104.49.119.231 has quite a recent history of edits lacking sources.


 * Nah, your shorts are safe. It was just a bunch of links.


 * Regarding Halloween: Lisa Morton in Trick or Treat: A History of Halloween says on page 12: "The unassailable facts of Halloween are fourfold.  First, it boasts both a pagan and Christian history.  Second, its position in the calendar- at the end of autumn/beginning of winter- means it has always served in part as a harvest celebration.  Third, it is related to other festivals of the dead around the world, and so has always had a sombre, even morbid element.  Finally, however,  its combination of pagan New Year celebration and joyful harvest feast have also given it a raucous side, and it has almost always been observed with parties and mischief-making."  I hope that helps.  There are two full chapters on that topic, and it's complicated.  BTW, Ms. Morton is an acknowledged leading authority on Halloween.  Oddjob84 (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Myk, you might want to move the last paragraph above to the correct discussion above, for continuity. Oddjob84 (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I think your statement above clarifies things just fine, no need to muddle with the time stamps. You know, I looked up the ISBN you included in the ref and the only place that has a copy is in a used bookstore in Germany. Go figure. — Myk Streja  ( who,me? ) 15:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * P.S. My friend 104 is hopeless, or maybe hapless. He's not vindictive or destructive, just determined to contribute. It's a shame because I think a lot of his information is good, just unsourced. — Myk Streja  ( who,me? ) 15:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, how about Amazon for $17.97? https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_3_14?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=trick+or+treat+a+history+of+halloween&sprefix=trick+or+treat%2Caps%2C159&crid=3K35JMM0FGNTR Oddjob84 (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)