Talk:Great Wolf Resorts

message: I'm working with Great Wolf Resorts, and they:
(a) did not write the copy on this page
(b) do not know who did
(c) would like to make sure that history is tracked for their entry (logs, edit history, etc)
Per Alison's comments, this page does need more content and editing.  Great Wolf Resorts will address that request, ensuring the page respects wikipedia's guidelines, in the near future.
Thanks!
Tcascenda (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't for Great Wolf Resorts to do any such thing! Companies do NOT write their own pages here. Mayalld (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, there is.  Please read WP:COI, WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:RS and other similar pages.Skookum1 (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After scanning the article, it is clear taht this is not a resort article and so should not have those categories; only individaul resort articles should.  This should have only company cast; I've added WP:US as well as WPCanON so that editors from those wikiprojcts can work/unscramble the content here, as should be.  And it's not a stupid wikipedia policy that asks for conflict-of-interest editors to either butt out or play by the rules; the stupidity that would result if WP:COI and WP:AUTO wern't in existence is far greater tahn the stupidity of telling someone not to promote their own company (on salary no less, vs the rrest of us being on volunteer/hobby time).  AS for a "fork" of Wikipedia resulting from such policies, suffice to say taht a Wiki-spinoff that was corporate-p.r. friendly wouldn't have much credibiliity because of that.  It would have a slicker press package no doubt; but all its contents would be subject to doubt as "conflict of interest"Skookum1 (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I still disagree.  Doesn't matter what wikipedia policy is, it's still bad if it doesn't allow any such edits at all.  Fortunately, exactly what I said would happen has.  There are forks.  There will continue to be forks.  There are now even forks that are just for deleted pages, due to crazy wikipedia policies.  We will watch wikipedia die because of it's own shortsighted policies.  But that's okay with me, since someday a fork will emerge victorious, preferably without such draconian policies.  BTW:  The policy suggests companies avoid editing their own pages OR that they be very careful in doing so to avoid COI.  And I think these people did.  It's my opinion, and I'll be sticking with it, although I won't bother changing this page here.  I'll go do it on a fork instead.  Shepd (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The image :File:Great Wolf Lodge Anaheim-Garden Grove, CA.jpg is currently under discussion, at WP:Files_for_discussion/2016_February_17#File:Great_Wolf_Lodge_Anaheim-Garden_Grove.2C_CA.jpg.  It was removed from the article with the edit summary: "Rendering image is no longer necessary".  I restored it.  While I personally think the fair use rationale offered was weak, I think it is sucks to have a discussion going on, and then have your fair use image deleted not because a discussion, but because it wasn't being used in article space.
So I restored it.
Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to challenge the revert, but I will say that the ability to remove an unnecessary image from an article shouldn't be held hostage to a threatened deletion from Wikipedia. Whether or not an image belongs in an article is determined by a very different set of conditions than the right for an image to be hosted by Wikipedia. The article takes precedence, and only when its use isn't justified in any article, would it then be removed from Wikipedia. The revert was unnecessary, but judging from the way the discussion is going, it doesn't look like that's going to matter. Consider this advice for future reference. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

text: Take a look at WP:V and WP:CITE, as well as other links on your talk page. Information added to Wikipedia must be reliably sourced. Original research is not accepted. If you still have any questions, I suggest asking them at WP:TEA. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: explanation

message: Great wolf lodge is coming to Perryville, MD  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.60.7.233 (talk) 12:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Added it to an "under construction" section in the article citing a reliable source. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Perryville, Maryland

message: Jackson planning commission approves preliminary designs for Great Wolf Lodge project — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.2.120  (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Reminder to sign your posts with 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end. I have been signing for you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Jackson Tennessee

message: new naples location adding it it´s now under counstrion. Cabin134 (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2022