New comments, questions and concerns go on the bottom of this page. Please use the "New section" tab above if you have a new topic! if you post here I will respond here; other interested parties may want to follow the conversation, and it's rude to force them to jump back and forth. Similarly, if I post to your talk page, please respond there. Don't bother with talkback templates, I watchlist all pages as needed.
Archives: 2004–2009, 2010, January–June 2011, July–December 2011, January–June 2012, July–December 2012, January–June 2013, July–December 2013, January–June 2014, July–December 2014, January–June 2015, July–December 2015, January–June 2016
Split season article
Okay, thanks. I don't know what I was thinking, then. I thought I had seen a term like "light-blue" or "medium-light-blue," but they would only be "light blue" and "medium-light blue," huh? And thanks for the thanks on one of my edits! Juicidium (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, thank you for the polite discussion and willingness to hear reasoning opposite your prior conclusion. oknazevad (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Nomination of Fox Chase Rapid Transit Line for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fox Chase Rapid Transit Line is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fox Chase Rapid Transit Line until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mackensen (talk) 23:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Please stop edit-warring over the copy editing change to remove "based in," when "in" is sufficient.
You have offered no reason to substantiate the change, but have chased after me undoing any edit I make. This is childish and silly.
Why is "based in" redundant? Let's say you're a freelance writer. And you're a Pittsburgh freelance writer. What does that mean? That means that your home is in Pittsburgh. Of course, you could write about any topic anywhere. So what does it mean to call you a "Pittsburgh-based freelance writer"? It means the same thing, nothing more and nothing less. It's a commonly used expression, yes, and it's commonly edited out by professional editors.
If it required "-based" to indicate the meaning that a person or organization or ball team has a home in one place and performs in many places, then they would need to be the Houston-based Astros, but they're not. Drive to save (talk) 03:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Obvious sock of Account activity is obvious. Abusing multiple accounts is not allowed, and I will not comply with the wishes of a clear sockpuppet. Period. (Especially when they're incorrect anyway; "based in" is not redundant for a mobile operation with multiple branches, like a ball team, and it's "New York Mets" because that's the team's name, not an adjective. You really don't know what you're talking about, and since you clearly can't follow the rules of Wikipedia, you'd best just knock it off and leave. oknazevad (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Note the childish level of argument here from this user: "F off." Any well edited publication uses "in" for "based in." Instead of replying to the grammatical point, you chase after me reverting any edit I make, while accusing me of edit warring. Stop hiding behind policy, using it at your whim. They're the Chicago Cubs, not the Chicago-based Cubs. Why? Because "-based" adds no information. The adjective "Chicago" tells that this is their home. It doesn't confine them to playing ONLY in Chicago, requiring "-based" to free them to perform elsewhere. This is a simple point of first-year editing.Drive to save (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- Stop hiding behind a sockpuppet. Read what I've said about the strawman fallacy. Respect the obvious consensus. (You know how many "thanks" I got for reverting your WP:TE at New York Mets?) Read WP:BRD. And follow policy, or you are done. I've been here a long time, used one user name (unlike you), made tens of thousands of edits, and have never been blocked. Why? Because I can respect others enough to not force my way around. But when it's as obvious as the day is long that you're doing something wrong, you have no right to tell me anything. Hell, you have no right to edit at all. Have fun at WP:SPI.oknazevad (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- No problem. I find that checking the diffs in the edit history between the current revision and a prior version last edited by a known responsible editor makes them easy to spot. Also makes it easy to revert to that last known good version. oknazevad (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Might wanna check this out
- Chris "WarMachineWildThing", the AFD may be ill-advised but it is valid. Your best course of action is to actually add sources showing notability. --NeilN talk to me 02:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- It's valid, but it'll be quickly closed as "keep", between the obvious unanimous opposition to deletion, and the clearly demonstrated notability (there's already multiple reliable third-party sources in the article). It was a really stupid nomination, but letting it run actually strengthens the case for future articles.
- That is if this pointless revival of the brand extension actually lasts. It won't help ratings at all, to be honest. Just a case where there just not the audience for five hours of WWE programming a week, and trying to fill that much time has caused so much repetitiveness and piss poor pacing in the product that it turns people off. And it's so obvious that there's no real difference between the brands, which is exactly why the first brand extension petered out. Wrestling may be fake competition in ring, but a company can't really have fake competition with itself. In the end, people see the WWE logo before they see anything about the show's name. Vince just needs to admit that less is more when it comes to WWE, and let SmackDown die, if only to save Raw, which itself should be no more than 2 hours. But I'm ranting. as for the actual AFD, dumb, but not illegit. oknazevad (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Chris "WarMachineWildThing", perhaps fix the "no sources" tag? --NeilN talk to me 03:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
lol as soon as I quit getting an edit conflict I will be happy to, I was sure there was already one on there but alas it was not Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC) Done, Added the ref to the WWE.com Draft results page itself. I figure that is the best source to Ref, also removed the no source tag. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 03:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Can you guys please take this elsewhere (like WT:PW so i'm not getting clogged up with notifications on a conversation that a) I'm not directly involved with and b) is of interest to many more people than just me. oknazevad (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
|... you were recipient
no. 551 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!
I had a quick final look at Wikipedia last night and in my rush I didn't check properly and just thought you had removed a referenced fact. Even if that had been the case, my response was intemperate (and not just metaphorically, since three glasses of Merlot probably didn't help). For that I apologise. Your action was perfectly correct. I tend to add etymologies to a taxonomy section if one exists, and just stick it after the genus name if it's a stub, which, despite its many failings, Corvus is not.
I shouldn't have templated you either, especially as I was incandescent about an "inappropriate humour" template stuck on my talk page subsequent to this recent misguided edit, which I've now referenced. Apologies again, I must try to break the habits of a lifetime, and think first Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)