User talk:Oknazevad/Archive 14

Split season article

I just completed a major re-write of the split season article. Since you showed an interest in it, could you look it over? Thanks    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 20:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

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)

Hehe, you're welcome. (That's because they were easy points for me to see!) Juicidium (talk) 00:51, 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)

July 2016

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)

Who's the master? "Account Activity" doesn't exist. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Figured it out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for getting what I missed on the Champions list Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 21:39, 14 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)

Yeah I was getting edit conflicts cause the IP was vandalizing as I was trying to fix and I kept losing my place lol. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Might wanna check this out

Not sure why it was ever nominated in the first place. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 WWE draft Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 02:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Oops I see you already have Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 02:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Wait is that AFD even valid since WP: Before wasn't followed? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

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)

There are sources showing the notability at the top of the AFD which is rather humorous in itself WP:SNOW. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 03:04, 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)

OMG I apologize, when Neal responded I wasn't paying attention and didn't even realize we were on your page. I am so sorry. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Three years ago ...

edit summaries
... you were recipient no. 551 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Apologies

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)

No harm done. But looking at you talk page (as I wanted to see the unfortunate sltemplate that annoyed you so), I noticed that you simply delete old messages. I would recommend against that, as old conversations have value as records of decisions, even if they are for articles elsewhere. Archiving is a much better choice. I personally manually archive twice a year, as my talk page isn't really busy enough to need more than that, but there are other options such as bits. If look into it if I were you. oknazevad (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Blanking on-topic comments on talk pages

In special:diff/731788343 you removed a topic related to professional wrestling discussion from the WikiProject's talk page.

Could you please explain what part of WP:TPO justifies this action?

I was under the impression that it was not permissible to remove other people's comments like that.

I believe you are falsely accusing me. I am not engaging in original research. I want a place to discuss sources. Sources which I cited from WWE.com.

Original research would be if I was writing the article. Please study what OR actually is, this is not it.

I do not understand how a topic ban would be appropriate simply because I would like to discuss sources because a previous attempt tepered off without resolution. Ranze (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to answer this as simply as I can. There was a resolution. Your proposal was found to be original research and unanimously rejected. Multiple times, at the championship article, the Triple H article, and the project. It is precisely synth because you are saying they said "a" and they said "b" so "c" must be true when no one actually said "c"; that is the definition of synth. Anyone with a third grade reading comprehension can see that. You just can't drop the stick. That's why a topic ban is quite probably appropriate, as frankly the project regulars are sick and tired of having you trot out the same nonsense every few months when they've told you in no uncertain terms that you are wrong, and to go away. You really should listen. oknazevad (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Response to edit summary

In response to your edit summary here, that was the point. A bit of a countdown to when the first champion is crowned. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 13:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

WWE Universal Championship

I've hit 3 reverts on the WWE Universal Championship. I can't revert that fake image anymore without risk. I warned them on their talk page but they aren't listening. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 04:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

He also keeps adding unsourced opinion at WWE World Championship. I gave him a final warning (and he promptly ignored it) so I took him to WP:AIV to get him blocked. oknazevad (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Chris "WarMachineWildThing", if it's a copyright violation (which this was), then you can revert freely. Just make you you have "copyright violation" in the edit summary and report it to AIV or an admin or to ANI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Would those edits or that fake image constitute Vandalism?? Looks like an admin got him on his talk page too.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 04:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Orlando

Hello Oknazevad,

I have restarted the discussion about the long-going "Orlando airports" issue at WT:Airports. Your thoughts and opinions on the matter would be greatly appreciated! The discussion is here. Regards—172.58.40.42 (talk) 03:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

West Syrian Rite

Hi, Inviting you to the discussion on West Syrian rite. Please share your thoughts. Thanks -59.95.64.78 (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion.....

As an editor who's opinion I hold in high regard could you give your opinion on this. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WWE_Universal_Championship&diff=prev&oldid=734096647 When they add this it keeps removing the Regins bracket, I went to their talk page and asked them to go to the article talk page but they deleted it. I would like your opinion on this and if I am wrong. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Noticed after I asked that you had already removed them once as well. Kinda answers my questions. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 05:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Broadway Theatres reversion

Hi, I'm not trying to sound like a jerk but leaving Walt Disney Theatrical in the Ownership section gives the wrong impression or may confuse to a reader to who the real owner of the theater is, the way I did it is the way it should be with a small notation below the name of the owner stating that the City of New York is the owner leased by Walt Disney Theatrical. YborCityJohn (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

As I noted in my edit summary, though, there are many multiple Broadway theatre's where such notes could be included. I mentioned the Lyric, but off the top of my head, the Marquis, the Hudson, the Gershwin, the Minskoff, the Sondheim, and the Circle in the Square are all located in other buildings. Many cases the listed company is not necessarily the property owner, but controls the theatre via a lease that gives them booking rights, which is what is far more relevant to pretty much anyone other than real estate lawyers. Maybe the header is a poor one, but singling out the New Amsterdam is inappropriate. oknazevad (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:WWE Universal Championship (cropped).jpeg

Thank you for uploading File:WWE Universal Championship (cropped).jpeg. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. —Bkell (talk) 12:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The file description page still has no copyright and licensing tag. —Bkell (talk) 13:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Taken care of. Strangely that's usually handled by the upload wizard. oknazevad (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Did you read the discussion?

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking/Archive 18#What sort of linking here? 208.81.212.224 (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes. And the discussion has no consensus. Three supports, four opposes, and, most importantly, only seven participants means that there's no consensus to impose a particular practice across all Wikipedia articles. Leave the long-standing, consistent version as is, please. oknazevad (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

And "Looks fine as it is, doesn't it?" No one objected. There are still more editors who agree there than on the ugly looking MLS article. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 02:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Smackdown Tag Titles moved again?

So it's been moved 3 times now, was there ever any consensus for any of the moves? Am I missing something? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea. I do know that the titles have been refered to as the "SmackDown Tag Team Championships" without the WWE prefix, but I really don't know what to make of them. Stupid, pointless new brand split! oknazevad (talk) 02:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Omg I agree this spit has been a nightmare. All these titles again!! First the tag page was WWE, then no WWE, now it's moved back to WWE again. I found no consensus for any of the moves and it's turning into a move war. As you are a respected editor in my opinion that's why I asked you if I was missing something.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk)

Do you know?

Do you know where the consensus is on the Wrestling Project about how the World title articles are to have not to be confused with other titles at the top?? I'm getting accused of edit warring for reverting an IP who keeps removing it and I can't find it. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

There was no consensus to do it with the WWE Universal Championship and World Heavyweight Championship (WWE). There is no overlap between the active time periods of those belts, nor are the title names alike in any way. 185.54.163.137 (talk) 04:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep this on the article talk page, please. There is clear consensus when you have been reverted multiple times by multiple editors. oknazevad (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Anti-IP editor agenda (not like that hasn't plagued the site for years). Bypass all that, read the WWE Universal Championship talk page, and it all becomes fairly clear. 185.54.163.137 (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Bullshit. I've for years argued against requiring registration and vehemently defended IPs against those sorts of nonsense. You just can't accept that consensus is against you, regardless of IP or registered status. Now, I asked nicely to keep this discussion on one place, the article talk page. Do not post here again regarding this matter. oknazevad (talk) 04:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry this has happened on your page, I just wanted to see if you knew where the consensus was on the project, no longer matters as I am getting blocked over this. Both Articles are still messed up, Again I apologize to you as a editor I respect. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Martial arts template

I started a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qwroi23poi12 for the constant changes. Trivial enough for me to feel a bit guilty but I got annoyed.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, behaviorally it's pretty obviously the same person. If they're blocked, than we can obviously revert the identical edits as block evasion. oknazevad (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Lost of undiscovered socks there! Well done! oknazevad (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

"Pit Bull" is not a term

All content displayed on the "Pit Bull" is wrong. If you want, you can investigate the source of this text. Access the first version of this text made in 2002. In the 2002 text there is no source to prove that the word "Pit Bull" is a term for a type of dog. All the text was based on a misinterpretation. And this misinterpretation was kept here all these years and is now regarded as true. This text is often replicated in many sites and people started to believe. Look for a kennel club that agrees with what is written here. Does not exist! You insist on staying missing. Since 1898 "Pit Bull" refers to only one breed. (American pit bull terrier = "American bull terrier used to fight in a pit") "The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed", " If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth"(Goebbels, Joseph) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:7F7:2280:F862:0:0:0:1 (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Nope, not buying it. Read the actual sources in the article. You don't know what you are talking about. oknazevad (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Comparison of karate styles Comment

Hi there, I did wonder whether Shorinji Ryu Karate was just a US dojo myself but having googled it does seem to have some basis in reality but it is closely related to Shorinjiryu Kenkokan Karate at least in terms of historical lineage. There is a published book (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qo3TAgAAQBAJ&dq=%22Sakugawa%22++%22shorinjiryu%22&source=gbs_navlinks_s) on Shorinjiryu karate, it refers to Sakugawa having developed Shorinjiryu but when discussing modern-day styles it only mentions the Kenkokan wing.

This is a tricky one, it's tempting to merge the articles into a single Shorinji Ryu Karate page which has information on this historical founders and details branching into Kenkokan and Sakugawa Koshiki further through. I don't think it is simply 'self-promotion' though.

Mountain^cirque 09:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, when you look at the edit history of that article, what with having been a major copyvio of the official website, and that the entry at the "Comparisons" article simply had the name of the founder where the parent styles belonged, it all felt a little promotional to me.

That is an issue with many articles about martial arts styles and martial artists; they tend to be promotional in tone and over-reliant on first party sources. The tone can be adjusted with simple editing, but the first party sources are a tougher nut to crack. Because without third party sources, there's no notability at all. And then there are books that appear third party, but are written by people affiliated with the organization, even if not an actual person in charge. And many of those are also self-published sources, which don't help with notability at all.

I actually tend to think that merger is a good idea. Some styles have splinter groups and variants because of the vagarities of history, but are still substantially the same. Like Gōjū-Ryu, where the version from Okinawa is a bit different from the version on the main islands of Japan, and then there's the Peter Urban's version. But all are Gōjū-Ryu. (Personal note: the syllabus of my dojo growing up as a mix of mainland Japanese and Urban's version; my Sensei was from Japan originally, but being based in northern New Jersey, he met Urban, who was based in NYC by then, and adopted some of his newly composed kata.)

Essentially, what I'm saying is that we don't need an article for each minor variant on a style, and we should definitely not be relying on first party and/or self-published sources to determine whether or not it is substantially different enough for a separate article. oknazevad (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit request at Wikipedia talk:Red link removed

Why did you undo my edit request for a wp:red change? You could have chosen to use a {{Not done}} template for it instead of reverting that revision. It's the proper way to declining the edit request as I have expected. 86.22.8.235 (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

ArenaBowl XII

Hi Oknazevad - I noticed you moved this to Arena Bowl XII, with the comment that CamelCase wasn't in use at the time. In that case. shouldn't all earlier Arena Bowls be subject to the same change? (And maybe later ones too? - I'm not familiar with the evolution of naming of this event). Colonies Chris (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hard to say. Looking at the actual print newspaper sources from the first ArenaBowl, the camel case was used, but it seems to have fallen out of use by XII, based on the sources there, only to return. Now there is the possibility that the sources were careless and imposed a style uniform with their own practice but counter to the actual name by the owner of the event (like when The New York Times spells the name of a Broadway playhouse "Theater" even though the -re spelling is engraved on the building itself). I think I'm just going to move it back. oknazevad (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WWE Universal Championship (cropped).jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WWE Universal Championship (cropped).jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

NBA

I made some 78 different changes to this article, all of which you have indiscriminately reverted. Among those changes are:

1. Fixing spelling errors
2. Converting incorrectly used 'publisher=' parameters in citation to 'work='
3. Correcting formatting of citation parameters
4. Correcting capitalisation in links
5. Converting from hyphen to endash in date ranges
6. Removing unnecessary piping (where the piped location is a redirect back to the original text)
7. Removing unnecessary state qualifiers from certain well-known cities, in line with Manual of Style guidelines (see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#United_States)
8. Removing links to well-known locations, such as New York City, Los Angeles (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#What_generally_should_not_be_linked).
9. Fixing (simplifying) links to venues:

The names of venues and sports teams tend to change because of sponsorship deals with naming rights, or team relocations. A redirect provides a simple way to ensure that all links to an old name will go to the article under the current name. Piping an old name to the current name is pointless because if the name changes again, as it surely will when the current sponsorship deal comes to an end or the team relocates again, the piped name will itself become a redirect and the already trivial benefit of a direct link will be lost.

Here are some relevant extracts from guides to best practice in piping and redirects:

1. From Wikipedia:Piped_link#When_not_to_use:

• It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects. The number of links to a redirect page can be a useful gauge of when it would be helpful to spin off a subtopic of an article into its own page.
• Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form.
• Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links.

2. From Wikipedia:Redirect#Do_not_.22fix.22_links_to_redirects_that_are_not_broken:

• There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. While there are a limited number of cases where this is beneficial, there is otherwise no good reason to pipe links solely to avoid redirects. Doing so is generally an unhelpful, time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]].

I hope that by making you aware of these guidelines, and why they are in place, you will cease your indiscriminate reversions of my work to improve the encyclopedia. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

List of metro systems

Why are you reverting my edits? RapidKL is also a LRT, but you are not removing it. Cheers. Calvin Wisanto (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Then that should be removed as well. oknazevad (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks/ Raven

I hope you can delete this, Oknazevad, after it's posted here. I didn't yet figure out how to reply to a comment, that's why it's here. I just wanted to thank you for reverting the Raven page. I was wondering why it was so scanty, and now I know. I was actually getting ready to write a lot more, so you saved me a great deal of time. I'll check the relevant species when I get a chance. It could be that others might be confused, so maybe you could add a brief sentence explaining that this a generic page. Thanks again!!! Brachney — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brachney (talk • contribs) 05:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

No problem. It's an example of a set index article, which is similar to a disambiguation page, but provides a little more context because the subjects listed have more in common than just a name, but the title itself is imprecise. I would think that the material you were going to add would be for the common raven, the species for which the word "raven" was first used, and the most widespread species with the word in its name. oknazevad (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Darth Vader#Appearances section

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Darth Vader#Appearances section. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

List of cities with more than one airport

Ok maybe the two for Toronto were incorrect. However, the BC ones are not scheduled charters. They are regular scheduled flights. By the way why did you add back an airport that has no scheduled flights and only charters that I removed? Are you also going to fix up List of airports in the Greater Toronto Area and List of airports in the Lower Mainland? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

NBA Development League

I'm well aware of the mess of the Hornets/Bobcats/Pelicans history. That's why using redirects is the better choice - the redirects between each team and the closest corresponding WP article are essentially embedding the knowledge of experts such as yourself; that means the connections don't have to be reinvestigated by future editors, who can just link the team name in the knowledge that the redirect will take them to the appropriate article. And if the Wikipedia articles were to be reorganised, or the team were to move again, only a few redirects would need to change. And all the other reasons for using redirects that I quoted from the MoS above still apply. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Edits

Please don't edit my closures, If you have an issue raise it on my talkpage instead of making WP:POINTY and quite frankly pathetic changes, I have a talkpage which isn't hard to find, Thank you. –Davey2010^Talk 00:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• That aside although it ran the full 7 days it was still a speedy and the only reason it wasn't closed before the 7 days is because no one saw it - No one checks the logs these days so the only time these more or less gets checked is when they're getting closed, The nominator had failed to make a proper reason so closing as SK gives any editor the right to renominate between now and a year (whereas if it's closed as Keep they don't have a choice but to wait for a year or 2), I would hope no one would renominate it and but either way it was a speedy, Thanks and Happy editing, –Davey2010^Talk 00:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Didn't think they were particularly WP:POINTY, just a matter of bookkeeping. Apologies if you were put off by them. No offense intended. oknazevad (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah damn I'm so sorry, Because of the Rocklands Coaches issue we had I thought you were perhaps annoyed and was making a point inregards to the AFDs, My sincerest apologies, I've struck the above,

In future if you spot an error in AFD closures it may be a better idea to ask the admin first as that way oyu won't be reverted :), Anyway again my apologies for earlier,

Happy editing :), –Davey2010^Talk 02:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, not sure what you're talking about.

I haven't done any editing to Wikipedia in any recent time. I am on T-Mobile and have been for months, as well. If you could give something of an example of this "disruptive editing" I've been so definitely doing, that would be very much great. --172.56.2.83 (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.2.83 (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems you have a dynamic IP address, meaning that whenever you log on to the Internet through T-Mobile, you are assigned to a different IP address out of a clump of them controlled by T-Mobile. So the warning message I left in August was for whoever had that address that day, and not for you personally. You just happened to have gotten the same address today that the other person had back on the day when I left the warning.

The easiest way to avoid this is to register a username, so any future contributions can be attributed to you, not a random IP address, and you can avoid any unneededly unpleasant messages. You also get to use a watchlist wheeler you can keep track of favorite pages, as well as other customization options. It's peachy keen, and I recommend it tremendously. oknazevad (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Reply: Grammar

It's fine, I'm just trying to help the Port Jervis line page as much as possible just because I live near that line, and know it a lot.

Me too. Live in the area myself. oknazevad (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Reversion of edit on Radio City Music Hall

Hi, I have noticed that you have reverted all my edits on Radio City Music Hall. The reason you gave was "incomplete and irrelevant". Please refer to 3Arena, Forum Copenhagen and Entertainment events at the SM Mall of Asia to have a better understanding of my editing intention. Please do take note that WP:LIST = WP:NM & WP:LIST = WP:NOTEVERYTHING. I did not violate any guidelines here and there is no contradiction in what I am doing in the first place. There are so many such articles that provide a list of concerts on their main page. Xinyang Aliciabritney (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

My concern, simply put, is that there's no way to ever have a complete list. And many of those details are utterly trivial. it may not have violated policy, but it was still of questionable value. oknazevad (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Jeff Award

Hello Oknazevad, I have reverted some of your changes to this article. The article's previous status - and the inclusion of (Wiki-)notable awardees in the main article - was discussed and agreed upon in the last AfD discussion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Jefferson Award for an Outstanding Actor in a Cameo Role in a Play). I am not sure why a short embedded list of Wiki-notable awardees should be controversial. Now of course consensus can change, and maybe there is a better approach to present these details, but this would be better discussed on the article's talkpage. I also disagree with your removal of the "Criticism" section as sourced relevant content (undue weight may be an issue, but it's a relatively short section). If similar criticism exist in other cities for other awards, maybe this criticism should be included for other awards as well, if it can be verified by reliable sources. Just some background information for the reasoning behind these edits, I'd be glad to discuss suggestions for improvements on the article's talk. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I saw that AFD, and totally agree that there's no need for individual award articles. The Jeffs are not the Tonys or the Oliviers, after all. But there were two things that struck me as off about the article. The first is that list of recipients. It has no clear criteria, and is hardly a list of every Jeff Award recipient with a Wikipedia article. Indeed, it's exactly the sort of arbitrary list that Wikipedia articles are not supposed to have. As for the categories, remove the redlinks, replacing them with plain text, but to remove the list outright makes little sense. What categories awards are given in is basic information, and removing g it outright makes the article much poorer.

But I also wanted to address the idea that the AFDs somehow fix certain content into the article. If the content conflicts with other guidelines, then the AFD result itself may be purely mistaken. In the case of the selective recipients list, that is the case. oknazevad (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The list has clear and objective inclusion criteria: entries received a Jeff Award and are notable (per Wikipedia's standard). The listing is probably incomplete, but a lot of lists in Wikipedia aren't finished - such lists are a work in progress by interested editors. Anyway, I kept the list of categories, but removed the redundant sea of redlinks as you suggested above. We could discuss the awardee list's suitability further on the article's talkpage, but I really believe such a short list is not a big deal. Compared to dozens of unmaintained sub-articles for every single category, it's certainly the better approach for now. Thanks for your additional constructive feedback. GermanJoe (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I won't press the issue for now, but it should t be that hard to create a complete list. There is, after all, a complete list of winners on the Jeff Awards website. What you might find, though, is two fold. First, that the list is a lot longer than you think; Chicago is a significant city in the world of English-language theatre, about even with Toronto in comprising the second tier behind only New York and London, and so draws significant theatre actors, directors and other personel, even ones established in the other major cities. Subsequently, there are many major actors who have won Jeff Awards. Secondly, and something of a corollary to the first, the prominence of many of the actors who have won Jeffs lends itself to the argument that the Jeffs themselves establish notability for an actor and therefore all Jeff Award (and Dora Award, for Toronto) winners are deserving of a Wikipedia article. (Countering that, of course, is that the Jeffs are not the Tonys or the Oliviers.) oknazevad (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited George Abbott Way, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marriott Marquis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Founding dates

This is actually being discussed at the project page. You might as well wait on changing them back till that discussion is settled. Though it will likely end up being revert the changes. -DJSasso (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The season in which the teams first started playing are the year the teams joined the league, not the year they were founded. All the years on the individual team pages list the correct year the teams were founded on the MLB table except for the Cincinnati Reds and the Los Angeles Dodgers. It is a mistake, the Reds were founded in 1881 and the Dodgers in 1883. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AquilaXIII (talk • contribs) 23:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

No, MLB considers the founding when they started playing. The discussion consensus agrees with using that. The date is the first season playing. oknazevad (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Lolita Novel

Re glossary of French phrases which you have deleted

If an encyclopaedia entry can't serve as a study guide, as you assert, why bother with it?

Many readers of Lolita will not be particularly familiar with French.

Artistry9 (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. oknazevad (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing in the guidelines which precludes helping a potential reader of the novel to cope with the French phrases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artistry9 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It still the sort of thing one would expect in SparkNotes, which is the sort of study guide that Wikipedia is not meant to be. oknazevad (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Star Wars VIII

Hi!

I've seen you comment on the talk page of the Star Wars: Episode VIII article. I would appreciate your input on a matter I just posted here.

Thanks in advance.

N. GASIETA|talk 13:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello!

Would you like to provide your input at this discussion regarding references and the Airlines and destinations tables? Thank you! — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 22:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

re Chicken Delight

Well, that must be a different organization. I guess since I wrote the article a few years back they must have again broken the US and Canadian operations, since the store locator at chickendlelight.com shows only Canadian locations now. According to the Wayback Machine, back in 2010 they listed several New Jersey locations.

There may now be a small separate US operation, or maybe these are just independent operations now? Next time you go there, can you get a corporate web address or phone number or something (for the US locations) and message me? Google doesn't find any website address right off for a US operation. Or ask the guy if they are just an independent operation now, or what. Or maybe the web operators for Chicken Delight just plain erased the New Jersey locations by accident? Am now interested to find out what's going on. And you know you want chicken. Herostratus (talk) 03:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Funnily enough I not only have one in my home town, but there's another a few towns over that I also have the phone number of saved on my phone. Plus i have eaten at a third. So they're still here in Jersey but you may be right that they are no longer officially part of the chain but her independently using the name. It be interesting to see if there is still any connection. oknazevad (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC) PS, I already had chicken. After all I ordered from them tonight.

Well if you have the number, can you call them and ask them what's the deal? Just ask them "do you have a web site" and if they do that will maybe explain. Or message it to me (its a public business number so it'd be alright I assume, or email it if you'd prefer) and I will. I'm now curious as to what the deal is, and I want to get the article right. And I understand that you ordered from them tonight, I was trying to entice you to visit them again soon and get their number (or url). But you already have it. Herostratus (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Have the number. Have had it memorized for decades, actually. That Chicken Delight has been in this town longer than I have, and I'm in my mid to late thirties. Which is probably what the deal is; it's probably a relic of the former national operations in the US that never stopped using the name. Same with the other two I've eaten from in recent months. There's also a "Chicken Galore" nearby that is a former Chicken Delight and still has an identical menu. I'm not going to put the number here (as that would be too revealing of my personal info), but a quick Google search of "Chicken Delight New Jersey" will find them in seconds. oknazevad (talk) 05:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Corn whiskey redundancy

I don't really think this is a big deal, except that this could maybe expose something that I may have completely wrong in my head, so I'm curious if my rationale below is woefully flawed in some way.

I don't think it's redundant to call out the jurisdiction of the law mentioned, despite the previous statement that the whiskey is "American". I say this because I interpret that as meaning it is an "American style" of whiskey (reinforced by the second paragraph), since you could distill corn whiskey just about anywhere in the world, at which point the ATF could go pound sand with their laws (unless it was imported into the US). Therefor, it seems prudent to mention that the law is specific to the United States.

But maybe I just don't understand some aspect of alcohol nomenclature (perhaps, if you made this in Canada, you'd have to call it something else?), this is definitely not a subject area I edit normally, nor do I care to, I just got sidetracked by a fungus that grows on distillery walls.

Ah well, thanks at least for catching the fact that the full-stop was correct, it was the only real reason I clicked 'edit' to begin with. Take care - Antepenultimate (talk) 03:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Whiskey nationalities are funny thing. But the fact is that any other major whiskey producing country could produce a similar spirit, but none would be able to call it "corn whiskey", Not because the term has some protected designation of origin (unlike bourbon, which is by treaties recognized as an exclusively American product), but because every other whiskey producing country requires at least three years of aging to even be called "whisk(e)y", while corn whiskey is, by definition, unaged (or aged in used barrels as opposed to bourbon's new barrels, but there literally only one aged corn whiskey on the market, and it's not available in all states, let alone exported).

Funny stuff, that mold. The distillers say its totally harmless, just unsightly, but it is still a type of black mold, so I'm not so sure. oknazevad (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for taking the time to explain that - definitely a case of there being so, so much that I don't know about whiskey. As for the mold, let's just hope it really is harmless; I'd rather not find out how bleach tastes as a mixer! Thanks again and take care - Antepenultimate (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I have absorbed way too much whiskey knowledge in the past few years. (I developed a taste for it when it proved useful for dealing with a broken tooth.) Glad to share it. oknazevad (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Darth Vader

Hi. Regarding the Darth Vader article, I think we should try to work this article out for a possible peer review and a GA along with EEMIV. While I've asked at WT:FILM for input on the depiction section and I've nominated it for peer review, can you give me any thoughts on how to improve the article? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, too busy in real life to spend that much time on any one article. I don't even have the article on my watchlist. Good luck with it, though! oknazevad (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Karlfonza

I'm glad you've also been fixing Karlfonza's messes. Although his camera is good, most of his photos were poorly executed or use Photoshop tricks to make them useless for Wikipedia. Can you help me revert more of his edits and maybe help reach out to him to try to stop or correct this? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 23:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm less convened about the photoshop tricks or what have you, as the obnoxious behavior of trying to cram his photos in every barely related article. I reverted a bunch, but don't have too much time to hunt out more. That said, it strikes me as the sort of behavior that needs some sort of intervention. oknazevad (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

205 Live

205 Live is essentially a spinoff of Raw, giving the CWs their own show with their own ring ropes and title. Yes, they still appear on Raw, but think of it this way...Joanie Loves Chachi spun off of Happy Days - now J & C still popped up on Happy Days, but had their own show. 205 Live is in that same ilk, as it's apparent that Raw was merely the launch pad for the CW division, to build them up to get their own show. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Or, they were shuffled off to their own show that is only on the Network (which has a tiny audience compared to the main show) because the writers were mishandling them and the division was crashing. This wasn't the original plan. As I said at the navbox talk page, it's akin to the old Cruiserweight division becoming the stalwarts of Velocity during the old brand split because they didn't know what to do with them. Hopefully this works better, because that premier was a damn fine show, and the division deserves to be treated with respect. We shall see. oknazevad (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

YOU do not make the rules. YOU are not the grand arbiter. Let people see for themselves, and whatever the consensus is, will be fine by me. YOU are not better than me. YOU do not talk down to me, or treat me as inferior. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

If you want others to see the changes, put a copy with the changes on the talk page. And read WP:BRD. oknazevad (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to show you for yourself that WWE.com now has a 205 Live listing on their roster page. There are a few who are listed under both Raw and 205 Live, but others who are listed under 205 Live exclusively. So if WWE considers 205 Live as a distinct entity, I think we can as well. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thays pretty definitive. oknazevad (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

NXT has 3 house shows scheduled this weekend on a Florida loop. If Swann defends the CW title on any of these shows, THEN will you ease up about NXT and the CW title? Vjmlhds (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe. Depends on the circumstances. The FL loop shows tend to be lower card guys, not the ones with near-national exposure who've been on Takeover cards and/or previously been on national television. In short, I doubt Swann will even be in those shows. oknazevad (talk) 07:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

For future reference, you may want to check out this thread. Hopefully this issued is resolved.LM2000 (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for everything.....

Thanks for everything, your assistance and working with you on keeping articles clean will be missed.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 12:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Acela Express

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Miniseries

Good call; I was trying to figure out the phrasing but you hit it better and on the head. Nate • (chatter) 23:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :) BOZ (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

And a Merry Christmas to you, BOZ!! oknazevad (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

Hello Oknazevad: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, all your help to improve and to expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 10:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Merry Christmas Chris! oknazevad (talk) 13:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Might wanna.......

You might wanna weigh in on this before mass changes are made to all Wrestling articles because of this users way of thinking. I see this causing more issues than we need. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 21:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Arena Football League

I would suggest that Blake675 be banned from Wikipedia because he keeps reverting past information back to where they were before and has been asked to stop. The info there now is current. NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

He has stopped. I'm going to assume good faith that he was just trying to add to the last chart and kept screwing up. I don't think he was acting maliciously, but do have to question his ability. oknazevad (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

Thanks for the tips on the image, and I have uploaded a new one retrieved from Kevin Eastman's official site.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 08:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Fix the Alcohol Control States article

You reverted the edit on Alcoholic_beverage_control_state. The intro up top says "seventeen". The list at the bottom says "eighteen" and lists the 18 jurisdictions. They need to match. Pick one and fix it, or stop reverting edits incorrectly.Super veritas (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, the number of control states is 17. Maryland is not a control state, though some counties are control counties by state authorization. I moved Maryland out of the list and into a separate paragraph to avoid potential (and understandable) confusion. oknazevad (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hardys

The link you gave is unreliable. Please check the following more reliable sources;

• http://impactwrestling.com/impact-wrestling-results-dec-1-2016/
• http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/12/01/mcmahons-impact-wrestling-report-live-coverage-rosemary-vs-jade-six-sides-steel/

Please restore your original decision on the TNA titles page. 101.182.29.49 (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

It's the actual episode. And the above sites are just using the same thing they always have. oknazevad (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Read the links again. There is NO mention of Broken Hardys, only Hardys. As I said, the video is unreliable and in fact a copyright violation of TNA's property rights. 101.182.29.49 (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The point remains that the on-screen graphic uses "Broken Hardys". oknazevad (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

So? The official website of TNA ID's them as the Hardys. The video was from the show run by Matt and Jeff. It's not reliable. 101.182.29.49 (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a good point. It's an intentionally different episode. I'll switch it back. oknazevad (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

It's still an official episode of TNA Impact, with production paid for and done by TNA, regardless if the Hardys booked the show. Also, the official Impact site calls them the Broken Hardys. http://impactwrestling.com/total-nonstop-deletion-results-dec-15-2016/ Hellboy42 (talk)

Run by the Hardys. All other Impact reports call them The Hardys, including the one I linked on your talk page. They are The Hardys. The verifiable reliable evidence is against you. 101.182.29.49 (talk) 09:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. If you are an admin could you respond to my vandalism report? If you can't because it needs a neutral admin, or you aren't an admin I'll understand. 101.182.29.49 (talk) 06:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)