User talk:Oknazevad/Archive 22

Your revert of my edit

You are invited to comment at Talk:Washington Examiner#Refutation to the Washington Examiner's editorial stance. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Police Department

I removed it from the lede in part due to WP:UNDUE. This paragraph in the lede outweighs the paragraph before it by a considerable amount. It sets the tone for the entire article. Fine if a mention is made in the lede, but it should be balanced, perhaps by accomplishments of the NYPD, and allow the appropriate section to carry the weight of it. Further, the fiction paragraph is completely uncited and has little business belonging in the lede section. Fictionalized narratives about the NYPD are not the NYPD itself and should not be in the lede. What do you think? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mention if the NYPD being commonly depicted in fiction because of New York's size and prominence is a major aspect of the NYPD in the broader culture. It definitely and absolutely needs to be mentioned somewhere in the article, if not the lead. The paragraph itself was already in the lead before the section was split off into another article. The lack of citations are an implementation of WP:LEADCITE and don't disqualify it. The big issue is that when the list off appearances was split off as a separate article no summary of the article was left behind as needed by WP:SUMMARY.

As for the other paragraph, I don't think it's undue at all. The NYPD is a hugely controversial police force, which is one of its truly defining characteristics, and to not mention that in the lead is to give insufficient weight to a major aspect of the article. I don't think it unbalanced And considering that some have been trying to bluntly delete the entire well-referenced section as part of a POV-pushing whitewashing, it means it's even more necessary to keep that summary in the lead. oknazevad (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think edit warring by POV pushers counts as justification to place it in the lede. Also, yes, there is controversy about the NYPD especially now. But, recentism is also not a reason to overly weigh down the lede with a section that outweighs the rest of the lede. As an example, it would be the same as allowing the sex abuse scandal at Penn State Nittany Lions football to dominate the lede. In NYPD's case, it's wrong to have the lede so heavily weighed down by it, and ignores 175 years of other history. I don't object to there being some mention of this, but making it the majority of the lede is wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism? I recommend reading about "Clubber" Williams or, for that matter, any other period in the NYPD's history. Mr.choppers | ✎ 01:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Curious about non-revert

This is in reference to the edit you did on the page: "9mm Browning Long" on 2020 June 25‎ at 21:57

I noticed you changed my edit back...but didn't flag it as a revert. Any particular reason for that??

Also, you didn't put in an edit description, so I'm not certain why you even changed it at all.

Please clarify for me.

Thanks, WesT (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The clause is not clarifying that cartridge is semi-rimmed, but introducing the separate but related fact that the cartridge headspaces on the rim, as opposed to the mouth of the case as in some other cartridges. As such, a semicolon is correct to use. Also, even if it were appropriate to use a dash, using two hyphens for a dash is an old typewriter convention and not used on Wikipedia. Please see MOS:DASH for the preferred use. oknazevad (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I didn't know about the dash. In the past, I've see the double-hyphen get converted over to a dash. Apparently in this case, it didn't work. I'll make certain to use the correct character in the future.

As to the clause, I think my problem was that I didn't see the word 'headspaces' as a verb. The highlight for the link may have confused me. I now can see that it truly is a full clause and the semi-colon is correct.

Thanks again! WesT (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Still don't understand why you didn't just revert it. [shrug]

I'm not sure either. Probably just clicked edit from the article. Same net effect. Shrug. oknazevad (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moose's TNA Championship

Moose's Championship falls under the Category:Unsanctioned championships and Professional wrestling championship#Unsanctioned championships. Currently AEW is doing the same thing with the FTW Championship with Biran Cage. Eerie Holiday (talk) 05:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Off-Broadway

Do you agree with this? If not, please adjust. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're fine. The Theatre Row Building dropped the names for numbers after their recent renovations (see that article for the source), and the Peter Jay Sharp Theatre is part of the Playwrights Horizons building. I see no issues with either addition or change. oknazevad (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pitbull wiki

I have removed the primary source and left a psychologtoday article as a secondary source discussing

If the reservation of one other holds enough weight to count as not having consensus then surely my reservations hold just as much weight. I don't see why an article on the respected psychologytoday website discussing the statistics by a scholar and phd holder can't be respected as part of the article. It's a secondary source. --Menacinghat (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dead-ball era

See book stats. Dicklyon (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet Club

Hi. Do you have a source stating that the NEVER Trios title is shared between LIJ and BC? Did NJPW make any declaration? Right now, Evil didn't bring the title to Bullet Club, he said he didn't care for that piece of crap. Right no, Evil left the stable, he didn't bring the title to BC and NJ didn't make a press conference about that. It's in limbo. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's been no announcement that the title is vacant or that Evil is not still champion by NJPW. So, therefore, he's still champion, and in Bullet Club. Anything else is OR. oknazevad (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that the title is shared between LIJ and BC is OR. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. It's staying the fact that Evil is co-champion, which he is. He may have said he didn't care, but he's still champion, and he's in Bullet Club. Championships belong to the individuals who hold them, not their factions. oknazevad (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is in the BC, but NJPW doesn't say anything about recognizing the title as part of Bullet Club. The article is about titles won by the faction. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uniforms of the United States Coast Guard

Hi, I assume you're planning on posting a split rationale on the talk page? I'm waiting to comment, but don't want to stomp on your edits if you were just taking your time. Btw, I support it, and was going to suggest it myself, possibly with a merge with Uniforms of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely my thoughts, actually. Just got pulled away from the computer while I was typing it up. oknazevad (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I figured that might be it. BilCat (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:CORP

To support your removal of a full company name you cited MOS:CORP, a page that doesn't exist. Can you direct me to the correct link that I might better understand the process here.

"using the full name of Avalon Hill is overly formal and runs agains MOS:CORP"

--Sciencefish (talk) 09:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my bad, I meant WP:NCCORP. oknazevad (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RuneQuest

It's really pointless me trying to slowly restructure the RuneQuest page, I'm trying to remove unneed company history and focus on the actual game using the D&D page as a guide. You just revert it and leave cryptic links to Wikipedia style guide. How is anyone meant to learn? I dare not rewrite the whole article and replace it in one go as you will clearly revert it. Rather than revert, you could edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sciencefish (talk • contribs) 12:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The history section is tied to the company history because the rights to the game have passed through so many publishers and those changes have had major impact on the game's availability and popularity, along with the changes in editions. As for the rest, they were just routine style fixes. I would recommend looking through the manual of style just to familiarize yourself with some of the particulars of the house style, as some of them are peculiar to Wikipedia's functioning. oknazevad (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like other RPGs (like D&D), the history section should be changed to developement History, so that it can be separated from company history that should only be in the relevant company sections and not the focus of the article on the game. The RuneQuest article is no place for the management changes in 1975 start of the company and the 1998 company changes. The trademark rights are very easy to list: 1977 The Chaosium, 1984 Avalon Hill, 1998 Issaries and 2013 Moon Design and overly complicated in this article.

--Sciencefish (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The changes in ownership were directly the cause of the changes in game development, and subsequently are of major relevance. The reason the Mongoose versions are totally fresh development is because the copyrights to the rules text remained with Chaosium. Same with 6th edition being rewritten from the second Mongoose edition, though that one is more just restating the rules in new words as the gameplay is substantially the same. (6th edition is more or less a directors' cut of MRQII that allowed Nash and Whitaker to include everything that they had originally wanted to include in MRQII but were unable to because of editorial page limits. The rewrite of the text was prompted by the need to have it be separate from the Open Gaming License-released text of MRQII/Legend as a condition of their license. Apparently Issaries was unhappy with the OGL and didn't want future releases of RQ to be under that license, but can't revoke earlier releases under it.) oknazevad (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diagreement is fine. I still feel it could be better presented. FYI Mongoose did not have the right to sub-licence RQ, so had no right to release an SRD. However once the cat is out of the bag, it can't be put back in. --Sciencefish (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tbats the thing. While Issaries had the rights to the RuneQuest name and the Glorantha setting, they had no copyrights to the previous rules texts (Chaosium retained them), which is why Mongoose had to write their own version from scratch, which they could do with as they pleased as they hold the copyrights to that version, not Issaries/Moon Design/Chaosium. Especially since only rules texts are actually subject to copyrights, not rule mechanics. (In fact, rules mechanics are particularly exempt from being copyrightable. Once they're released, anyone can write their own summary of the rules mechanics and publish them as they see fit.) So Mongoose had all the rights in the world to release an SRD, and anyone telling you otherwise is incorrect. oknazevad (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every right to the SRD text but no right to the trademarked name that they had used with it. It was the name they had licenced.--Sciencefish (talk) 07:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. They should have given the SRD another, more generic title.oknazevad (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Toyota, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hino.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Engine logos

I saw your removal of some of the logotypes in engine articles, and you have my full support. Alvarowiki's account seems to have gone stale, so I don't know that you will meet with any opposition anyhow. Mr.choppers | ✎ 01:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Considering it's just one person who, frankly, drew no support at the project talk oage, and who blatantly is ignoring the MOS:ICON and the WP:NFCC, even if he were to return and attempt to restore them, he'd get blocked, because he's been warned. oknazevad (talk) 01:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crucible Almanac

Hi Oknazevad, hope you are well. Did I read somewhere you have a copy of the Crucible Almanac? I think I've seen you comment on this before. I'm trying to source some stuff for the 1984 and 1986 World Snooker Championship FAs. If you don't have a copy, don't worry. Hope things are going well with you. :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Things are good, if a bit boring sitting at home during this whole thing. I don't have that book. I don't recall ever mentioning that I did. Perhaps you have me confused with another editor? oknazevad (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am. Worth a shot - I'll try and look through my edit history on the hunt for who it was. I hope things get a little more exciting for you soon! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nets Retired Numbers

The reason I put Biggie's number 72 on the Brooklyn Nets retired numbers is because they did retire his number. If you want I can make a section for Brooklyn Nets Honored Numbers/Players and put Biggie in there. Edit: If you don't answer this then im gonna keep on putting Biggie in the retired numbers. Thank you, --D MCCG (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's your answer. Take it to the article talk page. That's where this discussion belongs. You've been reverted by multiple editors. More importantly, the team doesn't list it as a retired number in their media guide (available on their website) so it doesn't matter if they honorarily retired it as part of a theme night. oknazevad (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Your recent editing history at Bullet Club shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take it personally, I'm just warning both parties per the fair and proper process. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Milk chocolate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hershey.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity (nuclear test)

Hello! Information from Bainbridge report at page 11 is about the crater caused by explosion of 100 tons of TNT on May 7th 1945. The Bainbridge’s report says nothing about the crater caused by the Trinity nuclear test on July 16th. Regards Szelma W (talk) 09:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the placement of images on the article for Pumpkin

Hey there! I just saw that you reverted my edit to the article Pumpkin in which I adjusted the placement of images in the article's body, including moving some of the images to an Image gallery section. Your reasoning was "I don't see how moving images away from the sections they are most specifically relevant to is helpful to the reader." That's a fair point, and one that I considered. My question is, how does the page look on your end? I'm using the desktop version of Wikipedia on a laptop computer, and here's what I'm seeing: due to the nutritional value box located below the Nutrition section on the right side of the page, many of the images that would be associated with certain sections are actually much further down the page than those sections are. The most egregious example seems to be the image of the jack-o'-lantern, which, instead of being with the Halloween section, is crammed off to the left side of the article next to the See also section, and it actually interrupts a bulleted line of text.

Looking at the Wiki markup, the images are all placed understandably in their appropriate sections. On the mobile version of Wikipedia, the article looks perfectly fine to me. I'm wondering if this is perhaps just an issue with my laptop and its screen dimensions or something. —Matthew - (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have many issues on my end viewing the desktop website on my phone, so it's possible that it's due to your settings. That said, the nutrition box does cause the pumpkin pie image to be kinda low on my phone; not out of the section, but not exactly at the top either. I added a section clear at the end of the nutrition section. This does result in some whitespace at the end of that section, but as a way to ensure images are in their appropriate sections it is probably the best solution. Frankly those boxes are too large for most articles, and also questionable as being too much a dietary guide in light of WP:NOTGUIDE, but they do seem common and liked. oknazevad (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Milk chocolate

added a link pointing to Cocoa

Oil pastel

added a link pointing to Gum

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Police ranks of the United States

Oknazevad, in reference to your edit here as well as your edit summary "Puerto Rico is part of the US", I believe you are confusing being "a possession of" with being "a part of". Only the 50 states and DC are part of the US; Puerto Rico is a possession of the US, but not part of it. This is why I made my edit there. Agree? Mercy11 (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not. Every Puerto Rican is a US citizen. It's a territory, not a state, yes, but it belongs on that list just as readily as the states. oknazevad (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited At Your Service Madame, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norman Spencer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting assistance

Hi Oknazevad,

I'm writing to you because you are listed as a member of the Wikiproject Pro Wrestling, and I'm in need of third (actually fourth) opinions.

The thing is, Hartley Jackson recently went through an AfD that arose a lengthy of discussion.
I will try to summarize the problem below.

Jammo85 had asked me for assistance in find sources to a certain fact, and I did find some good sources, but we are still facing opposition from another user in Hartley Jackson and The Mighty Don't Kneel (TMDK).
I would thus like to ask your opinion on the matter.

We would like to state "Hartley Jackson was part of The Mighty Don't Kneel in 2015 and 2016."

I have found two sources from websites of official pro wrestling events (they are archived, please give it a few minutes to load):

https://web.archive.org/web/20170303035516/http://melbournecitywrestling.com.au/2016/06/18/hostile-takeover-2016/
https://web.archive.org/web/20160502062934/https://wrestlerampage.wordpress.com/ which despite being wordpress, it was and still is the official website of the event

and Hartley appears on the TMDK side on both.

Also, there is also a listing of his appearances as TMDK here, which corroborates the above:

https://www.cagematch.net/?id=29&nr=1293&page=2

but this website is listed in one unofficial list of reliable sources as being Marginally reliable. Strictly used for match results and not other information. Takes user submissions but is reviewed by regional editors that verify all submissions before they are added to the database. The other party uses this against us, but I actually think it supports us, as we are actually only using results here. That is, we are not using the blog posts produced in cagematch (see [5]).

I thought the above sources were enough, but there are some more if you would like to see:^[1]^[2]^[3].

^ Wrestle rampage's official ad on social media [1].
^ Greer, Jamie (2020-05-05). "The Mighty, Too: Shane Thorne & Brendan Vink Continue TMDK Legacy". Last Word on Pro Wrestling. Retrieved 2020-09-26.
^ Other sources on this piece of information are: [2], which is an article from a podcast on wrestling, which mentions Hartley as being part of TMDK; and also [3] [4], which are official match advertisements from Wrestling Rampage, and show Hartley in the TMDK team. All links were accessed on October 7, 2020.

Can I have your opinion on this?

Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 19:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the post at the project. I don't know much about Jackson, and less about TMDK, so I can't be of assurance, sorry. oknazevad (talk) 06:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

... for reverting my silly edit, which I really shouldn't have done. However, it wasn't lack of attention. It was that after correcting the same mistake probably literally thousands of times, I finally couldn't resist the temptation to apply a little irony. JBW (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's a common enough mistake (I blame autocorrect). oknazevad (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Saint Basil's Cathedral, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Church.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another Thank you

I have noticed that you have improved the table of historical ranks of the Royal Canadian Air Force in the Canadian Armed Forces ranks and insignia page. You did a great job with your improvement and I would like to thank you for it. Ctjj.stevenson (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help! oknazevad (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B-class assessment is at risk for this article

First of all, thank you for your response to my comment on the United States Coast Guard talk page. Secondly, although your suggestion of using Internet Archive never occurred to me it is equally a total mystery to me. I have never done this, although I have noticed its use in various citation markup formats. Could you possibly point me in the right direction when you have the time? I am not very proficient at things computer or internet. Cuprum17 (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The easiest thing to do is copy the url from the dead link and look it up at internetarchive.com. Then, presuming they have it, copy that archive page's url into the reference with the "archiveurl" parameter and note the date it was archived with the "archivedate" parameter, and update the access date in the ref to the current day. oknazevad (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will try this, thank you for the guidance! Cuprum17 (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of restore the 20th anniversary CoC edition

Thanks for putting that back, I had a browser glitch and must have deleted it by accident.Sciencefish (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No you were fine, I was the one who deleted it. Canterbury Tail talk 18:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit

Please try to assume good faith when dealing with other editors; in this case you cursed at someone who was not the sock you thought they were. If you're being targeted by a specific person like this, try to keep your cool - those people often enjoy getting you angry and getting you to react. If you have future issues with this sockmaster, feel free to let me know and I can look into it. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@General Notability:. I'm not convinced it's not a sock. In fact, I think your conclusion is outright incorrect. The account in question behaved exactly as previous socks did, making pointless reverts of my edits specifically on articles they had never before edited, and then reverting their reversions for no reason. Which is the exact behavior that got Stark Bollocks indeffed in the first place, and exactly what I had left a note on their talk page about in the first place that led to them targeting me in the first place. Plus, the Sven account is three days old, and edits as though they've been here for some time, so behaviorally they fit the profile of a sock puppet of an indeffed user. I note that you close at the SPI says I should go to AIV to deal with it, but when I had done that just prior for the Oknazefool sock, the admin there said I should use SPI for future issues precisely because SPI would give an ongoing record to build on for a LTA issue (which a serial sockpuppeteer is considered). Coupled with one of the socks I tagged in the SPI filing already having been blocked specifically as a sock of Stark Bollocks, I was genuinely hoping for a run of checkuser specifically to gather that evidence for future reference. Plus, to add, while I tagged four socks, they are hardly the only ones, I just didn't have time to go back through my notifications to get all of them.

In short, I think your close was premature and missed the key evidence needed. I ask you to reconsider and reopen the case, specifically to run a checkuser on what is already a known sockpuppeteer so that it can be kept in evidence for future socks, as this is clearly not the last of this sock master. oknazevad (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And, I'm also going to point to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis. Check user already lists the Sven account as "likely" if not confirmed. Yes, I was right indeed. oknazevad (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk archive help

Hey, silly question, but I was trying to set up an archive on my talk page and I seem to have totally messed up the process. I noticed that you have on set up. Could you tell me where I went wrong? Thanks! Garuda28 (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just manually archive twice a year by cutting and pasting the old posts to a new page created by just appending a /Archive # (Where the number is whatever archive I'm up to) to the title. It's not anything automatic and not a particularly elegant solution, but it's been working for me for years. oknazevad (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of guidelines for short descriptions

There’s a new proposal to add dating recommendations to the guidelines for short descriptions. Short descriptions are a prominent part of the mobile user experience, but the discussion so far has had relatively few voices. Since you are a top contributor to one or more Manual of Style pages, I thought you might be interested. Cheers —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 01:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Mega Brands America

Thank you for your recent edit to Mega Brands America! I feel like giving you a heads-up about something though: you removed a list, but you overlooked the text saying "Below is a list of art supplies." Oversights like that happen of course, and it's not a big deal at all. But I just thought I'd let you know for future reference in case you make similar edits in the future. :)

flarn2006 [u t c] time: 21:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem

A gentle reminder: "Obnoxiously" - see WP:NPA. I was simply making the case as clearly as possible, as is necessary and indeed required when a point is being debated, whether on a talk page, at AfD or wherever. I have nothing against you or any other editor but debates must not be personalised in this way. LittleJerry and I will be working on the article; we are happy to collaborate with everyone. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but your phrasing of the talk page comments came off as such. A better tact would have been to ask what the purpose was, not make assumptions. oknazevad (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of Khaki edits

Hi my changes to Khaki were reverted with the comment "Revert unsourced additions". The main change I made was that the Khaki page now only shows the US meaning of the word not the meaning understood in the UK, Canada and Australia (I've not researched what meaning India and the rest of the commonwealth use). I included the source https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/khaki which I thought was sufficient to show that it's a dark yellowish-green colour in the UK and pale yellow-brown color in the US.

What did I do wrong (apart from mucking up and then correcting the link to olive_drab) ? Surely there's no need for a separate page for Khaki(US color) and Khaki(Non-US colour)? Should I find more authorative sources than Cambridge University's dictionary? I attempted to separate the changes to the color box from the text changes. Verm the toaster (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need more than a single dictionary definition. Especially since the meaning seems to have shifted in Commonwealth usage in recent decades. I know in Canada they use the word to mean the same shade as the US, so calling it Canadian usage is incorrect at the least. oknazevad (talk) 08:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, looking at the Macquarie dictionary, one of the definitive standards for Australian English, the first definition is "a dull yellowish brown colour", so the idea that khaki means green in Australian English is also incorrect. oknazevad (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to the Macquarie dictionary (paywall) but I've posted an example where Khaki is used for green in Australia on Talk:Khaki#Khaki_is_also_green_outside_US. I've added the green definition back into the article as "frequently used" (not claiming it's the sole meaning) outside the US and put in 4 more sources. Hopefully that's ok now? Verm the toaster (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer. :) BOZ (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Ho Ho

★Trekker (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}}~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.

★Trekker (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry December

Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 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. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Reverting Penn Station Edit

With all due respect — even if we use the (dubious) standards of the breakdown provided on the Penn Station article (which includes "the two subway stations" and passengers using "other transportation such as buses, taxis, or ride-sharing") Waterloo has on average more passengers per day than Penn Station does.

--Booksworm ^Talk? 19:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Average daily ridership at Waterloo is 238,082, while for Penn Station it is 294,291. The Penn Station figure is the combined total of the annual ridership for Amtrak, NJ Transit, and the LIRR divided by 365, using the sourced figures already in the article. The Waterloo figure is the most recent annual ridership divided by 365 from that article. Now that doesn't include ridership at the adjacent stations of the same name on either the NYC Subway or the London Underground, nor does it include Waterloo East, as those are separate stations. It's a close figure, but Penn is the busier station. oknazevad (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bergen County Line

There's barely any trains that terminate/start service at Ridgewood VS those that go to Waldwick, so your comparison doesn't really match. And the Port Jervis trains are a different topic. On weekends, the Bergen line end at Waldwick minus the PJ trains, so it wouldn't be wrong to say the Bergen County trains end at Waldwick or Suffern. On the map sure it says service to Suffern and that's true, but you need to look at the timetable again if you want to justify your point. Just wanted to say this before an 'edit-war' pursues - MTAEnthusiast10

[1] Wrestle rampage's official ad on social media [1].

[lastword-tmdk-legacy-2] Greer, Jamie (2020-05-05). "The Mighty, Too: Shane Thorne & Brendan Vink Continue TMDK Legacy". Last Word on Pro Wrestling. Retrieved 2020-09-26.

[3] Other sources on this piece of information are: [2], which is an article from a podcast on wrestling, which mentions Hartley as being part of TMDK; and also [3] [4], which are official match advertisements from Wrestling Rampage, and show Hartley in the TMDK team. All links were accessed on October 7, 2020.

[1]

[2]

[3]