User talk:Oknazevad/Archive 1

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You had previously participated in a discussion about the naming of these articles. It's being discussed again at Talk:Park Avenue Tunnel if you'd like to comment. DMacks (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to

Sorry about that, my intended edit got lost during the save somehow. The disambig page I meant for it to become is now up. oknazevad (talk) 12:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted the change that added the NLL/MLL teams, with the explanation "NLL and MLL are not major, as explained in

So why did you revert the change? --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 00:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your addition to

Fine by me. I only dropped onto the page because there is a disambig link on top of the Marvel Comics

Khan page.oknazevad (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

On [this edit] you moved 2 links to the "See also" section. You also broke both links, by just using the link text, instead of also including the names of their target articles. Its a

Sorry about that. This is why I shouldn't edit on my iPhone, the auto-correct feature can be quite dense, and replace perfectly, correctly typed text with blatantly incorrect "corrections." The UAC/UAE swap was an example of that, as I had indeed typed-in UAC. I should turn it off when editing.oknazevad (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an established editor of the article Mole (animal), your input is solicited on the Talk page to help resolve an ongoing dispute as to the nature and scope of the article. Chrisrus (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your attention, but MARC still refers to itself as Maryland Area Regional Commuter, so there's no need to change that - http://www.mtamaryland.com/services/marc/serviceInformation/MARC_General_Information.cfm. JoeTransit (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VRE Rail Lines -- Click on the miles tab. Njbob (talk) 05:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with removing that paragraph on New England. For the record, I didn't add it, I just pointed out that among New England towns, some still do not have a manager. I have a few points though that should be considered in any changes:

• It is unusual concept to New Englanders to find out that counties outside of the area have powerful governments, and that all land is not part of an incorporated town or city.
• The reverse is also true. A New England town (check the link) would be a legal city elsewhere, but there is no unincorporated/county land in most of New England. The US Census Department has so much trouble with us that a special New England city and town area has been created to describe demographics.
• That cities elsewhere in the country can be comparitively small by population by New England standards.
• Googling for Town Manager seems to bring up mostly hits for New England towns.

That said:

• I think that the US history section can borrow from the City Commission article such that it says that Council-Manager is seen as an improvement on the latter. Then we can say that smaller municipalities may still use the City Commission style government under various names.
• Related, that "under 12,000 people" comment should go. That's covered by saying smaller communities may still use city commission, which is supported by only one sizable city in the country still using it.
• We should probably change the reference to city manager to "city or town manager" and if necessary qualify with Town Manager is most common in New England, where New England towns are essentially city governments.

Whoops! Forgot to sign and check my links

Thanks, CSZero (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I'm actually wrong on part of this it looks. A city commission and a New England Board of Selectmen are superficially similar but probably differ in important ways. It looks to me like it is common for a City Commissioner to be in charge of a particular department, whereas Selectmen don't seem (at least according to the article and browsing the sites of at least one local town) to exercise that power, or be put in charge of a specific department. In other words, edit away because I don't know what I'm talking about :-) CSZero (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm obsessing over this now. The New England model is really more like the Weak Mayor model in the

board of selectmen into Mayor-council as one already exists in manager-council. How's this? I'm done arguing with myself on your page now :-) CSZero (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I commend you for improving the United Football League team pages, as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. However, I fail to see how the United States Patent and Trademark Office counts as "original research"-unless the editor works for the department or the ObamaNation edits Wikipedia, I fail to see its difference from other sources. Kudos for your edits, but I just wanted to clear up any confusion. Also, I've changed "UFL (city)" to "(city) UFL team", as is Wikipedia naming convention. Thank you, Tom Danson (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've started a consensus discussion on the edit conflict on Red Hulk here. Can you offer your opinion on the four points there? Thanks. Nightscream (talk)

Hi. Can you join this discussion in order to offer us your thoughts? We need as many people as we can get in this, since the 4-6 participants from previous discussions on this matter was felt by some to be insufficient. It would be most appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 07:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The addition that you reverted was put their for a specific purpose. There has been a dispute as to the capitalization of Second Coming, a future event. Since those listed in MOS are past events, we felt it necessary to add this specific wording. I will add it again, and please visit the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DJ_Clayworth#Second_Coming. Add your opinion there. Thank you. R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 05:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I tend to agree with you. Please visit Clayworth, and convince him not to continue to capitalize Second Coming, since you have expressed that as a future event, and it does not apply to MOS. R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 05:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with the last addtion, can you? I'm not so keen to county routes articles, though I've done many as a springboard for writing/linking other street articles. I think could have passed muster, actually, but I'm not so attached. Thanks for your imput/help.Djflem (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being a Luddite I can't seem to figure how to include MTA's Train to the Game Sunday event train on the New Haven Line in the infox. It is an important aspect/development for mass transit in NY Metro. Can you help? Much appreciated.Djflem (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I understand is that passengers can take a one seat ride to/from

You will likely soon notice Meadowlands Rail Line. I did go ahead and do the article includeding the station infobox. Just seemed the best way to embrace all the divergent data data comprehensively and tie together what is essentailly the same story.Djflem (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't thought it necessary, but having done it,

You write "The "The" is capitalized as the beginning of a sentence." [1]. However, the punctuation is a semicolon, and sentences never start capitalized after a semicolon. Please check whether your logic is correct. --G.Hagedorn (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the text should remain readable. If the semicolon does not serve as a semicolon, perhaps another character like a bullet or dash might be better? Or, if full sentences are quoted inside a sentence, it might be necessary to quote them? I think the font does not help, it just highlights examples, not sentences. Nevertheless, many thanks for taking good care of manual of style, I was just a passer-by! --G.Hagedorn (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, the NCAA division seems to be the primary meaning, as evidenced by the redirect still being in place. If you feel it should not be the primary meaning, please

Fredvent (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oknazevad,

Thanks for the input! The reason I went back to edit the hyphens was that I had drafted my piece on a word processor, and then pasted it into the Wikipedia space--it had left some stray marks which I did not notice till after i had saved it. Alos, if what you meant by "waffling" was wordy and not direct enough, I am trying to tighten that up somewhat. It does sound more like an essay or research paper now that I read it again after a few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredvent (talk • contribs) 06:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that you undid my revision on Shoreliner page. However, one thing come up in mind. According to TTMG[2], there are photos of Shoreliner III # 6211-6219 showing that there is no center door. Does other Shoreliner III have center doors? Please respond to me because I really need to know the correct information. Takuma Ishizeki (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for caring about Wikipedia style. I have a discussion going on about the relation of section naming to Wikipedia structure. Your edit summary, "Binding article structure is bad, as articles can change too much. Links to sections rare due to that reality" is worthy of discussion, don't you think? I hope you will take the time to own this issue with me. — CpiralCpiral 20:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oknazevad,

Thanks for the lesson on combining sources! Your revisions look fine!

Fred —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredvent (talk • contribs) 13:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oknazevad,

I changed the charts chiefly because the relation among the objects does not show the subordination correctly, using the conventions of organizational/corporate charts. The manager position should be below the council, not alongside it, to show the true superior-subordinate relationship. Also, without further detail in the narrative, the fairly detailed captions in the original charts tend to be confusing, I thought--of course this is just my opinion and we are a community here. The original charts are fancier than mine, however! I should probably add some captions to mine; I hope to build on it and possibly upload a mayor-council version as well.

While we are on the topic, don't you think the section on Ireland shoul be cited/referenced more?

Fred Fredvent (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop merging this list to the main article without discussion. If you have problems, start a discussion first.—