User talk:Oknazevad/Archive 12

I have opened a discussion at Talk:Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Warcraft: The Roleplaying Game, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Azeroth. 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) 09:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carrousel (booklet), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HC. 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) 08:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do you mean when you write "No consensus for merge after 7+ months", when the two users who have said anything about it at Talk:Boilersuit both wanted the merge? Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 00:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More a case that no one acted on it for 7 months. It was a stale tag, either way. There comes a point where if someone proposes a merge, and there's no objection, then they should actually perform the merge. Just tagging it and expecting someone else to actually do the work is rude. So the tag was stale, and therefore removed. oknazevad (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then that is what you should have said. That opinion I can understand, even if I don't really agree. Also, there are merge templates around which are much older than this. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 09:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I misstated my reasons in my edit summary, defaulting to a boilerplate message I've used before. That was my mistake. But the underlying opinion remains. If someone tags a page for a merge, and no one objects, then that person shouldn't just expect someone else to do the work. oknazevad (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you removed my entry about the Madagascar's deaths on the crocodile attack page. You wrote "not notable, routine source". Honestly, I don't understand why it's less notable than many other attacks listed in the same section. Many sources linked to other entries do not even described the attacks with more than one or two sentences, so it seems to me it's also routine coverage. Why three people's deaths in the same river in the span of three days covered by several regional newspapers would not be notable? It's not because it does not appear in a big western newspaper that it is not notable I think. So I'll be glad to have more information about your decision to revoke my addition. Thanks, --Priyankee (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because the attacks were merely coincidental; they weren't connected to each other by anything other than just happening to be close in location and date. Otherwise they were just the sort of attack that happens in crocodile infested waters multiple times a year. Heck, the victims weren't even named. It's pretty much the definition of routine coverage, sadly. Some of the other entire probably should be trimmed, too. The whole section is too weighted towards

more recent events, anyway. oknazevad (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, thanks for letting me know that hub was not equal to headquarters! This type of edit war I had been involved in last month, the user told me that hub meant headquarters. So that's why I thought that, thanks for letting me know! But I removed Vueling as it has a base at Amsterdam and is not a spoke carrier. RMS52 (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Glad to help. The editor or could have saved us all a lot of trouble if they just added the link. oknazevad (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited North American Soccer League, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. 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) 10:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion on the deprecation of Template:English variant notice. Since you've had some involvement with the English variant notice template, you might want to participate in the discussion if you have not already done so.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When reverting vandalism, be sure to warn the individual that their behaviour is not appropriate. It makes it easier to get a block if it continues. I have seen too many closures for insufficient warnings. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the middle of leaving the warning when you did. Actually got an edit conflict. Considering I went straight to the vandal's talk page as soon as my revert was saved, you didn't exactly give me enough time to leave the warning. (Also, I tend to jump to level two warnings for obvious malicious vandalism, such as this one). oknazevad (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Celiac Support Association advises that some celiacs react to whisky, for reasons explained here: http://celiacdisease.about.com/od/glutenfreefoodshoppin1/f/Is-Whiskey-Gluten-Free.htm Your assertion that "all whiskey is gluten-free" is debatable for perfectly good scientific reasons. I don't agree that that it's "pointless puffery" to add a reference to pure buckwheat whisky as an incontrovertably gluten-free alternative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tammbeck (talk • contribs) 07:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gluten is plain and simply too heavy to be carried by the vapors in distillation. Any other statement is just bad science. If any celiacs have issues with whiskey it's likely due to a sympathetic allergy to cogeners that carry over from the malted barley (or wheat for wheated bourbons). But it's not the actual presence of gluten. Gluten does not enter into the spirit itself, and remains with the spent mash.

Regardless, I also had big issues with the phrasing. Too promotional. Read like an advertising pitch, frankly, not a dispassionate description. So at the very least a re-phrasing is needed. oknazevad (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input and advice. I have re-phrased and removed any explicit link between gluten and any allergic response to whisky. Tammbeck (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion to keep the taxonomic/genetic controversy in the main section on the eastern wolf. Please note that the controversy is now settled with COSEWIC changing the status to a Threatened independent species, C. lycaon. The two journal reviews on the red wolf that you removed are highly pertinent to the eastern wolf as they note that they may be conspecific - however, I have rephrased and shortened my previous discussion on this to focus more on the eastern wolf as an independent species. Both reviews discuss the Algonquin Provincial Park eastern wolves not just red wolves. Schmiebel (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know you've been active on Fox Chase Line for a long time. Oanabay04 (talk · contribs) has been banned for sockpuppetry and there's now a major copyright infringement investigation underway at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Oanabay04. My initial spot checks revealed that much of what he added was copied verbatim from other sources (the first two major diffs I checked, [1], [2], are word-for-word). The simplest approach would be roll back the entire article prior to his involvement on the presumption that everything he added is a copyright violation, but I appreciate how disruptive that would be. The alternative is to attempt to identify and remove all text that he originally added which is still a copyright violation. Mackensen (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprised by any of it. I always suspected Tomatosoup97 was a sock, but I find it completely laughably incompetent that he'd respond to a warning about sock puppetry with his new block-evading sock. What a maroon. Frankly, he's been POV-pushing for so long, I'm glad he's gone. I'm also not surprised he turned out to be a plagiarist. Do what you see fit. I'll take a look as it goes. oknazevad (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copyedit. Been up all night. Couldn't catch mistakes anymore.--WillC 13:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Been there. Editing while falling asleep is just as bad as editing while drunk. Wait, that's driving. Nevermind. oknazevad (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was at work. Used it as a distraction from doing school work. Plus it was one of that articles I had left to expand for my topic. I wanted it finished.--WillC 13:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Been there too. That bit about the tired editing was supposed to be a joke. Just not a very good one. oknazevad (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I caught it, amusing. Too tired to react though.--WillC 13:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, get some sleep! Wikipedia can wait.

WP:NODEADLINE and all that. oknazevad (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment that it was a mistake to delete the article in question, and this product is notable in commerce. If you can get that fixed, we should return the product to the notable listing, and I support that 100%. Until then, using the existence of an article is the most objective means of maintaining order for the list, and likewise objectively prevents the list from becoming a posterboard of advertisements. The tradeoff is we place decisions of notability within the discretion of the moderators, which while imperfect, preserves objectivity.Vapeur (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't entirely disagree. I've been gathering some sources for a new article, but a lot of Internet material on spirits is blog-type reviews, which are of marginal usefulness. So it might be a few days, but I'll try to get a stub together. As you say, the notability of the product is the standard for whether or not to have an article, not the article quality, which is why I think deletion was a mistake, and would have !voted against it had I known it was at AFD. oknazevad (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop trying for AJ underneath and modify the tables. I do not understand why you taste so bad and can't even leave a beautiful and organized page alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HunteWinchester123 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The person who set the record should be pictured first. It's the only logical organization. Secondly, the table does not need the changes a you think it should have. No other article on a WWE title has them, and they don't work properly for sortable tables. Thirdly, your incredibly poor spelling, grammar and vocabulary, along with your abusively insulting edit summaries, tell me you should not be editing anything on the English Wikipedia at all, as you lack the competence to do such. oknazevad (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care. You can't see thay you way is ugly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HunteWinchester123 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, your way is ugly. And stupid. Like really idiotic. As is the crap writing you try to pass off as English. Leave this page and never come back. oknazevad (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to New Jersey Devils may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• were based at the [[Meadowlands Sports Complex]] in [[East Rutherford, New Jersey|East Rutherford]]]] and played their home games at [[Izod Center|Brendan Byrne Arena]] (later renamed to Continental

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Muppets, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Eagle's Nest. 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) 11:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated several articles at TAFI. Some of them could need one more input and review to reach its three-threshold. If you find time for it please take a look.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You count very high on my list of unpleasant, counterproductive, bullying editors.

You would do everyone a favour if you left. Now. Tony (talk) 09:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, I consider you one of the most arrogant prima donnas around this place. I'm sorry no one else seems to agree with bowing down to your overbearing sense of self importance and hubris. You like to apply formulaic one-size fits all "solutions" that try to reduce editing Wikipedia to a automated task that only agrees with you.

Sorry, but it's called consensus, and it governs here. You'd do better to understand it if you'd realize that MOS talk pages do not actually represent widespread consensus, as they're dominated by a handful of self-important types who'd rather argue over trivia (or rather make pronouncements) than actually work with other editors on actual articles like a real WikiProject. When hundreds thousands of pages have a common feature, that's consensus. Edit warring because it offends your personal aesthetics can only provoke one appropriate reaction: tough shit, Tony. You may not agree with it, but consensus is against you, and no, it's not going to change just because you whine about it and insult essentially every other editor who's ever edited the Devils article (including the FA reviewers) with a petulant edit summary. And unilaterally moving pages you've never edited before without fulfilling

WP:BEFORE

is just bad form. But you never care, because you believe you're always right.

Most importantly, I've also never resorted to uncivil talk page posts telling others they should just leave. Who's the bully again? Here's an idea, never post on my talk page again. You contribute nothing to civil discourse because you will never change your conclusions, even if new evidence is presented. And resorting to pathetic attempts at intimidation show the intellectual bankruptcy of your position. That alone tells me I should probably haul you off to some notice board or another, but frankly you're just not worth it. Good day. oknazevad (talk) 12:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i just cant understand why you removed my edit in

Firstly, is that an English term or one explained in an easily linked article? Secondly, when the sources call him a pirate (and they do), to eliminate that descriptor fails NPOV. We state what the sources use, not what we'd like them to say. oknazevad (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i added a sources call him Mujahed and seaman .. its not what i like them to say--Nayzaka (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources state nothing about "pushers". There are no pushers anymore. It would not fly to well here. B137 (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While they may not actually push, the "station platform controllers" are what are known as pushers in other countries. That said, I've rephrased to avoid the explicit claim. oknazevad (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@B137 and Oknazevad: Actually, they don't push. They just direct people into the trains. I saw one at my station this morning, and they said that their main job was to announce the name of the train in the station and to direct people in the trains according to their destination. Epic Genius (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

whether it makes it more or less dnd was not in any way important to the point. the point is "mmorpg"yes/no "influenced by gary"yes/no. on both counts, overwhelmingly yes. the only insult was dragging it out to this point that in fact it's ddo is absolutely applicable and shouldn't be disqualified. removing any supporting ref to ddo under the pretence that it is not relevant, in the spirit of, reflective of - dnd, then then this is absolutely an applicable citation to make that ddo at least qualifies as inspired by dave and gary both. you cant say it isn't dnd for one purpose and then say it is dnd for another purpose without committing an error of logic or exposing ulterior motives (of which i am claiming on the artical talk page. feel free to look, see quotes in bold). JeffryBloom (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point simply is that it's ridiculously obvious that D&D Online is influenced by D&D. It right there in the name that it's an adaptation. The point if he paragraph is to highlight non-D&D properties that have D&D influence. It's easy enough for a reader to understand D&D Online would have similar mechanics that it doesn't need to be mentioned. In general, though, I think you are way overstating the importance of D&D Online in general when it comes to D&D as a whole; the Neverwinter MMORPG actually has more users. It seems, between trying so hard to get D&D Online included and yet denigrating an actual print D&D sourcebook (because it is WotC published, as you admitted) that you are one of those fans that have the "Gary = D&D" mentality, which because they spent a day or two in a recording studio D&DO somehow superqualifies. Besides the silliness of a game like that being so reduced, you do realize that D&DO uses a modified 3.x ruleset and is even further away from AD&D style than anything Gary ever did? oknazevad (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Oknazevad, I have reverted this change for now. Not because the old map was ideal, but the new map also has several functional flaws. Some of the issues are the display of very small city-states (they are almost invisible on smaller screens), and the generally more crowded look of the new map. The color scheme is inferior too, but that's a matter of personal taste of course. In total, certain technical improvements don't weigh up such disadvantages (see template talk). Just a suggestion of course, but maybe it would be good to put up a formal RfC for this to find out what the wider consensus is, and how eventual flaws in either map can be addressed. Complex page moves require a move request, and this decision about a completely different layout is certainly in the same scope. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 10:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I wont revert, I'd just like to point out

WP:ACCESS in regards to that. While the black-on-pale-green color scheme is probably pretty good contrast wise, the thin, small lettering is not so good. Heck, I have trouble reading it some spots. That's what jumped out at me. oknazevad (talk) 11:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, as an addendum, looking at it again, the blue for the small Lander, like Berlin and Hamburg is an objectively terrible choice. Absolutely awful. They look like bodies of water. Not acceptable by any choice. oknazevad (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, try

WP:BRD and urge you to start a formal RfC on this question as is normal practise. GermanJoe (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

That's what I get for editing when I just woke up. Anyway, do you see my point about the blue, and why it's a terrible choice? It makes Berlin look like a large lake, not a city-state as it is. It's genuinely misleading and frankly foolish. I also agree with the idea of making the map consistent with the ones on historical states, and that the flags are better than the coats of arms. But that's not the point. The point is the current map is misleading for the reader. oknazevad (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ACCESS issues are important and should be improved, no doubt. But we need to make sure to consider all viewpoints (that's why I'd prefer a wider RfC for a general overhaul) and find a solution for other valid concerns as well. The "lakes" don't really bother me but I see your point - maybe I simply got used to them over time. The background image for the map is at File:BundesRepublikDeutschland.png. I believe the map colors could be tweaked there, but as non-expert I am a bit hesitant to meddle with other editor's map uploads. Someone more experienced in map editing could probably change them in a few minutes. GermanJoe (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I double-posted my answer at the template talk as better place for it, let's continue it over there. However I think both viewpoints are clear now - we could use more input (and technical help) from other interested editors. GermanJoe (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand because if this is about a franchise, then why does the other comic book character page state that it's about the characters and not the franchise, like say Fantastic Four, X-Men or Batman. What is the difference with Ninja Turtles aside from the fact that they are not DC or Marvel? DonJakes (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it acts as an overview of all the media the concept has appeared in, and the fact that outside of the short descriptive blurbs there's no plot-heavy fictional biography, leaving those details to individual character articles (which are pretty much a mess) and individual articles on the comics, tv series, and films. It's really very good at keeping the real-world perspective as an overview of the whole franchise, which is why the hatnote describes it as such. oknazevad (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

|} What about the Fantastic Four page because that page basically similar to the Ninja Turtles where their overview is seems to be all the media, yet they still refer to them as Characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonJakes (talk • contribs) 16:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then that one needs to be fixed. oknazevad (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

).

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) 17:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons)

Hi

'c.s.n.s.' 20:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

United States Championship to Mex-American Championship?

WWE Mex-American Championship.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 00:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

An off hand comment by a heel champ is no reason to rename the article. The title has not been officially renamed. At the most it deserves the same sort of mention as when Lance Storm called in the Canadian Championship during his reign. Revert all such edits. It's vandalism at this point. oknazevad (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issue Resolved

Rewind Wrestling (talk) 00:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I suggest...

...that you not make any decisions about what is and isn't important about security concerns in NYC until you live through something similar to 9/11. I suggest you spend the evening working in front of a building that will be destroyed the next morning, and then spend much of the next day trying to determine if the people you worked with just the day before were dead or not. I suggest that you watch ambulances speeding up West Street accompanied by a phalanx of police cars, sirens blaring, because someone had found a few ounces of human remains and it had to be sped to the Medical Examiner's office for identification, while meanwhile the scores of refrigerator trucks the city had assembled to deal with what they thought would be the mass of remains were parked silently on West Street. I suggest that you are not in a position to judge what is and isn't appropriate to be included in articles under these circumstances, and I would appreciate it if you would recuse yourself from those determinations. BMK (talk) 08:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the City on 9/11. I knew people killed in the attacks. So don't you f---ing dare lecture me. You have no idea what I've been through and what it meant.

But I also know how ridiculous the overreaction (and that's all that this non-notable incident was) can and has been. A false alarm by the wound up is not appropriate for a worldwide encyclopedia. You, sir, are the one that lacks perspective. You are the one that cannot leave your personal trauma aside while editing with an appropriate level of dispassionate observation. I thought better of you than that, but now I must question your judgement. oknazevad (talk) 13:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TMNT (Team Page)

I was thinking that maybe you can create an article of the TMNT as a team. (DonJakes)

I really don't see the need. oknazevad (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? I mean there are articles that talks about a specific fictional group. (DonJakes)

Prod nom

Hi Oknazevad, re: your prod at List of TV-MA rated television series, if you include your rationale for PRODding on the article's talk page, I will voice my support. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Keno, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bingo. 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) 11:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invite to join a band member / timeline discussion

Hey there. You have contributed to a discussion like this before, and I would like you to come join the current one happening at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Create Member Section/Timeline Standards that may finally result in a standard for various items related to band member listings and timelines. Thanks in advance for any contributions you may have! — DLManiac (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of whisky brands

Well done, it's a good edit. Hammersbach (talk) 03:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 12 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the 2016 World Cup of Hockey page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

false positive, you can report it to my operator

. Thanks,

talk) 00:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Country name in sports teams

Regarding the changes on the St. Louis Blues and your assertion that the country name is common: can you give me an example? I randomly checked some NFL teams and they don't have "American". Maybe on some MLB team articles. I also checked some Premiere League teams like Arsenal.

Not trying to be confrontational, just curious why that is even common at all. It's quite obvious if a team is "American" or "Canadian" or "British" or whatever just based on the country it is in.

Ccrashh (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's not always obvious what country a team is in if the country is not named, just the state/province. Especially for a sport with a major international presence like hockey. That's the problem I saw. The Blues article says "St. Louis, Missouri", but the names of states are kinda obscure to many (even English speakers) in other parts of the word. They may think it's a Canadian province (lconsidering its hockey). The two ways to make sure our worldwide audience is covered is either make the article say "St. Louis, Missouri, United States", which I always find awkward and too long, or to add the adjective "American" to it. oknazevad (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japanese dogs

I meant to undo your [WP:AGF|good faith]] edit, but I hit the wrong key and did not put in an explanation. Sorry. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Dobos torte for you!

Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blackmoor

Would you mind looking over the new ‎Legacy and Fandom section? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. Notability of a fan project was not established; forums and blogs are not reliable sources and not acceptable as the basis for notability. Also, direct external links do not go in the body of an article. Also way too long, creating

WP:SANDBOX, then copying it into the article when it's ready. If you want me to take a look, just drop me a note and I will gladly do it. oknazevad (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi! I'm the author of the "Legacy and Fandom" area; my very first attempt at a contribution to a wiki article, and sure it was clumsy. Now, the problem is, some of the original players reuniting with the d20 auhtors and writing an epilogue to Arneson's stories was probably the most notable event for the subject in the last ten years. But, much like Harry Potter fandom or the work done for the Birthright campaign setting, it was organized and played out off the radar of most commercial/regular news sites. If personal blogs, even if acting in quasi-official function as the only news outlet on the matter, are not acceptable, how can we document this? - You might know that the exchange of information in the RPG scene is usually facilitated by hobbyists only; even a big community page like enworld.org is essentially still run by fans, and private people. Appreciating your help, and hoping to fix this ASAP. :) - Rafael --Castellan of Gravesend (talk) 07:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing is to use outside sources, not ones connected to the project. That's what speaks to the notability, as Wikipedia defines it. Problem is, being notable to a small community within a not-particularly-large-in-the-first-place hobby (and Blackmoor's importance to our smallish hobby is mostly historical; it's not exactly a widely used setting) isn't necessarily notable to the general audience. So finding appropriate sources is tough, I concede. But a fan project, even if those fans were among Dave Arneson's original players and former collaborators, is still a fan project, and without some outside mention, it's just another home brew that got posted on someone's blog. oknazevad (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you wouldn't mind

I know you were frustrated, but your edit summary on

uncivil. You can get into trouble for that, so just keep a cool head okay? You were right to revert of course. Mega Z090 (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll agree it was uncivil, but the edits that he was reverting were absolutely ridiculous. Nice job catching it Oknazevad.  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  13:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advice via the move request on Roller skates

I am currently trying to deal with a plural naming convention problem involving four articles:

• Ice skate
• Figure skate
• Roller skates
• Inline skates

There seem to have been multiple move requests (on both sides of the issue), whether they should be plural or singular, However, it seems that the ice skating crowd always seems to lean toward the naming convention which technically should be singular, while the roller crowd says that it is going too far with the naming convention rules as they are always used in pairs.

My question is this: as the move requests seem to be blocked by non-consensus on both sets of pages, how in the world am I supposed to get both sets of pages to use the same convention? Clearly both sides cannot be right and personally, although I agree that it is a bt of a grey area, I side on the singular, as I argued in the most recent move request here, which you agreed with. However, it seems others do not agree.

Where is the best location to bring up a discussion to decide what naming convention should be used for all four articles? The requested moves board has so far been unhelpful in resolving this problem so I am unsure of how to proceed, and I hoped you could offer insight.  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  13:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, it's a pretty intractable problem, as both sides are factually correct (skates, both roller and ice, are only used in pairs, but when talking about only one of the pair, singular is used, like a shoe but unlike a pair of pants. Maybe a RFC to get as wide a surveying of opinions as possible. It's something that could be started on any one of the four pages, but would need (neutrally worded) notifications on the others.

Of course, part of me wonders why we're dealing with four pages and whether the subtypes really warrant their own articles.

Hockey skate doesn't exist as a separate article (it redirects to the section in the main ice skate article) and they're the more likely to be encountered, so why does figure skate get its own article? oknazevad (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

November 2015 Thakns!

Thanks for thanking me on and edit :) it can be super hard to revert vandalism on a mobile phone. I should probably use a computer, but I seem to be doing alright. Again, thanks! Oh, and sorry if you don't really want this on your talk page, but I thought it'd be nice to thank you back.

You're welcome! I often edit via phone as well. In general, I usually just use the desktop site instead of the mobile one. You might find that easier as well. oknazevad (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Gold dinar

Whatever "blatant vandalism" you think there was, it is not apparent. Please indicate where you are reverting to in the future. In cases like this, it appears that you've reverted many good faith edits in the process. A better way to recover from overlooked vandalism is to fold in changes piecemeal and clearly indicate what those changes are. --

talk) 23:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

This edit, from March 2013, is pretty blatant vandalism, as it completely cut out the lead, broke tons of links, etc. it just was an anon vandal hacking apart an article for no reason. I went looking for it because it was obvious that the lead was incomplete. While he's there are many good faith edits since, the article was vastly superior before the vandalism, and needed to just be reverted. oknazevad (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. I've folded in the deleted content. --

talk) 00:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Disambiguation link notification for December 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Moonshine by country, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bootleggers. 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) 09:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Bible

Hi.. I found you just reverted my edit on Catholic Bible. I agree with you that's not what actually appears in the texts (YHWH). So I only changed the interwiki to "YHWH", but it still appeared "Yahweh" in the article. And if you take a look at the Yahweh article, you'll find that the article doesn't fit the context to what is meant in the Catholic Bible article; it is YHWH, the tetragrammaton, which is pronounced "Yahweh" in some English Catholic Bibles. Please consider my thought. With regards, Ign christian (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, what is specifically meant is that lectionaries used during mass should not use "Yahweh" in their text; some based on translations (such as the Jerusalem Bible) that previously did needed to be amended. As they never print the tetragrammon, it's incorrect to link to that. oknazevad (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 15 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Cash4Life page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

false positive, you can report it to my operator

. Thanks,

talk) 00:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Professional wrestling decisions

Thanks for sticking up for me on the

pro wrestling project. Obviously the members there aren't interested in helping. For your information, I had to revert again a little while ago and I warned the user on his talk page for a second time. If you see him reverting it again before I do would you mind? And also warn him again about OR? 101.189.22.150 (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I added it to my watchlist. Some of the others who have helped revert are also regulars at WP:PW, and others thanked me for my edits, so I don't know what those guys problem is. That said, I would advise getting a username. It's actually more anonymous, because it masks your IP, and allows for things like having a watchlist, which makes keeping track of things easier. oknazevad (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. I prefer IP's. And I'm not sure (you may have a better idea) but I think we have a sock in there now. What do you think?

Is it a duck?. 101.189.22.150 (talk) 06:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

The original vandal has now started a thread on the Edit Warring Noticeboard. I've commented and made it clear that OR is not allowed and that he is edit warring. 101.189.22.150 (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help! The page has been semi protected now and I can't edit it. Mega Z090 has come in, but we need more. They aren't listening. 101.189.22.150 (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Starwars.com screenshot 18 Dec 2015.png

Thanks for uploading

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) 03:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning about insulting on

List of Star Wars films and television series

Warning. You have twice insulted Star Wars fan in you edit summary and at the talk page of

List of Star Wars films and television series. You are not to make personal attacks and should know better. Spshu (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Dude, get over yourself. It's not a personal attack. It's just saying the truth: it's a really lousy way to order the list, as it is in-universe, not an objective real world perspective. Cut the persecution complex, quick to take offense nonsense. Hardly the first time I've seen that immature behavior from you.

I am a Star Wars fanboy, even quoted Yoda as my high school year book quite. So when i see fanboyism, I know what I'm talking about. oknazevad (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not take it personal; I am acting for others that may see it. As I you should know from the discussion at the talk page it is not a lousy way and is an objective real world perspective as the Episode numbers exist and are not made up (as you should know they exist since you are a fanboy). Cut the believe you know me act. You should cut the immature behavior. Since you declared yourself a fanboy then you have indicate that you have no objectivity to edit any Star Wars articles. Spshu (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2015 (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. 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) 18:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Starwars.com screenshot 18 Dec 2015.png

Thanks for uploading

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) 03:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hippodrome Theatre

Hello Oknazevad. Recently, you reverted some changes to the hippodrome page that have already been resolved between

Dat Guy and myself via Dat Guy's talk page. You say "Revert again. It is an active theatre, so the theatre infobox takes orecedence. Period. Do not revert." When I was told that it is ok to merge the two info boxes together. Refer to prior conversation at Dat Guy's talk page or below. I hope we can come to some kind of an agreement, because I assumed that the changes that I have explained below were ok to submit for the Hippodrome Theatre Page. Next time I will post changes made to the Hippodrome talk page. Thank you hope to hear from you soon. Brlaw8 (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello again Oknazevad I reverted back to your edit and put the two info boxes back on the Hippodrome page. I understand now that active theatres info boxes take precedence, because I looked at other in use theatres and noticed that they all have the theatre info box. I guess its just adds a little more confusion, particularly in this situation because the Hippodrome is also NRHP site and therefore is qualified to use both the theatre info box and the NRHP info box. So I think I solved my main issue with the page. I found a way to include both info boxes and still have the updated images fit on the hippodrome page proportionately and not at the bottom of the page. Hope you will accept these changes as I have considered your feedback. Thanks again. Brlaw8 (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good. I moved the interior images down a bit because they shouldn't be directly opposite the infobox as that creates a sandwiching effect, and moved or removed some parameters to the top infobox because they're redundant, but outside that, it's good.oknazevad (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Force Awakens Accolades

Hi, have taken the issue re the best film yearly ranking by critics to Force Awakens talk page. Really not notable to include anything below 3rd place and no there were not 3rd places listed. However I do agree my edit removed a ranking included in a more general top ten. But this list needs some work. Robynthehode (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only you are saying anything g outside the top three is not notable. That's your personal opinion. If the critics don't consider it notable enough to rank them, why do they bother going past the top three? Top ten is a common ranking. But let's see what others say. oknazevad (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]