User talk:Oknazevad/Archive 14

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

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

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

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

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

1. From Wikipedia:Piped_link#When_not_to_use:

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

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

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

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

Why are you reverting my edits?

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

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

No problem. It's an example of a

set index article, which is similar to a disambiguation page, but provides a little more context because the subjects listed have more in common than just a name, but the title itself is imprecise. I would think that the material you were going to add would be for the common raven, the species for which the word "raven" was first used, and the most widespread species with the word in its name. oknazevad (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

Please don't edit my closures, If you have an issue raise it on my talkpage instead of making

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

Didn't think they were particularly

WP:POINTY, just a matter of bookkeeping. Apologies if you were put off by them. No offense intended. oknazevad (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, I have noticed that you have reverted all my edits on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re glossary of French phrases which you have deleted

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

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

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

Please see

WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. oknazevad (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

Hi!

I've seen you comment on the talk page of the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi. Regarding the

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you want others to see the changes, put a copy with the changes on the talk page. And read

WP:BRD. oknazevad (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good call; I was trying to figure out the phrasing but you hit it better and on the head.

]

Merry Christmas!

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

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{

subst:User:Flaming/MC2008

}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

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

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

Merry Christmas!!

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

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

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

Might wanna.......

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

Arena Football League

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

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

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

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

Fix the Alcohol Control States article

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

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

Hardys

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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