User talk:Oknazevad/Archive 17

@Oknazevad: What specifically was poorly written about my plot edits? The current version of the plot is wordy, disjointed, and contains numerous unnecessary details.

More than anything else, it was written in part in the past tense. Plot summaries, like other

writing about fiction, refers to the narrative events in the present tense. I also disagree with your assessment of which detail are important and which are not, and which details to include has been discussed on the talk page, so it's not just my opinion. oknazevad (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, can you or anyone else add a photo for george latimer the westchester county executive thank you i appreciate it, Metro north Metro north (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no free images of him, sorry. oknazevad (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion currently ongoing in which we are trying to reach a consensus if Diva Dirt is reliable. You can view the discussion

I didn't get hacked. I did it as a joke because I was bored, and yes I do know better and I do apologize. (Trust me, as a wrestling fan I get annoyed when WWE refers to wrestling in general as sports entertainment and not just their own product.) That being said, your use of profanity when reverting edits wasn't necessary and shows unprofessionalism when doing the right thing. Even when it's someone who is doing blatant vandalism for no reason, there's no reason to be making yourself look like an idiot in the process. Just a future FYI. Jgera5 (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was just shocked that an editor with so much experience would not only resort to such childish vandalism, but even after being reverted edit it back in! So, please, save the "unprofessional" lecture. It only makes you look like a hypocrite. oknazevad (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...why would you make this edit a revert when it clearly it wasn't? You weren't re-instating a edit I changed, you removed the entire section. If you needed to inform me of something, post it on the talk page and ping me. Reverting just to pass a message along via revert-edit-summary is kind of

Sorry about that. I originally was going to revert based on the accuracy of he prior edit (as it is true that NWU Type III is no longer being issued only to certain sailors as it's now the Navy-wide shore working uniform) but then I realized the entire passage was redundant to the NWU section, so I just removed it. Should have fully cleared the edit summary instead of just adding to it. I apologize for the unneeded notification. oknazevad (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

So that has been sort of a issue with Maps being on Airports Wikis.. If you look at KPVD and KBDL (some examples), you will see that it’s not a problem (except for a couple of people who go around to every airport and delete it)

What exactly is everyone’s issue with it? As it can be very useful to see the destinations. I put a lot of time into that map about 3-4 months ago and I’m just very curious why it’s a big issue now.

Jack Balloonchaser (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was a discussion that came down pretty definitively against the maps. The fact is they're more difficult to update than the charts, while still containing less info. I think it's best to just leave them out. I know it can be frustrating to have something you worked on dropped, but that's the nature of the beast of a collaborative project. oknazevad (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that point but I was up to updating it. It’s not that hard.

But the conversation never said that they shouldn’t be allowed and there was many people who said no in some way to it. Both PVD and BDL are working fine so if you say “Yes”, May I put it back up? Balloonchaser (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading the conversation, there's clearly no consensus for the maps. I do not believe it should be re-added until there is a clear consensus for the maps. I think the idea of having an RfC on whether a map of a table is preferable is a good idea, but until that discussion happens, there is no consensus for having both in an article. oknazevad (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay with the triple crown accomplishment in WWE, why isn’t Rey Mysterio on the list if he was the world heavyweight champion, the WWE champion, the United States champion, the intercontinental champion, and tag team champion. Is it anything I’m missing? Srodgers1 (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know. I don't have that article on my watchlist, so I don't know if there's any discussion that lead to his ommission. I'd ask this at the article talk page. You're more likely to get a meaningful response there. oknazevad (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No my bad, I meant Grand Slam.

Same deal. Ask at that talk page or at

the wikiproject talk page. You'll get better answers there. oknazevad (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@Srodgers1: FYI, I do not believe Mysterio won the WWE United States Championship. I do not see it listed on his page or the title page. - Galatz^Talk 16:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yea ur right, my bad.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Srodgers (talk • contribs)

You claimed twice that 216.54.8.34 was a sock. I don't know what proof you have of that, but you should take it to SPI and provide it there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pattern of behavior matches Bluhaze777. I'm not the only one to come to that conclusion. Pretty obvious

WP:DUCK situation. At the very least, the IP has low-grade edit-warred to introduce incorrect information into the MLS article by trying to claim LAFC is the same franchise as Chivas USA when the league made it absolutely clear that they are not at the time of the announcement. That failure to accept consensus and willingness to attempt (and fail) to force their version is exactly the same behavior we saw from Bluhaze777 leading to his indefinit block. That said, he's been reverted on sight and I tagged his talk page with my suspicion, which is often enough to stop socks as it lets them know someone is on to them and their claims of being someone else are not fooling anyone. oknazevad (talk) 11:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

No problem. What jumped out at me is that the blue laws apply just as equally to Paramus Park, Bergen Town Center, most every standalone store in Paramus, even the Shops at Riverside to a major extent. It isn't just GSP that is closed by them. And the "imposed" part definitely bothered me, as it isn't the state saying you must have them when the county didn't want them; the inverse is actually true. I'm not sure the state even really needs to be mentioned, but the new phrasing is definitely better. oknazevad (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i thought it was funny and informational because you hear about pseudonyms everywhere — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetechwizard21 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What Charlie Sheen said on his drugged out rants does not belong in the lead at all. Total

WP:BLP issue. oknazevad (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

National Amusements controls both Viacom and CBS, though how can a company not own companies and yet have a controlling stake? It would be a legal subsidiary then or an affiliate since it controls most of the companies. 80% of CBS and 80% of Viacom does a deciding factor between Public and Subsidiary make? Legally a subsidiary does not have to mean they own it, it is about how much control they have... look it up, affiliate and subsidiary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetechwizard21 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not 100%, that is wholly owned. It's a publically traded company. Anyway, the parameter you keep changing it intended for listing the industry of the company, which you removed.

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

Forgive me for being bold, but what's wrong with removing "transportation center" and "station" from every major station in that box? You don't see "line" after each regional rail link -- it's redundant. — C16SH (speak up) 17:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because they don't all use the same end word, unlike the liens, a reader unfamiliar with the system is better served by having the full names. oknazevad (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First off don’t just leave a message for me on edit war that’s not fair when there is 10 people involved and when we’re currently having a talk on the talk page, I recommend that you should of read the talk page instead of assuming the edit war when I last reverted it and made a comment on the page to everyone that a Administrator is currently involved, and when you removed the edit that makes you apart of the edit war so I’d assume you would revert back or just leave a message on my talk page, thanks and have a nice day TheKinkdomMan (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

lYou reverted three times today alone. Unacceptable warring. oknazevad (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I didn’t do it three times today further more don’t assert yourself into things that have nothing to do with you we all have been in contact with a Administrator and that’s something your not, I’m being as nice as possible however if you checked the logs the reverts happened in between 4 different day periods so asserting yourself which has nothing to do with you makes you just as guilty for your revert when all of us have been talking and was told to change it to Gambino was in until the Administrator came to talk so your in the wrong so next time check things and I don’t blame you for anything I’m glad your active on here but your not a Administrator and we all had this taken care of until you asserted yourself into the mix not to mention singling me out witch doesn’t work out in your favor which I can report myself but yet I don’t cause I give people the benefit of the doubt, but Anyways we have this thing taken care of so thanks we’re waiting on a Administrator go intervine TheKinkdomMan (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC) TheKinkdomMan (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you might want to check the log again it says two times revert which isn’t violating 3RR so you were in the wrong not me TheKinkdomMan (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC) TheKinkdomMan (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did misread the log, but you dot have to reach 3RR for it to be edit warring. Discuss, don't revert. oknazevad (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to the rules that I read but I do appreciate that you gave me the warning, but I’d never breach 3RR I don’t want to lose my account however I understand what is going on with Gino Gambino and how annoying and frustrating this is for every user so thank you for you warning I’ll keep in mind not to get into a edit war TheKinkdomMan (talk) 07:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC) TheKinkdomMan (talk) 07:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oknazevad: And he's gone right ahead and ignored you and reverted again without saying a thing on the talk page! 101.189.95.32 (talk) 10:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I gave two reliable sources proving Gambino is promoted as part of the Bullet Club. However, you reverted just because you wanted, deleting sourced information. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No you didn't! They are wrong! That was MCW talking, not NJPW!! You are falling for a publicity stunt that has even affected otherwise good sources! 101.189.95.32 (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk Kate, please! oknazevad (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry William! :P 101.189.95.32 (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Loo. Stupid autocorrect typos. oknazevad (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oknazevad: Kinkdom reverted it again! Letting you know. Could you reverse it and formally warn him on his talk page? I can't reverse it so I can't warn him. Once you do, I can report him to the admin noticeboard for edit warring unless you prefer to do that yourself as you gave him the warning. 101.189.95.32 (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I undid the edit from Fly2Blue (talk) that deleted Yurikamome from the List of metro systems mainly because of its questionable edit summary: being a light metro isn't clearly a good reason for exclusion, since there are currently many of them in the list. However, if you too agree with the substance of his revision - regardless of the aforementioned summary - I'll have no further objections and I'll leave things as they are now. Hence, I hope you don't consider rude to me that I won't accept your kind invitation to start a discussion about this matter on the article's talk page. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not rude at all. Thank you for explaining. The reason for leaving it off is that there is a separate list at medium capacity rail system, where it seems to fit better. I can't say I know the line well myself (hence asking for discussion), but most sources I've seen when covering subways in Tokyo mention Tokyo Metro, Toei Subway, and the Rinkai Line (with some including the Yamanote Line, though others consider that commuter rail as we do). None I've seen include Yurikamome, so that's what jumped out at me. oknazevad (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve been on here for a while am I right, well this discussion isn’t going anywhere the IP which is the same user NotmemberofBC has broken 3RR and will not provide a source claiming Gambino isn’t in when HHH Pedigree and I have, if you will leave a message as well as I did on the Administrator notice bored so this can get concluded this would be helpful cause this user won’t come to any agreement with us this user doesn’t help nor cares for the rules, I have seen your an experienced Editor and would like your help as well as a Administrator if possible this discussion isn’t gonna go anywhere but down the toilet TheKinkdomMan (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC) TheKinkdomMan (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The concern that all the sources are routine coverage of results and first party sources. That said, I don't particularly have a dog in this fight, I just know that it's been removed by multiple editors at this point (not just the IP/NotmemeberofBC, who I also presume are the same guy just having forgotten his password), and so shouldn't go into the article until there's firm consensus. oknazevad (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I was searching for an article on "Wilderlands of High Fantasy" and it brought me to a short stub within another page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_campaign_settings#Wilderlands_of_High_Fantasy

This lead me to believe that an article didn't exists for the subject and i created a whole new page to represent the topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderlands_of_High_Fantasy_(Main)

I have since found that the article/topic already exists as a complete page that i didn't find due to a redirect to a short stub on another page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderlands_of_High_Fantasy_(supplement)

I tried to fix the reference issue by making a change to the title of the stub to try to get it to reference the proper article however i noticed you undid this.

Is there a way to fix this issue so that users who search for the materials are redirected to the full article instead the small stub on another page for another topic?

Thanks for any help on the issue.

(i also need to get Wilderlands_of_High_Fantasy_(Main) removed now that i found Wilderlands_of_High_Fantasy_(supplement)...)

-Eric (Wookie.Eric) Wookie.Eric (talk) 17:57, March 16, 2018 (UTC)

I've re-targeted the redirect to the supplement article, and followed that up with requesting moving the supplement article to the plain tile. The "(Main)" article can just be speedy deleted as redundant, which I'll tag. Just glad you pointed it out. oknazevad (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That was exactly what i had in mind. Is there a page that i can read up on the technical aspects of what you did so i can do it correctly if i run across something like this again? Again, thanks.

-Eric (Wookie.Eric) Wookie.Eric (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a lot of moving parts here, and I've just been around this site for a very long time. I'd start with

WP:REDIRECT, which cover page moves and redirects, respectively. That's a start. It's funny seeing how the machinery of Wikipedia has grown over the decade and a half I've been around. oknazevad (talk) 02:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

MissTofATX (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad to see you here. oknazevad (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! glad to be here as well. Happy Monday, and have a great week! MissTofATX (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX[reply]

Good to know.  Thanks ---------User:DanTD (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I posted on the theatre talk page asking you for comment, you keep striking down my edits with no clear reason why you object. I'm trying very hard to work with you and you are making it incredibly difficult. You can't just say no-no-no you need to explain. I tried to move to the talk page. I'm assuming you just didn't see it and am hoping you can move the conversation to the talk page. I look forward to talking to you.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained. The term "theatre" in reference to the art form has long been used to refer to the staging of plays, in contrast to opera and ballet. Musical theatre incorporates some elements of those forms but has far more in common with straight plays that either of the other two. Yes some musicals are through-sung like operas, but far more are structured just like a play with musical breaks. The conventions for writing a musical script are the same as a straight play in terms of the stage directions and technical vocabulary used vs the libretto of an opera, which uses a separate set of conventions that are specific to opera. Mind you, I'm drawing upon the knowledge I've gained as a professional stagehand who has worked on both forms before. There's definitely some overlap and cross-pollination, especially on the stage tech end, I'm not saying otherwise, but the fact remains that "theatre" is not used to describe opera or ballet outside of comparitive uses.

Plus there been the poor sourcing you added to the article. Just popping in "opera is theater" to Google Books and copying the first few results is not good methods. oknazevad (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you very much. I now understand some of your personal objections to including opera and ballet in an article about theatre. I have tried citing again. I was honest on the theatre talk page. I do not know how to cite. I have tried again on the talk page and have not added them to the article because I figured you could tell me which sources are best so I don't cause citation overload again. I feel that my sources have shown that many people in Theatre, Ballet and Opera see Ballet and Opera as forms of theatre and have also proven that academics do as well. If I have truely failed in that with my new sources I will have to either go back to the drawing board or concede. Also if you feel my definitions for ballet and opera are controversial don't forget you can also cite sources against them as well. I am trying to improve as an editor and I really look forward to your constructive criticism on the talk page. Thank you :) -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you definitely gathered quite a bit there! I haven't the time to look at them right this moment, but will try to go through them tomorrow. I must say that you are definitely trying to be thorough. That's highly admirable. oknazevad (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please get back to me? I'm sure you're busy. If you aren't up for it I'll put it up to the reliable sources noticeboard but I think I'm proven that at least some people in theatre do see opera and ballet as part of it. I've been looking forward to your analysis of my sources on what opera and ballet is. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 05:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, added the NWA logo with the new colour scheme, feel free to edit as I see you were involved in it previously.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbx118 (talk • contribs)

Had to revert. The new image lacks proper copyright info. And the color scheme is not in line with the trademark registration. oknazevad (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello There So I opened a discussion to review the Boxing Notability as we have done so in the passed with Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing about a year ago. The discussion took place Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing. discussion took place between 21st of march and the 28th of march. The vote took place between 25th of march and 28th of march. All member were welcome to the discussion and vote but the main people who freely contributed were :RonSigPi :PRehse :Michig :Okeeffemarc. Now we have done this before exactly the same way. I don't see why the changes that we edited, discussed and voted on were reverted. Could you please explain this to us?--Bennyaha (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The summary wasn't clear in the length of the discussion. Even so, there should have been for a full seven days from the time the voting was opened, and a pointer to the discussion placed on the Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) talk page, being that is the actual page being modified. oknazevad (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok We will keep that in mind in the future thank you very much --Bennyaha (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the

Hi, On a Film page I’ve edited the plot for, Losing Ground (1982 film) I’ve removed actors from the plot, and making no other changes, my edit is reverted twice from the same user. I’ve cited my sources each time. The person reverting my edits believes that having actors in the plot appears to believe actor names in plots is standard, which I also believed was standard, before I learned differently from several users. If you get a chance, could you please check it out and lend support for the reasoning to the user that keeps reverting me?

Thanks! MissTofATX (talk) 04:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX MissTofATX (talk) 04:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you check out my revision on the page, when you get a chance?

MissTofATX (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX MissTofATX (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ROH is nowhere near Impact in terms of global reach and finance or production. Stop being a mark. "BUH-BUH THEY DO BIGGER GATES". There is no war for number 2 or "second largest company". — Preceding unsigned comment added by SickPup2 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one removing cited material from an article. Who's the mark? oknazevad (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the stations emergency services are probably not notable enough for its own section on the page, but surely the fire brigade at least deserves a mention somewhere within the article, even just a single sentence? Other large stations in the area such as Penn do not have an equivalent brigade, and while FDNY does cover the area the GCTVFB is supposed to be first due when fires occur inside the building. I've personally never heard of office buildings possessing their own fire apparatus or sending their members through academy like the GCTVFB does, but I'm not a native New Yorker and could be wrong about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.169.83.178 (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we at least discuss this? It's not like you aren't checking your talk page judging by all your posts. I know I don't have an account but I'm trying to at least talk to you about this disagreement. 12.169.83.178 (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, actually didn't see the original message. Anyway, I say bring it up on the article talk page and see what others have to say. It doesn't strike me as really more than trivia, but others might think it warrants inclusion. Let's see what they have to say. oknazevad (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does TrainEnthusiast remind you of anyone in particular? Mackensen (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In particular? Not really, but I haven't really looked enough to see much more of a pattern than the over-enthusiastic editor who puts in unsourced stuff he read on a message board. Who are you thinking of? oknazevad (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's that same mix of Reading-cruft (ugh), shopping malls, and children's shows. Reminds me of PieInTheFace (talk · contribs); I forget who the actual sockmaster was. Mackensen (talk) 01:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo909 (talk · contribs) according to the block notice. Not familiar with his stuff. Every time I think Reading Railroad, or any Philly area stuff, I think Oanabay04 (talk · contribs), who I'm still annoyed I didn't catch as a sockpuppeteer years earlier when it was so obvious (he blatantly attacked me using his sock Tomatosoup97 (talk · contribs)). I'm just glad that he tripped up so badly when he tried socking again and edited his main account as his sock while trying to appeal his block for socking. What a maroon! oknazevad (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, looking back at the Oanabay04 and Pablo909 investigations pages, I think they might be the same guy. And this new one too. oknazevad (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, might want to check AirportExpert (talk · contribs) while we're at it. Trains, planes, and shopping malls. Sounds familiar. oknazevad (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see I was mentioned in what appears to be a sockpuppet investigation. Most of my edits are to pages related to the Connecticut/New York Area, and I do love editing pages related to infrastructure. I also did just create the page

SoNo Collection which is a new shopping mall that is under construction in my neck of the woods, and I figured while I was at it I would make some edits to other malls in Connecticut. Any questions you have I would be happy to answer.--AirportExpert (talk) 04:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply

]

Sorry to drag you into this, but we have been discussion what may be the latest sock puppet of an old problem editor. There is some overlap in areas of interest here, but that could be just coincidence (after all, I have overlap as well!) oknazevad (talk) 04:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I understand. I have a pretty wide range of interests regarding pages I like to edit, but most of my edits are related to places in Connecticut. --AirportExpert (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]

I don't want to scream Oanabay04 every time someone new turns up editing Reading articles, tempting though it is. There's a huge sock/copyvio problem centered around Allentown articles that's at least adjacent to this socker, if not the same. Big problem on Commons. I don't know if anyone ever got to the bottom of it. Mackensen (talk) 11:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we know that plagiarism is not beneath him, so if the show fits… oknazevad (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you're changing a number of MLS team articles but aren't supplying edit summaries. It's obvious what you're doing when you remove the infobox of associated teams, but the reason isn't. The same can be said for removing of referenced content. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my copy/paste got wonky. Same reason for removing them all: those poorly coded pseudo-templates are redundant to the team navboxes, incorrect in scope, and were entirely pushed by one now-banned editor as part of his obnoxious campaign of edit warring. Been removing them if I see them still in articles, but decided today to just get rid of them all. The other edits have largely been sidebars to that effort, removing outdated material from affiliates sections. oknazevad (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing this from the WWE Championship template. It is listed on WWE.com as being an official title. Braun Strowman is on RAW, therefore this is a RAW title. If you have any complaints take it to the talk page. Goku4Star (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The matter is under discussion. Until that discussion is resolved, the status quo ante remains in place. That's what I've done. oknazevad (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reverted by 2 separate people. You are the only person that has an issue with adding this title. If you have a complaint. talk page............. Goku4Star (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is at Talk:List_of_current_champions_in_WWE#GRR_title. I am not the only person who has reverted or spoken out against inclusion, so it must be discussed before inclusion. It's bold-revert-discuss, not bold-revert-put it in anyway-discuss. oknazevad (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I wanted to draw your attention to this little gem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWE_Greatest_Royal_Rumble#WWE_Greatest_Royal_Rumble_Championship, created here

Regards, Str1977 ^(talk) 14:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut it down to what is justifiable. Let's see what happens. Your input is welcome. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the one page that was "proof" that this was a full-time championship and not just an one-event award has been removed. So surprised.</sarcasm> Looks pretty good, probably could be cut down almost completely, with just a mention of the belt alongside the trophy. This is the problem with WWE's euphemistic avoidance of the word "belt"; it's bloody confusing as hell. oknazevad (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proof is in the pudding

Vjmlhds (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know about that. I watched the episode live. I'm not in any way doubting that the Club is again active on SmackDown. As I said in my revised edit summary, the problem isn't the existence of the Club or not, it's that the linked article is for the

WP:EASTEREGG link piping issue. oknazevad (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi.

WP:DONTTEMPLATETHEREGULARS. And read my actual edit summary. The material you restored is unneeded and no longer appropriate per the film article guidelines. Please actually pay attention and don't act on knee-jerk reflex. oknazevad (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I noticed you reverted my edits of adding flags to the infoboxes of tennis grand slam articles (like this one). I put them in there to be consistent; some articles have flags (like this one), while some don't.

I feel:

1. There should be consistency among the infoboxes on articles about tennis grand slams.
2. It looks cleaner, more visually appealing and provides more information and context with flag icons.

Hope that clarifies!

Thanks,

Kvwiki1234 (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of them should be there per

MOS:FLAGICON. That said, I am not going to edit war over it. oknazevad (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Kvwiki1234 (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part we do not use flags at all in infoboxes. there are a couple exceptions for military and in the actual player bio where we list the sports nationality. Otherwise it's a big no by consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oknazevad, do you have a suggestion for how to reach out to users with a request like mine? Or, perhaps, I should just not ask even if I think it may legitimately interest that user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfisher (talk • contribs) 12:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Best not to contact someone you don't actually know. Wikipedia users have greatly differing ideas of their privacy, and it's best to respect that. This is just not the place to try to recruit workers. oknazevad (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfisher (talk • contribs) 16:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the RTM Réseau de transport métropoltain page by changing the "E" an an "e" as it is written everywhere on the new exo website and you changed it again. Here's the proof: https://rtm.quebec/fr/essayezexo So my edit was correct in the first place, it's exo, not Exo. Thanks for your time. --Gmnewlook (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Gmnewlook--Gmnewlook (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at their website, but please look at

the Wikipedia guideline about trademarks. oknazevad (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

My apologies. I used the automated script for constistency of date formats, and it marks edits as minor by default, so it marked the whole edit as minor even though the pass of the script was the last, and least important, thing about the edits. I'll be more careful to uncheck the box in the future. oknazevad (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your gracious reply. Keep up the good work!

CapnZapp (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Perhaps you might like to fix these problems rather than reverting my changes wholesale. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes made. Still no need to link to redirects, and an edit summary would have made the reasons for your edit clearer. oknazevad (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why start a new section when there is no indication at all that the civil war is over? Omega only CLAIMED he was still the leader - it doesn't mean that he is. Surely that should all be in the ongoing civil war paragraph, especially as another match between Kenny and Cody is coming? 2001:8003:4FCA:6000:3887:7210:F9DA:E5CA (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, may I ask why do you start the edit war if you are so familiar with the rules? Osmond (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You made a bold edit. I reverted, stating that your edits were incorrect, and

vandalism, and should earn you a ban from Wikipedia. All I've done is restore the article to the unvandaliszed version. oknazevad (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]