User talk:Oknazevad/Archive 19

Hi Oknazevad,

Please note that yyyy-mm-dd date format is perfectly proper in citations per

The entire article was inconsistent in its dates. Yes, some refs had the valid YYYY-MM-DD format. Others had dmy, some mdy. Some havd the invalid use of abbreviated months. Body text was mixed as well. I just made the entire article consistent. That is a valid reason for a change. oknazevad (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Oknazevad. The correction has been made. Thank you for your attention on this matter. MusiCitizen (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Be so kind as to explain why my corrections with sources were deleted? Василий Петрович ом (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something that can be done regarding the AT&T page editing that is taking place by editors insisting upon “merging” the AT&T Corp. and AT&T pages without having a true discussion? One of them has warned me to stop “warring” with edits while their justification used to edit the page to have AT&T Corp.’s dates is that “well I figure they’ll be merged so I might as well just do it”. They have never proposed a formal merger of the pages. A similar issue occurred within the last couple years regarding someone’s insistence that AT&T of today was the same company as Southwestern Bell, their original landline division. KansasCityKSMO (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like something for

WP:ANEW. oknazevad (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

In light of the fact that a discussion has begun on the topic, I will hold off on that. However, there has not been an “official” merger proposal via tagging the involved pages. KansasCityKSMO (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are brand name products better than store brand? Benjamin (talk) 06:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Far too broad of a question to answer categorically. also, Wikipedia talk pages are not for chatting about the subjects, but discussing article content. Please remember that in the future. oknazevad (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How would you suggest narrowing the question? Benjamin (talk) 06:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that this isn't the place to ask that question. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a q&a site. oknazevad (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The question is relevant to the improving of the article. Benjamin (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure that the private label article doesn't already cover it. It's a better question for that talk page than here, though. Regardless, it's also not something that can be categorically answered. Too many differences between products. oknazevad (talk) 09:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it at least certainly sometimes the case? Benjamin (talk) 10:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And sometimes not. It cannot be stated categorically. And my opinion means nothing. Only what's in reliable sources. Frankly, I don't think you get it. I don't want to have this conversation on my talk page. Please stop posting here about this. oknazevad (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I was a little discouraged by your "not helpful" "link farm" comments. Composers of production music aren't widely known about, as by its nature the music is somewhat anonymous, composed for general purpose and royalty free use. But there is a lot of interest in who these composers were/are. Without the details this article is somewhat abstract. I searched Wikipedia itself and other sources to find the most prominent examples from the history of production music, and these links could be used by readers to explore the topic in more depth.

One solution would be to add a separate page listing production music composers and link to it from here. This was several hours work and I don't really want it wasted. I have been researching some of these composers and adding pages on them - ie King Palmer - as they are under appreciated. However, nothing is more frustrating that adding contributions that will be deleted, in what often seems an arbitrary way.

There are many of course many other problems with this article, and this was a first step towards revamping the main text. But perhaps I should walk away. Sfjohna (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On looking more closely, I see you also deleted the new sources I uncovered and put in "Further Reading". Important, relevant and useful to anyone researching this subject. Sfjohna (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should have been more judicious, but the links were definitely not a good idea, per

WP:ELNO. The composers list has unclear inclusion criteria; that notable composers have written production music is a minor part of their careers. It may be worth mentioning, but is better presented with context and not the list format, especially when it's never going to be a complete list. That said, as separate list article with that context is a good solution, but each entry will need a reference, not just a link to the composer's article (if they have one). As for the further reading entries, those are good additions. If we can find some way to incorporate them as references in the body, that would be even better. Then we can remove the references needed tag at the top. So, I'm sorry to waste your time, but I think we can find an even better way to improve the article. oknazevad (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

There definitely was such conclusion, specifically that "New York City" is, both on here and everyday speech, used almost exclusively to differentiate from the state; when something says "Largest city:", nobody is going to think it means the state, therefore, the "City" is redundant. The most common name is just "New York". IWI (chat) 14:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't see that conclusion at all. Can you point to the post that summarizes such? And frankly, you seem to think that "New York City" is only a disambiguator, not a proper name. Well, you'd be wrong. It is partly an ENGVAR thing, but the name "New York City" is very much not just used when needed to differentiate from the state. oknazevad (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was at Talk:New York City#Changing infobox title. IWI (chat) 14:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It basically is just a DAB though, like "New York State", although not quite as much. IWI (chat) 14:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion is entirely about the top of the article's infobox and has zilch to do with how to present the name in other articles. You're incorrectly generalizing. oknazevad (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was changed on the basis that "New York City" is just a DAB name. IWI (chat) 15:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. If it were, the article would be at "New York (city)". It is a very common, slightly longer, alternate name, not merely a disambiguator. Again, it might be different in the UK, but in American English using the longer form for NYC is not only used when contrasting with the state. oknazevad (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know, but the most common name is "New York" (which is why the infobox is headed that way), so that should be used, except when it is unclear whether you’re referring to the state or city. I only added it where it was painfully obvious it wasn’t referring to the state. And of course they’re not going to put it at "New York (city)" when a more natural alternative exists. IWI (chat) 15:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The conclusion that the primary name is "New York" does not just apply to the infobox title. I don’t know what makes you think that, but please listen to me. Reverting against consensus violates the

To quote Station1 in that discussion, "I agree. The city's name is "New York". The appended "City" is used for disambiguation purposes, both in our article title and in real life". IWI (chat) 18:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"And in real life" is the key phrase. Any again, there was no consensus to apply that discussion to any other article or any other part of Wikipedia. If you want to expand that, please start a discussion somewhere with wide notification to draw a broad consensus. Don't extrapolate from one discussion on one talk page about one part of one article a general principal. Oh, and reverting again instead of leaving it as status quo ante bellum is plain edit warring. oknazevad (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. IWI (chat) 13:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jones and Beach station. Cards84664 (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just read your edit summary here, and not that I'm doubting you, I was wondering if there was source for that. Thanks -

Probably poorly phrased on my part. The inclusion of CVN-6 was only added a few weeks ago by an IP, and all previous Emterprises only list the immediate user of the name, not all of them. It strikes me that we either include the most recent predecessor or all nine previous US Navy ships by that name. For the sake of compactness, I chose the single-ship option. oknazevad (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably worth a little research (I'll certainly be reading up on it). It would be interesting to learn why the name was carried over for those first 9 ships, going back to the age of sail and the HMS ships that also carried the name all the way back to 1705 and L'Enterprise from France.

But as for the modern day, and USN carriers, my money would be on CV-6, and her near legendary heroics in the Pacific War, as the namesake. That and she the the most decorated ship of WWII, and only second all time behind the sub

wolf 00:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

67.87.196.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I'm combing their edits now. Cards84664 (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revert them all as sockpuppetry to avoid an indefinite block. oknazevad (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits to Champ Car, I've been trying to clean it up for a bit and it's great to have some revision! I've played around with the photos and the dated F1 comparison section, am open to any collaboration. Knoper (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this edit [1]. Where does it specifically state in that source that it cannot be defended on NXT UK? The guidelines of

The reference, primary or not, is very specific. To state anything other than what it specifically states is the inference. I will not revert (as the vague wording is itself not an issue), but I think this should be discussed at the article talk page or the pro wrestling project to get wider input. oknazevad (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See this search, for example. Most series are not proper names. Dicklyon (talk) 06:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that, once you get past the absurdly irrelevant and unreliable entries, I see that the majority of sources are actually using capital S. Not worth fighting over, though. oknazevad (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Provide a source supporting your statement immediately. Wicka wicka (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the archive? I can't find it after spending about 20 minutes looking. Thanks! - Immigrant laborer (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was some in previous talk page discussions about the WNBA at both

WT:BASKETBALL. It was something of a sideline in a discussion about merging the former WNBA player infobox with the general infobox, where the discussion turned towards why the WNBA is a summer league and the desire of owners not to directly compete with their own men's league. oknazevad (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 17:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Replaceable fair use File:ROH World Championship belt.png

Thanks for uploading File:ROH World Championship belt.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to
   Di-replaceable fair use disputed
   |<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Levdr1lp / talk 18:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in removing the tag, the belt design is absolutely copyrighted (by the promotion), any image of it is inherently a jon-free file, and no free version can possibly be created. Additionally, the idea that it is not a minimal use is also incorrect, as it is an image of he whole object. I have removed the tag as I dispute the speedy deletion. If you still think it is not a valid fair use, you'll have to FFD the file. oknazevad (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my explanation in the section below. Levdr1lp / talk 18:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On copyrights

The belt photograph has (presumably) two copyright claims-- the belt design itself and the photograph of the belt. Since you could conceivably create or obtain the rights to a photograph of the belt, the non-free photo you uploaded is absolutely replaceable w/ a free version w.r.t. the photographer's copyright claim. So it would still be a derivative of a non-free 3D creative work, but you would have one less copyright to account for. I know it may seem confusing, but it's true. Levdr1lp / talk 18:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except the image was also work-for-hire for the promotion, and the photographer has no copyright claim. It's still cannot be a free use file, and therefore is irreplaceable. This is not new to us; there's precedent for fair use of these images throughout the articles on pro wrestling championships, and they've been proposed for deletion before but the fair-use nature has been upheld. oknazevad (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a direct link to the original file? Levdr1lp / talk 18:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's on this page (Wildcat Belts is the company that built the belt for ROH, as noted in the FUR.) The image itself has the background cropped out for clarity. oknazevad (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is there a specific case you case at FFD you can link to? Levdr1lp / talk 18:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The most relevant previous discussion was here, which was closed as keep. That version was later deleted because it's an outdated design that was later replaced and only the most recent design is kept for use as the infobox image for the article on the championship, but the underlying principle, that title belt images are appropriate fair use and that there's no ability to have a free equivalent as the designs are copyright holds true. oknazevad (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. I'm not sure I agree with the "underlying principle", however. I think it's probably worth revisiting at FFD if for no other reason that to reaffirm the existing consensus. In my view -- and this is based on my own experience dealing w/ non-free files, both at FFD and elsewhere -- the belt photograph almost certainly has two separate copyrights, regardless as to whether or not the photo was work-for-hire. In a work-for-hire situation, my understanding is that the copyright merely transfers from the hired party (the photographer) to the hiring party (business, organization, etc.). So the copyright for the photo still exists. It's just not held by the photographer. Levdr1lp / talk 20:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader of the file discussed in the case you linked to is the same individual who took the photo, whereas your upload is a photo taken by whoever runs (or was hired by) the Wildcat Belts website. You or someone else could conceivably take a photo of either the original belt or one of its replicas, and that's why the photo is replaceable. I really don't think the discussion applies here.

WP:NFCCP#3a. (Bear in mind that -- in every case -- the file must meet every single non-free criterion.) Levdr1lp / talk 20:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

File:East Bay Times front page Nov 1 2018.jpg

talk) 18:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment on user

Hi. The user you warned, Onetwothreeip, is very fond of extended 'discussion', so I am cautioning you about what you might be getting into :-) Have a good day. cygnis insignis 09:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very strange comment. I reply once when someone responds to me, neither you or the recipient of this comment are exceptions to that. Very strange behaviour. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MARC color

Those colors came from File:Marctrainmap.svg. If they are incorrect, then the map needs to be changed. Useddenim (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• (talk page stalker) Per Template talk:MARC color#New colors, the map probably does need to be changed. Mackensen (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I vaguely remember when we put those colors on the map, but since then MARC/MTA Maryland has become pretty consistent about using red-orange-yellow as the colors on the official map. oknazevad (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MESSAGE

Hullo Oknazevad, I received a message that you have visited my talk page and left some remark there. There is no message there. You do not like wasting time-neither do I. Do doublecheck before opening up a conversation.
Thank you --Moitraanak (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I fixed a malformed header somewhat instinctively, forgetting that it was a personal talk page not an article one. My apologies for bothering you. oknazevad (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

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

usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye template

Hi. I'd like to let you know that the names you removed were only added because somebody added them to the

List of Hawkeye characters page. I just wanted to let you know that. Though we could add to both pages on this website any villain who has fought Hawkeye and Kate Bishop in their respectful comic series. --Rtkat3 (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Take a look at the talk page of the template. There was a definitive prior discussion that it should be kept to Hawkeye-specific villains, not general Marvel or Avengers villians that he (or Kate) has happened to fight over the years. It's tough with them as they're so enshrined in their teams history that they most often are involved with team villains. oknazevad (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken parmigiana

Hey, I checked the talk page and there hasn't been agreement over using your image for the infobox. Please stop edit warring over this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To quote myself: "We can't not have some sort of lead image, though. I mean, it's not like we don't have a source in the form of one of the world's most respected newspapers stating plainly as part of an article on the dish and it's variants that includes interviews with restauranteurs that the dish originated in the metro area where the image was taken or anything. But I digress." No one else has objected but you. No one. That means it's your problem, and consensus is against you. oknazevad (talk) 01:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're the only one supporting it then, particularly being an image made by yourself. We could alternatively have both images in the infobox. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If no one objects, then there's support. It need not be outright stated.

This is the behavior that Cygnis insignis was referencing above. You really don't seem to know when to let things go when there is no one agreeing with you. Please just drop it. oknazevad (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm objecting to it now, as I did then. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And you are the only one. So what? One objection does not warrant further discussion. Consensus is not unanimity. You can't perpetuate a discussion ad nauseam just because you don't like the result. Such badgering until you get your way is uncollaborative and obnoxious. I will not participate in it. Please do not post in this discussion on my talk page again. oknazevad (talk) 02:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have asked the user to respect the request not to post on this page again, they have a special talent for sucking the joy out of contributing here. cygnis insignis 03:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. oknazevad (talk) 04:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it was worth, no worries. There is evidence to support either of my suppositions, they are unable to leave and need help finding the door, or they entered the site thinking it is a online war that is merely constrained by rules of engagement. Whatever you are up to, I hope it remains satisfyingly productive, most of what I do is what I really miss about wikipedia when I have stepped away. Happy editing. cygnis insignis 07:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit war

I would ask you to be careful and not let your opinions accidentally drag you into an edit war, you are already at 2 reverts, it would be a shame to see you get blocked for a

WP:3RR violation. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Ypu boldly added. I reverted. Discussion began. Reverting to add it back when there's no consensus (yet) is improper at best. Please do not add it again based solely on your opinion. oknazevad (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You did not "discuss", just simply reverted twice. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is ongoing at the project. You know this as we've both participated in the discusssion. oknazevad (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted twice, that's not really in the spirit of

WP:BRD, I am including a fully sourced article, you remove it "because you don't like it" - So it's your edit war, not mine, have fun. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

(talk page stalker) - I presume this is in to do with Template:WWE Championships? In Oknazevad's defence, he reverted twice because you reinserted contested material without discussion or consensus. In short, he only broke the rules because you did. Had you followed the procedure that you're asking Oknazevad to follow, this wouldn't have happened. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted a link to a well-referenced article - not against guidelines, one that at the time was not AFD'ed and one where no argument had been made that actually had any basis in Wikipedia guidelines. He reverted after the discussion had started - really should not do that until the discussion was done, a second revert on his part is on him, I am not edit warring so I left it but also wanted to be sure someone did not get blocked for a 3RR by accident. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really want to get into an argument on somebody else's talk page, but for an experienced editor I'm surprised that you see fit to accuse the talk page owner of exactly the same behaviour that you're exhibiting. Maybe you're just in denial over it, but your behaviour is a classic precursor to full-blown editwarring, right down to ignoring the fact that you are mirroring the person you're warring with. Remember: "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable: "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense." Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring - yup text book. I have not done that, if tex has been removed for a reason that is not actually founded in any guideline I have reverted it, if someone else reverted it again I have not reverted it - I do not have a single 2R in the history, plenty of others have. If someone raises a concern with content, I try to address it by sourcing it better, rewording it or leaving it out instead of going to war over something. My behavior is far more constructive and "un-war" like than those that keep misapplying guidelines or applying their own personal beliefs of dislikes of a subject. I do appreciate your heads up, I have and always will be mindful of not edit warring. If you have any other input I am always open to it, no one is perfect except Mr. Perfect. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Protest about a reverted edit

You reverted my correction to the city location on the Brooklyn Nets' page. Every entity should be identified by a location in a city, even if a more specific location is included as well. This is true across Wikipedia for all cities: the Frankford Yellow Jackets of the NFL were located in Frankford, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; York Memorial Collegiate Institute is located in Silverthorn, Toronto, Ontario; Frank Lampard was born in Romford, London, England; etc. Likewise, the Nets are located in Brooklyn, New York City, New York.

There is no reasonable basis to break this pattern in the case of New York City; indeed, many Wikipedia pages for various entities and people list their locations or places of birth as "Brooklyn, New York City, New York" (ex.: Bernie Sanders), "Queens, New York City, New York" (ex.: Howard Stern), and so forth. While Brooklyn was formerly a city, it has been a section of New York City for more than 120 years. To show "Brooklyn" alone where one would expect to find the city's name implies that Brooklyn is not part of New York City; this thus creates misinformation, and should be avoided. Ferdinand Cesarano (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my edit summary, this was explicitly previously discussed, and there's an RFC in the archive documenting it. If you wish to bring it up, then a new discussion should be started. Honestly, I see no harm in your edit, but since the "Brooklyn, New York" format was the result of a specific RFC outcome, it shouldn't be changed without a new discussion. oknazevad (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buttermilk

Hi, Why do you delete my entry that states that in morocco also they still prepare it traditionally? I personally know this tradition and is still used. Nabil.Akroud (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because it wasn't in the source attached to the sentence. This presented two problems. Firstly, we cannot add something that is not in a source because doing such is incorrectly saying the source said that, which is not allowed. Secondly, adding it because you personally know something is known as

original research and is not allowed. oknazevad (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]